Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 923: debated on Thursday 23 December 1976

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday 23rd December 1976

The House met at Eleven o'clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Home Department

Urban Aid

2.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

3.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

4.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

8.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

13.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

There is public expenditure provision for continuing grantaid on existing urban programme projects and on some limited amounts of new expenditure.

I remind the House that when Questions are grouped together, I call first of all those Members whose Questions are being answered.

Is the Minister aware that no matter how he or the Government juggle the figures, the plain fact is that aid for urban areas is cut in real terms? Is he aware that his deplorable answer goes against everything that the Government have been saying over the last two years about these matters? Do the Government now really care a hoot about the grave problems of our cities?

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great heat, but as usual he succeeds in throwing very little light on the subject. All of us recognise—not least, I should have thought, Opposition Members—the grave limitations on public expenditure at present. There is a Ministerial Committee, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, one of whose tasks is to examine the future of urban aid. We recognise its importance, but the constraints on public expenditure mean that careful consideration must be given to the nature and type of aid and the areas to which it is devoted.

Does the Minister realise that the first requirement is that the Government should speak truthfully about the catastrophic situation now developing in large towns and cities as a consequence of the failure of the Government's economic policy? Will he acknowledge that in talking of the problems of the inner areas it is also necessary to take account of the situation in the outer wards of large towns and cities? Because of the transfer of population and other factors, many of the problems spill over into those areas. Will the Minister assure the House that the working group will take account of that development?

If the hon. Gentleman imagines that the problems of inner cities have arisen only in the last three years he is grossly mistaken, and shows a complete lack of understanding not only of the problem in general but of its application to his own city of Birmingham. No one pretends that problems of deprivation are geographically linked, to the exclusion of all other areas. What the Committee is considering is the problem of the inner cities and the problems of all other deprived areas, and it is trying to devise a future for the programme which takes account of the problems and of our resources, and best fashions future policy to deal with the problems.

Will the Minister persuade local authorities not to take the lion's share of the urban aid programme but to look more sympathetically upon the voluntary organisations and community groups in urban areas which are being deprived of urban aid funds because local authorities are putting their own requests first? If he cannot do that, will he persuade the Voluntary Service Unit to give some of its £1 million that has been unspent this year to small local community groups and not go on financing national voluntary organisations?

No doubt at a suitable time the hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of national voluntary organisations, will explain to the Government why the Voluntary Service Unit ought to spend some of its money for their purposes. We believe that local initiative and a local sieving process, such as local authorities give, is necessary to see what projects should be supported in an area. I am not unmindful, nor am I critical, of the work of the voluntary organisations in this effort. In fact, they get about one-third of the total number of projects under urban aid. Voluntary efforts form a very great and useful part of the urban aid programme.

There are many areas of great social deprivation in inner London in which unemployment is now as high as it is on Tyneside and Merseyside. Will the Minister ensure that a proper coordination exists between his Department, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Employment to deal with these problems? Interdepartmental committees of civil servants of junior Ministers are not adequate to deal with them.

Co-ordination is vital, as the hon. Gentleman says. He will know, from his experience in Government, of the departmental problems that exist and that need to be minimised, where that is possible. He certainly does not need to urge upon me an awareness of the scale of problems in the inner cities. It is perhaps the scale of the problems rather than the nature of the deprivation that marks out the inner cities from other deprived areas in Britain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to define urban areas and that many of the older and smaller towns, particularly in Lancashire, need assistance just as much as the major cities?

As I tried to say earlier, I accept that a purely geographical concept of deprivation does not assist us greatly in tackling these problems. That is why the ministerial committee is meeting to look at these matters carefully.

Will the Minister pay particular regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) said? Is he aware that many small voluntary organisations feel strongly that they are hamstrung by a long bureaucratic process before they can get any of the grants—in some cases comparatively small ones which would do a great deal of good? I hope that the Home Office will carefully consider the possibility of giving grants straight to voluntary organisations, particularly small ones, rather than making them go through the long process of many of the local authority social service departments.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act of 1969 ties such aid to local authorities, so that legislative amendment would be needed before his suggestion could be adopted. We are conscious of the value of the voluntary organisations, as I hope I have shown. The numbers of urban aid projects supported by local authorities represent a significant fraction of the total urban aid projects. But the value of the urban aid programme is its flexibility—its ability to support local authority projects at one stage and those of voluntary organisations at another. It is because that flexibility would be lacking if a set percentage were given to voluntary organisations that I do not think that that would be valuable.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on another occasion.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it will be raised again on Question No. 15.

15.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

17.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

18.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

19.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

21.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

I refer to the reply I gave earlier to Questions by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) and others.

Is the Minister aware that the reply which he gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) was astonishingly inadequate and showed an appalling ignorance of the developing nature of this problem? In recent years the inner city area problem has been moving out to the fringes of the areas, and those areas and the new council housing estates are taking the strain. Will the hon. Gentleman think about this matter again? In particular, will he give more consideration to giving specific help to those voluntary organisations that have been very effective?

All that the hon. Gentleman succeeds in doing is to show me that he has not understood the place of the urban programme within the total Government programme to overcome the problem of deprivation. The main thrust of the programme against urban deprivation and deprivation generally must be for the main spending programmes of the Government Departments. The urban programme is designed to produce a variety of measures that will help to alleviate the situation, but nobody pretends that in isolation they form a total strategy against this sort of decay.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the existence of the inner city working party. In view of the serious nature of the problems that the cities face, will he say, first, what the working party is looking into, secondly, when it will report, and, thirdly, how long thereafter the Government will take to implement its recommendations?

The timetable of my right hon. Friend's group is not a matter for me. All I can say is that it will consider the matter carefully and with as much expedition as possible.

To get this matter into proper perspective, will my hon. Friend consider publishing, in the Official Report or in some other way, the number of urban aid programmes already in operation? We in Lambeth have been treated quite generously. It would help to clear the air if we knew how much was going on.

I should be happy to respond to my hon. Friend's question. I echo his tribute in respect of what is being done. It does us no good to be seen to be denigrating the urban aid programme when in many parts of the country it has brought projects of benefit to people living in the most deprived areas.

Fine Enforcement

5.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for more effective fine enforcement.

Since the effectiveness of fine enforcement depends mainly on the manpower resources available to the courts and the police, it can be increased only by adding to those resources. In the present economic situation, the extent to which this can be done is limited. Where, however, particular local problems have arisen, the magistrates' courts committees, with whom the primary responsibility for the staffing of the courts rests, have ordinarily been able to find a solution.

But is the Minister aware that in three magistrates' divisions in North-East London alone the fines outstanding now total £750,000? Does he not agree that when outstanding fines reach that level disrespect for the courts may be induced? Would an increased number of fine enforcement officers not more than earn their keep by boosting public revenues?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the divisions of Havering, Newham and Waltham Forest. If so, I can tell him that there is a letter in the post from me informing him that there is no Home Office objection to the appointment of fine enforcement officers in those divisions and that the Magistrates' Committee has been so informed.

Does the Minister agree that the work and time involved in the present system of enforcing fines is not very satisfactory? Will he take the opportunity afforded by the Criminal Law Bill to give the courts power, when imposing a fine, to state a day by which it must be paid and to say that if it is not paid by then the offender must go to court and say why it has not been paid?

Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern at the working of the existing system, his suggested formula seems no more precise than the present one. I am certainly prepared to look at any matter which will help to improve the fine enforcement procedure, but it is not by any means so simple a matter that it can be encapsulated in a few words.

In view of what the Minister said about the difficulty of finding resources to improve the collection of fines, does he think that the higher penalties to be imposed under the Criminal Law Bill will simply lead to a greater volume of unpaid fines?

If the hon. Gentleman were to study the percentage of unpaid fines on any date, including, because of statistical conventions, fines which have not fallen due—fines which have been imposed but the time for payment of which has not expired—he will not find such an alarming increase as he supposes. I have no reason to believe that there will be a significant percentage increase in unpaid fines.

Will the Minister confirm that this is a serious problem? In many cases—there are far too many—if a fine is not enforced the sting is taken out and the sanction removed from what should, in appropriate cases, be one of the most useful and painful of sentences? As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has just referred to the Criminal Law Bill, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that a serious attempt must be made to solve what up to now has been an intractable problem?

I do not think that the problem is intractable. While the amount of fines outstanding is a matter for concern, the scale of escalation is not alarming or unusual. Certainly the problem is difficult; that is why solutions are not as easy as some people think. I am prepared to review any lines urged on me by hon. Members, but I warn them that the solution may be somewhat more difficult than the statement of the concern.

Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)

6.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the recruitment to the Metropolitan Police.

In the first 11 months of this year the Metropolitan Police had a net gain of 966 officers, bringing the strength at the end of November to 22,193. I hope this favourable trend will continue.

Following the Old Bailey corruption trial, should we not recognise that nearly 40 policemen a day are injured protecting our society from violence and that the number of policemen who are willing to risk their lives and limbs to protect us is infinitely greater than the number of policemen who have been corrupted? Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep dissatisfaction in the police about the way in which their pay claims have been handled and of their concern about what they see as lack of support from the present Parliament? When will the Home Secretary give the police the support they deserve?

On the last point, the hon. Member should bear in mind the Government's pay policy, which I support, and the very special transitional arrangements which were made for the police in 1975, when they received 30 per cent. instead of £6 a week. The free market argument is that the level of recruitment is related to the amount of pay, but the level of police recruitment at the moment belies that argument. There is more to the numbers of recruits attracted than simply the pay that is offered. There is full support for the police in that respect. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the corruption aspect. Such things do the police no good when they are bandied around in the Press, but it has happened, and it is right that it should be investigated. However, none of that should colour the fact that the police perform a vital job extraordinarily well for our society. I and the Government, and, I believe, the whole House, give them our support for the work they do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that recruitment depends on morale and that many of us feel that the morale of the Metropolitan Police has been raised by the bringing to justice of the policemen in the case that ended yesterday and my right hon. Friend's appointment of a new Commissioner, who has some knowledge of really independent prosecuting procedures in Scotland? Is he further aware that morale depends also on confidence that the Judges' Rules will be followed? Has he yet received the Fisher Report? If not, will he promise to act on it when he does?

I take my hon. Friend's view about morale; he is absolutely right. The police themselves accept that when any of their colleagues is found to have done wrong he should be dealt with in this way. To that degree, morale is not affected. The House knows that general problems arise with the changing modes of modern society and the acceptance of the police in society. I should be foolish if I denied that there was a problem. But these are not factors which can be clearly related to aspects of pay or even to other points to which my hon. Friend has referred. As soon as I get the Fisher Report, I shall consider it.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the Opposition support him strongly when he says that Parliament must be behind our police force in the duties they carry out. I am sure that that is the wish of the whole House. With that in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will as quickly as posible get on with the discussions that he has promised with the Police Federation to achieve an early solution to the present unfortunate dispute?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. I should have known that I had his support in this even if he had not expressed it. I have spoken several times to the Police Federation about the current dispute. There is a basic problem about the 6 per cent. We have had some discussions, and other discussions are to follow on matters raised by the police. There are aspects underlying the problems we are asked to discuss which might lead to the formation of a national police force, or at least a movement in that direction. They are all aspects that we have to watch carefully.

Prison Service

7.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the screening procedures in operation for members of Her Majesty's Prison Service.

Did my right hon. Friend see the Press reports of 14th and 15th November about the large-scale activity by National Front cells and other groups to the right of the National Front in several of Her Majesty's prisons? Is he aware that 70 out of 300 prison staff in one prison are said to be members of the National Front and to wear National Front insignia and tie-pins with their uniforms? In view of the delicate nature of the Prison Service, the security aspects involved and the need to have good relations in our prisons as everywhere else, will my right hon. Friend have these matters investigated?

As background, I should tell my hon. Friend that the National Front is not a proscribed body. There are thus no grounds for not employing staff who are members of it or for placing any restrictions on them because of their membership. I stick firmly to that principle. If I were to get involved in the political motivation of civil servants at that level, I should move into very difficult waters. It is a different matter where there is evidence that the political views of the staff affect their attitudes to prisoners, whatever maybe those political views. It is that with which I am concerned. If prison staff wear insignia and so on, that is a matter for the governor, and I am confident that it will be dealt with. What I need, as I have said to my hon. Friends who have spoken to me, is evidence that membership of, say, the National Front affects the way in which prison staff treat prisoners. If I have evidence of that kind—I realise the difficulty—I shall act on it.

May I appeal to the House for shorter supplementary questions and shorter replies?

I realise the difficulties of moving in this sensitive area, but does my right hon. Friend accept that, whilst the majority of prison officers do a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances, it is totally inappropriate for members of Right-wing racialist organisations to have control over black and coloured prisoners who are, by the nature of their situation, in an extremely vulnerable position? Will my right hon. Friend make strenuous efforts to ensure that no discrimination is practised by prison officers against black and coloured prisoners?

I shall certainly continue to watch the last point. It is the only one with which I can concern myself.

Prison Rules

9.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any further plans to liberalise prison rules.

Prison regulations and standing orders are being examined with a view to making them less paternalistic and restrictive in some respects, whilst still safeguarding the interests of both staff and prisoners.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is great disappointment about the Home Secretary's statement on disciplinary procedures? Does he not think it proper that the functions of boards of visitors should be separated between, on the one hand, their disciplinary function and, on the other hand, their advocacy of prisoners' interests and the hearing of prisoners' grievances? Will he and his right hon. Friend look again at this matter?

My right hon. Friend has looked at it and has announced the Government's attitude. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed with it.

Does not the Minister of State consider that much of the utter hopelessness of our prison system would be reduced by an extension of work regimes in prisons? What have the Government done in the recent past to extend work régimes for prisoners, and what do they proposed to do in future?

The hon. Gentleman will know the difficulty of getting suitable work régimes, especially with the constraints in public expenditure. The Government are prepared to consider any constructive scheme to make prisons into places capable of reforming people's attitudes rather than places of mere incarceration which simply provide a period outside society.

Does the Minister realise that a large section of British society considers that a term of imprisonment should be regarded as a punishment, and that over-liberalisation does not provide what it believes to be the proper and necessary form of punishment to deter prisoners from committing further crimes and returning to prison?

I feel that I should not intrude on what is developing into a private quarrel between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on this subject. It highlights a dichotomy in British society, and we have to decide whether we are aiming at harshness or constructive treatment. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, over-liberalisation is harmful, the very fact that he uses that phrase automatically means that it is harmful. We seek a proper measure of liberalisation which will safeguard the interests of both staff and prisoners. If the hon. Gentleman had visited prisons, he would have no doubt that they were fairly stern places.

Mr Malcolm Gregory (Passport Delay)

10.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give his attention to a complaint from Mr. Malcolm Gregory of 16 Mereland Way, St. Helens, about his claim against his Department regarding non-return of a passport on the grounds of neglect of departmental duties in providing a public service; if he will specify the correspondence and documents received by his Department from both the hon. Member for St. Helens and his constituent, Mr. Malcolm Gregory; and whether he has replied.

Mr. Gregory has written twice and answers have been sent, but I very much regret that on the first of these occasions there was delay within the Department. Mr. Gregory in his second letter says he was put to extra expense as a result, and we have said that we shall be prepared to consider paying him compensation if he will produce appropriate documents to substantiate the amount claimed.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that Mr. Gregory, on behalf of his guest, a young girl from Poland, applied for the return of the passport two weeks before the date of the girl's flight back home to Warsaw? As he did not receive the passport in time, the young girl had to overstay as the ticket was no longer valid after a particular date. In view of what my hon. Friend said, I do not propose to take the matter further until I hear from my constituent.

I very much regret the inconvenience that was caused to the young lady. At the time, an unprecedented number of passports had been received in the Immigration and Nationality Department—double the normal number. Far from there being an increase in the staff of that Department to cope with this extra work, there has been an 8 per cent. reduction in the past year.

Chemical Warfare

11.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about Great Britain's defences against chemical warfare weapons.

Defence against weapons of war is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's concern is with civil defence, and the nature of possible protective measures is kept under regular review.

Does not recent information show that the Russians have enormous stocks of chemical warfare weapons and the rockets with which to deliver them to this country? Is it not therefore unwise for the Government to disband the chemical defence establishment in Cornwall, thus reducing our capacity to defend ourselves against these weapons? Will the Home Office, with the Defence Department, look again at this matter?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is constant liaison between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence on this matter. It is believed that the likely use of those weapons is in localised warfare and that an attack on the civil population with chemical weapons is less likely than an attack with nuclear weapons. However, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, we are involved in research of a defensive nature to protect the civil population if necessary.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only defence against such weapons is an international agreement to abolish them?

The latest British initiative is the tabling of a draft convention on the comprehensive prohibition of chemical weapons in the Geneva Disarmament Conference. There already exists the Geneva Gas Protocol 1925, by which various countries undertake not to be the first to use chemical weapons.

Is the Minister aware of the enormous Russian build-up in the stockpile of nerve gases? Will she assure the House that the Ministry of Defence has told her about the size and scale of the operation which the Russians can mount?

As I have said, we are in constant co-operation with the Ministry of Defence on this subject, but chemical weapons are not and have never been regarded as suitable for strategic use, and there is no intelligence to suggest that their strategic use is contemplated.

Attendance Centres (Senior Offenders)

12.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per head of treating offenders who are made the subject of senior attendance centre orders.

For the financial year 1975–76 the cost was about £3 per offender for a session of two hours' attendance. Attendance centre orders are for a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 24 hours.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Does not the figure he has given confirm that this is a much more economical way of dealing with offenders in the 17 to 21 age group than sending them to a prison establishment and also perhaps is more effective than imposing a fine that is not paid? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for increasing the number of senior attendance centres, the number of which for many years has remained at two throughout the country?

As I told the hon. Gentleman recently in answer to a Question, in 1974 the Advisory Council on the Penal System recommended closure of the centres, believing that more constructive treatment could be afforded by community service. We are considering that in the light and context of all the other proposals of the advisory council for the treatment of offenders between the ages of 17 and 21.

Harmondsworth Centre, Heathrow (Detentions)

14.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the maximum length of time of detention at the Harmondsworth Centre near Heathrow Airport of any disputed immigrant or visitor to the United Kingdom during a recent stated period.

During the quarter ended 30th September 1976 a woman who had previously gained admission with a forged passport was detained at Harmondsworth as an illegal entrant for 85 days before being transferred to Holloway Prison. There was thought to be a substantial risk of her disappearing if she were released. This unusually long period of detention arose partly from the complexity of the case and partly from the need to consider representations made on her behalf.

Does my hon. Friend agree that other cases which do not quite fit into that pattern involving people who have come to this country simply as visitors are taking much too long to resolve? For some people it has been a case not of "Welcome to Britain", as is stated over the tunnel exit from Heathrow Airport, but of a three-week or four-week look at the interior of Harmondsworth detention block and leaving this country without ever really setting eyes on it.

My hon. Friend has simply described what happens under the Immigration Act. The average number of people detained overnight in Harmondsworth in the past couple of months is 27. A person can be detained under the Immigration Act pending his examination and pending a decision to give or refuse him leave to enter, or if he is a person who has been refused leave to enter and is detained pending removal.

Will the hon. Lady accept that I have a lot of experience of these cases, both in the centre and at Heathrow installations as a whole, and that by and large the service is very well run? The hard-pressed immigration officers have an enormous task to perform, being inundated with people all the time, and they do is very fairly and efficiently. The public as a whole in this country, including immigrants, want severe controls to be exercised; that is overwhelmingly self-evident. I know of immigrants who have praised the conduct and efficiency of the officers.

I acknowledge that the people concerned at Heathrow and Harmondsworth are doing a responsible job, often in very difficult conditions. Having visited Harmondsworth myself, I can assure the House that the conditions there are as good as can be expected in the circumstances.

Deportation Orders

16.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders he has served in the last six months.

Statistics are recorded by reference not to deportation orders served but to orders enforced. During the six months ended 30th November 1976, 149 orders were enforced against persons who had become liable to deportation by virtue of Section 3(5) or (6) of the Immigration Act 1971.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in dealing with deportation orders justice should be not only done but seen to be done, and that that principle is one of the best safeguards we can have for national security? In the case of Philip Agee and Mark Hosenball, will he consider instituting some form of public hearing, if the accused want such a hearing, instead of their being tried by a secret kangaroo court?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope that he will not think that the deportations that I have mentioned are to do with national security. They cover a wide variety of matters, and, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into them. There have been no security cases.

The orders in the cases which are now the subject of public discussion have not yet been carried out. It is not a question of a kangaroo court. Given all the difficulties relating to the 1971 Act, it would be wrong for the information which was given to me to become public knowledge. It is within that limit that the three very eminent men, who are not under my control in any way, will look at the information that I have had put to me.

Would it be true to say that the Home Secretary sees fit to deport those who have abused our hospitality? In those circumstances, having regard to the later Question on the Order Paper in my name, does he in general deport people guilty of crimes of violence?

This is a long and complicated matter about which I should be happy to have a word with the hon. Gentleman. In the main, people are deported on the recommendation of a criminal court, and undoubtedly violence is one part of that.

Immigrants

20.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of immigrants from the new Commonwealth who will be admitted for settlement in 1976.

I estimate the number of citizens of New Commonwealth countries who will be accepted for settlement on arrival in 1976 to be about 29,000.

Since that figure is higher than the figure for 1975, will the hon. Lady tell us whether her policies are going to lead to a prospective reduction or a prospective increase in the number admitted?

The estimated increase over the figure for 1975 is about 1,000. The bulk of the increase so far this year, as compared with last year, results from the steps that the Government have taken to speed up the rate of entry clearances for entitled dependants from the Indian sub-continent. It represents not an easing of the control but a slight improvement in the rate at which dependants are entitled to come here—an improvement which I am sure hon. Members opposite would support.

Does the hon. Lady consider that the annual figure for 1976, of about 58,000 a year, is an acceptable level of immigration, or would she wish to see it reduced?

The only way to reduce it is to make radical changes in present commitments—commitments which I understand hon. Members support—contained in our pledges to United Kingdom passport holders, wives and children of those already here, and people who were admitted in a temporary capacity, were resident here before the Act came into operation, have been here for five years, and are now immune from removal.

What action are the Government taking to implement the resolution which the Labour Party conference carried, calling for a dramatic relaxation in the immigration rules?

I think that there has been some misunderstanding of the exact nature and meaning behind that resolution, but I am confident that the immigration policy which the Government are now carrying out has the full support of most people in the country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is practically open-ended immigration from other member States of the Common Market?

Moroccan Citizens (Rape Conviction)

24.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet decided to deport Mohamed Ronndi, Hassan Shailon and Mustapha Amnsor, all citizens of Morocco, convicted in October of raping a 21-year-old girl.

These youths, aged between 14 and 17, come from families who have been settled here for several years. The court, which had power to recommend deportation only for offenders aged 17 or over, made no recommendation for the deportation of any of the youths. They are currently serving custodial sentences and I shall consider their situation nearer the dates of their possible release from custody.

Is it not clear that these horrible men have abused the hospitality of the country? Are we not entitled to say that we can dispense with their company?

That was not the view of the court. I shall consider the situation at the appropriate time, when I have details of when they are likely to be released. They came here with their parents when they were younger, and their parents are settled here. It is in that context that I have to consider the case of these Moroccan youths.

Transport

Drinking And Driving

26.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Blennerhassett Committee on drinking and driving.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 1st December 1976.

Would the hon. Gentleman like to add to that reply? In this season of good will it is important that we should consider these matters very carefully, and it is high time that we had a more clearly considered view from the Government.

We have a clear-cut view of the Blennerhassett Report, which I hope the hon. Gentleman supports, as I think he does. We want to introduce legislation as soon as reasonably practicable, but that is not an early possibility.

Prime Minister (Engagements)

Q1.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23rd December.

Q2.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23rd December.

Q3.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 23rd December 1976.

My official engagements today comprise answering these Questions and certain meetings with ministerial colleagues and with you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Prime Minister accept our best wishes for a happy and peaceful Christmas, and also take the opportunity today of giving the British people some good cheer by announcing that in view of the disastrous and deteriorating record of his Government and the damaging legislation which has forced the resignation of one of his Cabinet colleagues, he will announce a General Election early in the new year?

In the same spirit, may I respond to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, go a little further, and say that the disinterested work that lie does for the disabled is recognised in many quarters?

As for giving some good cheer, it has not been my practice to try to falsify the position. I suppose that during these last nine months I have given a lot of bad cheer, but, I hope, a lot of realistic indicators to the House.

But I do not think that we should depart for Christmas altogether assuming that everything is black. There is a break in the clouds—for example, the situation in the oil industry. I understand that there have been 12 new discoveries in 1976 in the North Sea, that seven of the 14 commercial fields are on stream, that we are pumping oil at the rate of 400 barrels a day, or 20 million tons a year, and that next year it is expected that we shall reach the target of between 35 million and 45 million tons. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be signing participation agreements with both Shell and Esso that will benefit the British people.

In addition, manufacturing industry investment trends are up——

It may be too long for the hon. Gentleman, but it is not too long for the British people to hear a little good news—and, as hon. Members will be aware, the CBI survey shows that the trends in terms of orders for exports in manufacturing industry and our domestic production are up.

Whilst we look at the bad news, let us remember the rifts in the clouds—[Interruption]—and the Opposition—and in these circumstances let the whole House go forward steadfastly in 1977, putting thoughts of elections behind it, to the improved situation of 1978.

Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation about alleged delays in the deliveries of Christmas mail? Although most Post Office employees are working very hard, is it not intolerable that the recruitment of extra staff should be severely limited, especially when we have 1½ million unemployed and the Post Office is expected to make a profit of about £400 million this year? Finally, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his Christmas card, which the Post Office has managed to deliver in good time? May I wish him and Audrey a very happy Christmas?

I thank my hon. Friend for his good will. If things go on like this, I shall not be frightened of coming to the House, as I normally am. I was getting a little worried about the delivery of my Christmas cards and asked someone to be in touch with the Post Office this morning. I am told that all the packages and all the Christmas cards posted by the last dates announced will be delivered by Christmas Day, so I hope that those who have not yet received my Christmas card will get it before long.

As to the financial situation of the Post Office, it is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that it has made a substantial profit this year. I was very pleased when the Post Office announced yesterday its intention to freeze all its telecommunication charges, including telephone charges, until 31st March 1978. That will mean a period of two and a half years altogether since the last increase.

Will the Prime Minister set aside half an hour in order to study the resignation speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice)? Will the Prime Minister study in particular the passage in which his right hon. Friend said that the choice of the recent economic measures was designed to avoid a situation in which the Government had to rely on Labour Members to carry through a Labour Government's legislation?

Does the Prime Minister agree that a Government who cannot command the support of their own party in the carrying of measures fundamental to the nation's welfare have lost all moral justification for continuing in office?

I do not need look to the hon. Gentleman for justifications of morality. When the Government cannot command the support of their followers they will not be the Government. That is quite clear. I have made that clear consistently throughout the whole period. The Opposition have got to beat us first. They have not done that yet, and it will be a long time before they do.

As to the views of hon. Members, I shall study all these speeches, including that of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), which contains his account of his differences with the Conservative Front Bench. I shall see whether I can do anything to promote some healing of the split between those two views.

I understand that the Prime Minister has no official engagements on 25th December and for several days to come but, casting his mind into the future, does he not agree that the return of a Tory Government is too horrific to contemplate, and that the standing of our movement will depend upon our ability to fight the menace of unemployment? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be precisely on that basis that we shall sustain the unity of our movement?

Unemployment is of very great concern to the Government and, I hope, to everybody in this country. I cannot promise much consolation on this aspect, and never have done—and this applies to 1977. That is why I have asked that every effort should be made by all our representatives at international organisations to try to achieve an international consensus on how world trade can be improved during next year. The Government intend to stand fast by their policy of inducing healthy growth through getting greater export orders. That demands a high level of world trade. That is why we are focusing our attention on this matter.

Although everyone, of course, should welcome good news for the sake of the nation as a whole, will the Prime Minister, in giving his side of the good cheer—I do not grudge him that, and certainly add my good will—reflect on the fact that because his Government failed to take earlier and firmer action on the economic front he is today presiding over the highest Christmas unemployment figure since the war?

It is true that the figure of unemployment is, sadly, higher than at any time for many years, but the right hon. Gentleman, even in the spirit of good will, cannot escape his share of responsibility. [Interruption.] Let me try to elucidate this for the benefit of Conservative Members who do not appear to understand these matters.

In November 1973, the increase in money supply of this country stood at a figure of 28·9 per cent.—a disgracefully high figure. The effect of this was working through the economy for the first 18 months at least after the Labour Government took office, or indeed longer. To indicate the contrast, I point out that in November 1976 the figure was 13·7 per cent. I do not mind being told that that is too high—perhaps it is—but it does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to say that to me.

Returning to thoughts of good will, will the Prime Minister reflect on the wisdom or unwisdom of the strange proposal we had from the broadcasting authorities that party political broadcasts should not be transmitted during the Christmas period? The one that I propose to make is apparently to be the last. With this apparent abundance of good things to tell the country, does not the Prime Minister feel that the New Year would not be a bad time at which to do it?

If I can help by writing the hon. Gentleman's script for him I shall be very happy for him to deliver it on New Year's Eve. But I have never believed in having broadcasting vans outside football matches on a Saturday afternoon, and I very much doubt whether people are anxious to listen to political messages on New Year's Eve or Christmas Day.

Bwlch

Q4.

It is a pity that the Prime Minister will not be visiting this nice Welsh hamlet near Brecon. If he went there, he would see some of the 600,000 young people under 25 who are unemployed. Does he realise that the rates of pay under the job creation scheme are nearly double those paid in private industry and that if they were reduced more young people would have work created for them—or does he not care too much about the 600,000 young people?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have not only been to Bwlch, but I can pronounce it.

I understand that there is a difference on these matters of pronunciation between scholars from North Wales and South Wales. But I know this village in Powys, lying on the main road between Crickhowell and Brecon, and I have been through it many times.

Although the hon. Gentleman's question is serious, I do not think that it particularly relates to this village. Since the hon. Gentleman put down the Question I have had inquiries made. In the Brecon travel-to-work area, which includes this village, the unemployment rate, at 5 per cent., is one of the lowest in Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman, from the Bills that he introduces but seemingly never prints, is concerned with ways in which we might overcome some of these difficulties. The problem is a very serious one, and it has been referred to in the most recent series of questions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the bases of good cheer for the unemployed at present is the fact that the market seems to have received the Government's economic policy rather better than it has been received by the Opposition or the Press and that as a result the exchange rate of the pound in recent weeks has gone up from $1·55 to $1·68? Does my right hon. Fried agree that in the coming year one of the further actions that will help the pound will be to deal with the problem of the sterling balances? Is it the Government's view that the sterling balances should be phased out and that sterling should cease to be a reserve currency?

There is no doubt that sterling has been strengthened by the recent Government measures and, of course, by the IMF loan which has now been agreed. As to the future of the sterling balances, I have my own views about that, as the House will know. Others will have to enter into an international agreement if the sterling balances are to be phased out, and that might take a considerable period of time. However, shorter-term arrangements for ensuring that sudden withdrawals of sterling balances do not put a false value on sterling are now being considered and will, I hope, be brought to a conclusion.

If the Prime Minister will not be visiting the village the name of which I would not dare to pronounce, will he, with the Secretary of State for Employment, go to the Rubery Owen factory during the recess? The situation there is desperately serious and is having a very bad effect on plants such as Chrysler at Dunstable, and British Leyland. Does he agree that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ought to send a special unit to the factory for three or four months to help the company sort out its industrial relations, as 1976 has been a terrible year in that factory?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that this problem ought to be solved. The general industrial situation, which is so much better, is due to the fact that both sides of industry—both management and the workers in the factories—have been co-operating to a great degree. I regret to say that that has not been true of the Rubery Owen factory.

I would prefer not to comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion but I shall convey it to the Secretary of State for Industry, who is taking a close day-by-day interest in the matter. Indeed, he had meetings on it yesterday and will do so again today. It is a situation that I should like to see solved. In general, I can see nothing in the situation at the factory that a little good will and common sense could not resolve.

That was almost as bad a pronunciation as "Bwlch", Mr. Speaker.

While on the question of unemployment, it would be churlish of us on the Clyde not to thank the Prime Minister for his Christmas card and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the form of their action with regard to Marathon shipyard, where the men have fought for so long to preserve their jobs.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we do not necessarily want to see everyone kept in employment? I hope it is not too late for my right hon. Friend to send a Christmas card, in the shape of a dismissal notice, to the House of Lords so that we can get the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill through.

We in Wales are internationalists and we welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend into our affairs.

The Government have taken a decision with regard to Marathon, which should maintain employment. We believe that is a reasonable decision to take with public money because there may well be a future opportunity for these jack-up rigs. These are not the same as oil platforms, which must be built for specialised purposes. We believe that it would be wrong to allow Marathon to disappear at this moment when there are prospects for the future.

With regard to the House of Lords, let us preserve it until the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is through. In the light of the present circumstances and developments in the shipbuilding industry, I believe that the House of Lords would be well advised to get on with the Bill so that the industry can have an assured future.

Questions To Ministers

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Out of 24 Questions tabled to the Home Office, no fewer than 10 were couched in identical terms by Conservative Members. They related to the urban aid programme. Those hon Gentlemen did not even have the wit to change a single word in the Questions. This seems to be an abuse of Question Time. It is a matter which has been raised in previous dispensations. As it is your duty, Mr. Speaker, to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members in all parts of the House, I hope that the matter will be discussed, either informally with the Leader of the House or by some other method, to seek to prevent this abuse.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that I raised a similar point the other day. I do not know whether note has been taken by the Leader of the House of what was said by me and by yourself. We would welcome any approach by the Leader of the House to the Government worthies who sit on the Procedure Committee to get them to do something about it.

This is by no means a new problem. The Select Committee on Procedure examined the very question raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in the 1964–65 Session. The syndicalisation of Questions is an old disease that breaks out from time to time, then it is forgotten, and then it comes back. But the Select Committee on Procedure did not find a way of getting over it. Perhaps the hon. Member ought to take the matter up himself with the Leader of the House, who looks as if he has a Christmas message to give us.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons
(Mr. Michael Foot)

I hope that this is an impressive Christmas message. In view of the discussions in the House a few days ago with regard to this matter, and the exchanges again today, we are prepared to suggest that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee again, although we are not confident that it will find a solution that it was not able to find before.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important matter that could be resolved by Ministers themselves by refusing to take these Questions together and by taking them separately in turn as they appear on the Order Paper.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you think it right for the Committee to take into consideration the way in which the number of Questions answered by Ministers has been declining progressively over a number of years? When hon. Members want to get particular matters raised at Question Time, the natural reaction is for a number of them to pick on items of great interest and to put down similar or identical Questions. Ministers have the solution primarily in their own hands by giving shorter answers and, if necessary, by not linking Questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very old trick. Would it not be as well for you to remind hon. Members that they do not have the absolute right of being called for a supplementary question?

Order. I must answer that one. It is too good to miss. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says. Just as the Ten Commandments are necessary for all of us to preserve, the theory is better than the practice.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If this matter is being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure can it at the same time look at the precedence of Questions on the Order Paper? I understand that at the moment the practice is that they are all put into a pile at 4 o'clock and then their places on the Order Paper are determined by the order in which they come out. As a result some hon. Members are lucky in the draw and others very often are not. Could not the Procedure Committee look at that problem?

Business Of The House

Before I call the Business Question, may I say that I have to leave the Chair for a short while, and I doubt whether on my return I shall see everyone who is now here for the Adjournment debates. May I therefore now wish those hon. Members who ask long supplementary questions, as well as those who ask short ones, and those hon. Members who raise points of order, as well as those who remain silent, a very happy Christmas.

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the Christmas Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons
(Mr. Michael Foot)

The business when the House returns after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:

MONDAY 10TH JANUARY—Debate on "Developments in the European Communities May-November 1976", Cmnd. No. 6695.

Motion on EEC Documents R/3592/ 74, R/1820/75, R/2146/75 and S/349/ 76 on banking.

And, if there is time, motion relating to the Bread Prices Order.

TUESDAY 11TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Covent Garden Market (Financial Provisions) Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.

Motion on the Social Security (Contributions, Re-Rating) Order.

WEDNESDAY 12TH JANUARY—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: the subject for debate to be announced later.

Motions on the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (United States) Orders.

THURSDAY 13TH JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill.

FRIDAY 14TH JANUARY—Consideration of Private Members' motions.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, is he aware that the European Parliament will be sitting in plenary session in the week beginning 10th January? Is it not rather extraordinary that the debate on the six-monthly report has been arranged on a day when Members of the European Parliament are unable to take advantage of it without absenting themselves from Luxembourg and missing one day of important business there? Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that this piece of apparent mismanagement will not occur again?

Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States double taxation relief order is of much more significance than most double taxation orders, which are usually dealt with in Committee upstairs, and that it merits an earlier start than 10 o'clock at night? We made this request in the summer. As it has been left so long, is it not possible to arrange now for it to be debated on a day when it could start at 7 o'clock?

Dealing first with the right hon. Gentleman's question about Wednesday's debate on the double taxation order, I shall look at that point, but I cannot give any guarantee that we shall alter it. I shall have to look at the time when it is required and at other considerations. But, naturally, I shall look at it.

The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the debate on the six-monthly report will be taking place at the same time as discussions are going on in Brussels. I am sorry that this should occur, and I know that there have been one or two occasions in the past when similar difficulties have arisen and when we have promised to avoid it in the future. I renew the undertaking that we shall try to avoid it in the future, but it was extremely difficult to avoid it on this occasion because we had to rearrange the business, and this was the only time when we were able to take the six-monthly report.

Will the Leader of the House make a good resolve for 1977 to have a proper debate on energy, which we have not had for a long time, with special reference to nuclear policy and an even more precise reference to the report of the Central Policy Review Committee on heavy power engineering, which affects a great many jobs?

Obviously these are very important questions, and I am sure that opportunities for discussion of them will arise in the not too distant future. I cannot give any indication now about the precise occasion on which that might occur, but obviously we shall take the right hon. Gentleman's request into account.

My right hon. Friend read out a whole string of EEC documents. Do they all refer to banking, or is it only the last one which does?

I must apologise to the House. I think that they all refer to banking, although I am not absolutely clear about it. Before committing myself one way or the other, I should like to look at them again in more detail. I think that they all refer to banking. But if I am mistaken about that, I shall communicate the correct information to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

Has the Leader of the House any information about the proposed business for the Monday following our return? Is it intended to go on with the Committee stage of the devolution Bill? It is important for Members from Scotland to know what is to be done on that Monday.

I am sorry that I have not indicated what is to happen on that Monday. It is not certain what will be fixed. When there is a decision on what is to be the subject, if we can find some way of communicating it to right hon. and hon. Members, I agree that it would be for the convenience of the House for us to do so. Normally, when the business is read out for the week of our return after a recess, the following Monday's business is not necessarily decided upon and, therefore, it is not usually the custom to indicate it. But I shall try to indicate it to the House as soon as a decision is reached.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it is proposed that the House should consider EEC documents, habits have not improved? He gave an undertaking some time ago to read the title of each document on these occasions, and he has been unable to do so this morning. Is he aware that hon. Members have only five hours between now and the rising of the House to put down amendments to documents which are to be considered on our first day back? Is that not skating on rather thin ice procedurally?

I acknowledge that there are still considerable difficulties in dealing with EEC business that comes before the House. There are a variety of reasons which are all too well known to my hon. Friend. They arise partly from the fact that we do not always know when the business is coming up in Brussels, and partly because we do not know how long we have to decide and what is the nature of the decisions. I acknowledge fully that we have not solved the problem. We must make fresh efforts to do so. But the Government seek to provide as much notice as possible on all occasions.

Has the Leader of the House seen Early-Day Motion No. 71, praying against the Social Security (Women's Class 2 Contributions) Order?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Women's Class 2 Contributions) Order 1976 (S.1., 1976, No. 1976), dated 24th November 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be annulled.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that is put in place on Tuesday 11th January so that it can be discussed at the same time as the Social Security (Contributions, Re-Rating) Order?

Yes. I give that undertaking. Certainly it will be possible to discuss that order at the same time. We shall make any provision necessary to ensure that that happens.

With regard to the Thursday's debate, does my right hon. Friend intend to suspend the rule? In view of the very important education debate which is going on in the country at the present, will he provide time very soon for a debate on the report produced by the Expenditure Committee on decision-making in the Department of Education and Science?

I cannot say when we shall be able to debate the second matter that my hon. Friend raised. Obviously it is an important one, and we shall look at the possibilities.

As for suspending the rule on the Thursday, we have not made any decision about that. We shall have discussions between the usual channels and we shall hear any representations that there may be from other parts of the House, but at the moment we are proposing to proceed on the normal basis.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen reports that the Government have agreed to accept the European proposals for a 40-ton limit on lorries? If he has, can he confirm that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate this matter and to vote on it before any irrevocable steps are taken?

May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman about the motion on the remaining Orders of the Day relating to the House of Commons Service Committee's First Report which proposes that the size of Hansard be switched to A4 paper? Will he try to arrange a debate on that at a reasonably convenient hour so that most hon. Members can take part in the discussion?

On that second matter, I cannot say that it is possible to have a debate on it at an early stage in our proceedings because we have a great deal of other business to transact. But obviously it is a matter on which right hon, and hon. Members will want to give their views. It has been discussed by the Services Committee, and we want to hear what right hon. and hon. Members have to say about it.

As for the hon. Gentleman's first question, I have seen the reports to which he referred. Judging from what I have seen of them, they are nothing more than rumours. But a matter of such major importance would have to be discussed according to the procedures that we accept for delay with EEC business.

Does my right hon. Friend plan to give time to debate the Prayer against the import duties which are to be increased on 1st January? May we have time to discuss this important order when we return?

I fear that we cannot do it before 1st January. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North has raised this matter on one or two occasions, and we have not been able to satisfy the demand of the House for a debate on the subject. I am not minimising its importance. It is a further illustration of what I said about the House not having yet solved the problem of how to deal with all these proposals for legislative enactments coming from the EEC.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Early-Day Motion in my name and those of 90 or more right hon. and hon. Members about the Laker Skytrain affair?

[That this House welcomes the decisions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in favour of Skytrain, calls upon the Government to accept the decision without wasting even more taxpayers' money on further litigation and to stop its campaign against Laker Airways.]

When are we to expect an announcement or a statement about whether the Government intend to appeal further or to desist from what appears to be, according to the courts, the illegal or unlawful use of ministerial powers? Will this suddenly become sub judice before we come back so that we cannot discuss it then, either?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what the courts may have said in this matter, any more than I could accept his view on almost any other subject. But obviously the Government take time to consider such a judgment, and that is what the Government are doing.

Will the Lord President please ensure this time—that is, on 10th January—that all the documents relating to the EEC matters which the House is to consider are available in the Vote Office and are the latest editions of those documents?

We shall certainly do our best to comply with both those requirements. I know that there have been difficulties in the past, which have arisen partly because of the relationship between this House and the institutions in Brussels and partly, perhaps, from printing difficulties in this place. But both difficulties must be overcome.

In the light of the Report of the Select Committee on Cyprus, which not only deals with that urgent international matter but also comments on the making of British foreign policy, when is the House to have a chance to debate the report? Would it not be wiser to deal with reports of Select Committees rather more promptly than appears customary?

It is, of course, normally advantageous if the House can have debates on most reports which conic from Select Committees. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber yesterday when that specific matter was raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davis). I gave a reply then, although I do not say that it would have fully satisfied the hon. Gentleman or others.

Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that his display a little earlier, showing that he did not even know what the EEC documents were about, was very revealing, and will he accept that there is growing concern on both sides of the House that his attitude to scrutiny of EEC matters is careless, insouciant and "could not care less"? Will he undertake to improve his attitude and that of the Government to the proper scrutiny of these documents in the new year—in which I include doing it properly both in Committee as well as on the Floor—and will he also reassure those who go even to the length of fearing that he could not care less about the direct elections Bill?

Before replying to the hon. Gentleman, I must apologise that I was unsure about which of the instruments referred to banking matters. Documents Nos. 3592 and 1820 refer to banking legislation, No. 2146 refers to credit institutions and No. 349 refers to the EEC Export Bank. I am sorry that I did not make that clear in the form in which I stated it to the House. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that we certainly do not treat in a slipshod manner what comes from the Scrutiny Committee. If he had attended some of the debates which we have had on these matters, the hon. Gentleman would have seen that on every occasion I have gone out of my way to pay a special tribute to the Scrutiny Committee and to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), who presided over it, as well as to the way in which its reports were presented to the House. The Government have always given most detailed care to any of the recommendations which have come forward, and within the difficulties and constraints imposed upon the House in this matter we have always sought to proceed in the proper way.

I therefore repudiate entirely any suggestion that the Government do not treat properly the recommendations and advice we receive from the Scrutiny Committee. We do not treat these matters in a careless manner. But I repeat—anyone who has studied the matter will come to the same view—that Parliament as a whole has not yet settled the proper relationship between proposals, suggestions and legislation coming from Brussels and our powers and position in the House. Some of us thought that these matters should have been much better resolved before we ever went into the Community.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Scrutiny Committee, but may I point out to him nevertheless that the motions that he himself has tabled for changes in the Standing Committee procedure have been on the Order Paper for literally weeks now and no opportunity has been afforded for debate on these matters? Therefore, those—if I may say so—already imperfect amendments to the debating procedures of the House have been forestalled by the Government from debate and being carried into effect.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, far from wishing the contrary, the Government were perfectly prepared that those proposals should have been put into effect, but some of my hon. Friends, perfectly legitimately—the interest came from this side of the House —wished to put down amendments to the proposals. Therefore, quite rightly, those matters have to be debated. We promised that there would be a debate, and we shall carry out the promise. I know that they have been on the Order Paper for some time, but the House has had a great deal of other business to transact, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman should not associate himself in any way with what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), because nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman does that we have treated with scrupulous care all the recommendations which have come from his Committee.

The Leader of the House will know of the major crisis in the building industry. Does he realise that after meetings between Ministers and leaders of that industry since the Chancellor's mini-Budget Statement, many people believe that the crisis has in fact worsened? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will arrange that as soon as possible there can be a full debate, with a proper ministerial statement at the beginning of any such debate, on this problem which affects the whole of the country and is not merely sectional?

I do not underrate the seriousness of the problem, which has been raised now by the hon. Gentleman and was raised by other hon. Members yesterday in the debate on the motion for the recess. There is an extremely serious situation in many parts of the country, and when we meet again the House will, of course, wish to have reports from the Government about it. Whether that should be done in the form of a debate is another question, but, clearly, there must be discussions about it and there must be statements to the House. I do not wish in any sense to depreciate the importance of the matter.

European Community (Council Of Agriculture Ministers' Meeting)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the House on the results of the meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 20th-21st December.

The main questions discussed were the milk action programme, beef import arrangements, the green pound, aid to processing and marketing and the directive on meat products and fisheries. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has already told the House of the decisions taken in the Foreign Affairs Council on fisheries.

No further progress was made on the milk action programme. Some member States could agree to the proposals only if the tax on vegetable and marine fats and oils were included. I made clear that this tax was not a necessary part of the package and was totally unacceptable to us. Other member States supported my view.

I also restated our opposition to the proposed ban on investment aids and the Commission's proposal on "exclusive use". All the proposals on milk will now be reconsidered next year under the United Kingdom presidency.

I told the House after the last Council that I had withheld agreement to the Commission's proposal on beef imports until more liberal arrangements were accepted both for 1977 and for the longer term. The Council has now agreed to much improved arrangements. From 1st April 1977 the safeguard clause—a ban on beef imports from outside the Community except under special arrangements—will be removed. It will be replaced by a new permanent import regime. Levies on both fresh and frozen beef will be progressively dismantled when prices rise and imported beef is needed. Even when prices are low, the levy will not go above a level about 10 per cent. below the Commission's proposal.

There will also be provision for Community imports in 1977, effective from 1st April, of 75,000 tonnes of beef for manufacture at a reduced or nil levy, of which 25,000 tonnes will be for corned beef manufacture. For the first three months of 1977, before these arrangements come into effect, we have negotiated substantial improvements, on both canned and boneless beef, in the "jumelage" scheme, which allows for imports linked with purchases of intervention beef.

The United Kingdom's share of the 1977 GATT import quota, on which no levy is paid, is also being increased to 12,750 tonnes, the United Kingdom being the only country to receive an increase. These arrangements will greatly improve the opportunity to obtain beef from abroad next year. This will help the trader and the housewife.

The Commission and other member States again pressed me to make an immediate devaluation of the green pound. I resisted this. At the request of the Irish Government, the representative rate for the Irish pound is being devalued by 8 per cent. I asked for and obtained the Council's endorsement of the meat industry employment subsidy which we have found it necessary to pay in Northern Ireland.

The Council agreed on the proposed regulation on Community aid for processing and marketing. This will make available about £165 million over five years within the Community for improvements in the processing and marketing of agricultural products and fish. I believe that this will be helpful to investment in our food industry and that the housewife will gain from lower costs and improved quality in an already efficient sector of industry.

Finally, the Council agreed to an amended directive on health control of meat products in intra-Community trade. At our request, all references to veterinary supervision have been deleted. I am sure that the House will welcome this. We shall continue with our present arrangements for the allocation of responsibilities between veterinarians and environmental health officers and the whole question will be reviewed within the Community by July 1977. I am glad that this review is being undertaken quickly and I have stressed the importance of a thorough examination of the qualifications of EHOs.

While some of what the Minister's statement contained will be welcome, I do not think that he will be surprised when I say that his statement was more remarkable for what was not in it than for what it contained. It was a thin and meagre diet to offer to the many people who are concerned about the present situation.

On the subject of beef, does the Minister accept that it is his duty to find a middle course between high prices, which will simply cause the consumer to turn away, and measures that will have the effect of undermining the market with the result that the home producer cannot even recover his production costs? Many people have not yet forgotten the 1974 slump into which his Government blundered.

Does the Minister agree that the action of the Irish Government in devaluing their pound by 8 per cent. will be a major stimulus to the smuggling industry on the border? What is he going to do about it?

The fishing industry is beginning to wonder whether it has any future at all. There are serious fears that we appear to be handing over a valuable asset. It is wondered whether at the end of the day we shall find ourselves as customers when we ought to be suppliers.

I find it astonishing that the Minister has made no substantial reference to the plight of the pig industry. Does he not now feel a sharp regret that he missed his earlier opportunity for a modest devaluation of the green pound, since that would have made possible a correction of the anomalous basis upon which pig meat MCAs are calculated. We now face a calamity, and the producers are facing it with the handicap of about £100 per ton on pig meat compared with what European exporters and producers receive.

It is clear that consumers will face the problem later and that there will be serious consequences for the industry in the long run. What action does the Minister intend to take? It would be absolutely wrong if he washed his hands of the problems so tragically affecting the industry.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are now encroaching upon the time provided for the Adjournment debates.

I note what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall therefore be briefer in my replies than otherwise.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, made a statement to the House on fisheries, and I do not want to add much to that. It is a delicate situation. I must remind the House that that which was so unfortunately given away in relation to fisheries when we joined the EEC—that to which so many hon. Members, including myself, objected at the time—means that my hands are now rather tied. A renegotiation starting from the beaches is a difficult process.

Beef has a long cycle of production. We now have a safety valve and we shall be able to import beef from outside the Community when it is required in this country and other parts of the EEC. Many hon. Members have been pressing for that for some time. We have put an end to the closed door situation that existed for a number of years.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was right in saying that there is a danger of smuggling resulting from the Irish devaluation of the green pound. I hope that he was given sufficiently long notice of today's debate: he did not have enough notice last time. I draw his attention to what I said in my statement today. I asked for and obtained the Council's endorsement of the meat industry employment subsidy, which we thought necessary to pay in Northern Ireland in order to avoid smuggling.

I know that the right hon. Member for Yeovil shares my anxiety about the pig meat problem. I hope that the House will understand this matter and that hon. Members will not make arguments that they would not expound if they fully understood. The Commission had the power to change the basis of the calculation of MCAs by up to 8 per cent. That is all that is in its power without the matter going to the Council.

What I managed to obtain from the Council was something that we had achieved for the first time in EEC history, and it was achieved without the devaluation of the green pound. If we had devalued the green pound by the suggested amount of 4·5 per cent. as a method of dealing with pig meat, that would have meant that while MCAs went down by £40, the cost of feeding stuffs would have gone up by £40. No one would have been better off.

We have to change the basis by recalculating MCAs by a different method, or by some other means. A change in the method of calculation would require the unanimous consent of the Council. A number of members of the Council, including Germany, Denmark and Holland, for reasons that I will not go into now, would not wish the recalculation to be made without a great deal of discussion. There have been bilateral discussions and they are continuing, but the Council's decision could be against us. I am as concerned as any other hon. Member about the situation, and I am looking into alternatives.

Can the Minister be more specific about beef measures and say whether beef prices will fall next year? I appreciate what the Minister has said about the pig meat industry, but there is grave concern in my constituency. I appreciate the difficulties about pig meat MCAs that the Minister has explained to the House, but does he have in mind the possibility of direct measures being taken by us at home if they are necessary to save the industry? Has the Minister noticed the statement made by M. Lardinois about the huge current food surplus between the EEC and the United States? What are the Minister's views?

I hope that I made it clear to the House that I am looking into every possible means of dealing with the problems of the pig meat industry. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will forgive me for my lengthy reply, but I want hon. Members to understand this. I hope that the problems will be overcome. We shall do our best.

If more beef comes into this country, that must have an effect on prices.

The House cannot too often reiterate the demand of the fishing industry for a 50-mile limit, if only for the purpose of strengthening the Minister's hand in negotiations. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the £165 million allocated for processing and marketing is spread throughout the whole community over five years, it might not amount to much, but it could be very useful? How is it proposed to operate the system? Would it be open to small producers in my part of the world, who have been hard hit, to apply for grants?

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about fishery limits. The opinion of the House is listened to with great interest in Brussels. The basis of the new scheme is that if the individual marketeer or processor pays 50 per cent. and there is a minimum contribution of 5 per cent. from the national State, the Community will pay about 25 per cent. It could be very useful and I hope that it will help in exactly the circumstances described by the right hon. Gentleman.

Is it true that the Council has decided to write £60 million off the value of more than 1 million tonnes of dried milk?

I have no final information on that point. This scheme caused many of us considerable worry and I think that my hon. Friend is well aware of our attitude to it.

The Minister has stated how concerned he is about the catastrophe facing the pig producers, but is he aware that if the pig processors went out of business, the producers could never come back and would be lost for all time? Does he not agree that it is time that he took urgent action?

Is it not a sad commentary that if 1,200 workers in the Marathon shipyard were facing dismissal, action would be taken almost overnight, but when we face the same situation in the pig processing industry, nothing is done because the workers are in little packets all over the country?

The write-down in the value of milk powder was inevitable, but does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that a great responsibility rests on him to reach agreement on milk early in the New Year? Is he aware that if agreement is not reached quickly, we shall face chaos and an ever-mounting stockpile of milk powder in the summer? I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of these points, but can he give an assurance that they will receive priority over any other action that he may take in the new year?

The hon. Gentleman will do me the credit of believing that I am not doing nothing about pig meat. I have moved the position slightly, though not nearly as far as I should like. It is a most urgent question and I understand it from the points of view of both the processors and the producers.

There are many reasons for the milk surplus—or the butter mountain as it is sometimes called—not the least of which is connected with the price and the fact that the consumers throughout the Community have resisted paying prices which they found unacceptable. We have to get the price level right, too.

Some of the measures in the milk action programme were very useful, but I do not see how, for example, the tax on margarine and frying oils will make the slightest difference to the consumption of milk anywhere in the Community.

Did we not have an excellent middle way in our deficiency payments system, which was destroyed by the Conservative Party? Can my right hon. Friend make clear whether after April 1977 beef imports for human consumption from efficient producers such as Australia, New Zealand and Argentina will be entirely free, apart from the levies and import duties we shall have to pay anyway?

I am well aware of the point made by my right hon. Friend about our original deficiency payments system. I can give him the assurance which he sought in the second part of his question.

Order. In fairness to those hon. Members who have Adjournment debates, we must move on.

Statutory Instruments, &C

In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put the Questions on the four Statutory Instruments motions en bloc.

Ordered,

That the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Stallard.]

In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put en blocthe Questions on the next four motions.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 2024), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[ Mr. Stallard.]

Prices

That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Post Office) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[ Mr. Stallard.]

Sea Fisheries

That the White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.—[ Mr. Stallard.]

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Food) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 2025), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[ Mr. Stallard.]

Question agreed to.

Expenditure

Ordered,

That the Standing Orders of 18th November 1974, 29th October 1975 and 15th December 1975, relating to the nomination of the Expenditure Committee, be amended by leaving out Mr. George Gardiner, Sir John Langford-Holt and Mr. Charles Morrison and inserting Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Cecil Parkinson and Mr. Robert Rhodes James.—[Mr. Stallard.]

Industrial Strategy (Statistical Basis)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Stallard.]

12.46 p.m.

Before I deal with the topic of my debate, I must protest strongly about the Government coming to the House on the last day of term with a very important statement. I understand the frustration of hon. Members on both sides of the House who were unable to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The lesson is there for the Government; this is what happens when they bring forward such important statements on the last day of term. It is also a way of cheating hon. Members of the limited amount of private Members' time available to them.

I am grateful for the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the Treasury's macro-economic model Scenario II, and the statistical assumptions underlying it. In doing so, I inevitably raise the whole question of the Government's industrial strategy, because it is based on Scenario II.

I first drew attention to this matter and threw doubt upon the validity of Scenario II in a speech during the Third Reading of the Industry Amendment Bill on 28th October. I suggested that the kindest thing that could be said about it was that it put hope before experience. The Minister who replied to that debate made no attempt to answer my criticisms and did not even acknowledge the fact that I or anyone else had made them. Yet the Government strategy and Scenario II were and remain intimately connected with that Bill.

I am pleased to welcome the Minister of State, Treasury, to the Front Bench and the fact that he is to reply to the debate. That fact alone justifies my raising the matter, but I have more specific reasons. Since my criticisms in October, the economic situation has deteriorated further, new measures have been brought forward by the Government and the situation has been, to say the least, fluid.

Yet the Government have remained firm in their public allegiance to their industrial strategy and hence to Scenario II. It must be clear to everyone that the highly optimistic assumptions upon which Scenario II was constructed last summer are no longer valid, so I am giving the Government an opportunity to get off the hook and finally to abandon Scenario II in favour of a more realistic model for the economy up to 1980—the so-called middle term.

I may be asking too much of the Government; we shall see when the Minister replies. I was interested to read in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's letter to the International Monetary Fund on 15th December a number of references to the Government's industrial strategy which had Scenario II overtones, although Scenario II was not specifically mentioned. Maybe I am a little too suspicious—maybe the Government are quietly sliding out of their Scenario II commitment. I sincerely hope so.

I am entirely at one with the Government when the Chancellor talks to the IMF of
"An industrial strategy through which the Government, trade unions and employers are seeking to improve the performance of our manufacturing industry and, in particular, its productivity and ability to compete successfully in world markets."
My quarrel with the Government does not lie in disagreement over the aims of the national industrial strategy, but in the fact that they are seeking totally unrealistic targets, which will confuse and disappoint, rather than enlighten and encourage. Euphoric optimism helps no one and is denied daily by events.

Since October we have had the provisional results of the first year of the scenario story, and these results confirm all the fears about Scenario II optimism. I shall draw to the attention of the House replies which I have received this autumn from relevant Ministers to Questions which I put, about 1975–76 growth rate for individual industrial sectors on the same basis of statistical derivation as that used by the Treasury in compiling Scenario II. It is an unhappy story which justifies my taking up the time of the House on this terminal day before the Christmas Recess.

I take the House back to the birth of Scenario II. The object of the exercise was,
"To provide a coherent framework of explicit macro-economic assumptions so far as possible set out in quantitative terms."
Into this framework sectoral working parties for various industries—the Little Neddies—could slot their own studies and forecasts. There were two alternative models for the middle term—up to 1980—drawn up by the Treasury as the base line for sectoral discussion.

The Treasury made it clear that it regarded these alternative models neither as forecasts nor as national plans. As far as a national plan was concerned, I thought that the Treasury was rather rough on the memory of the former Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, who is now in another place, when it stated
"We are not seeking to impose an inflexible set of macro-economic assumptions on 'national plan' lines. Equally, we reject a sterile numbers game."
This raises the question of the purpose and status of these two models. I hope that the Minister of State will enlighten us when he replies.

The Treasury called the two models Scenario I and Scenario II probably because it could not make up its mind about the precise status. That choice of language was more appropriate to the Round House than to Great George Street, and is singularly misleading. I have looked up the word "scenario" in the Oxford Dictionary and it give two definitions. The first is
"a skeleton libretto of play or opera",
and the second is
"a complete plot of film play, with the necessary directions for the actors and details of scenes etc."
The word "scenario" is derived from the Italian word "scena" meaning "scene".

Scenarios I and II do not fall within either of these descriptions, so why was that word used? I think that it was used because it is a vogue word current in the media and public relations. It is what that very distinguished civil servant Sir Ernest Gowers described as "a modish word". In his book he condemns modish writing and says:
"This is the sort of writing that forces its modernity on the reader by posture and display, like an incompetent model flaunting a new dress rather than a sensible woman wearing one. In modish writing the writer goes out of his way to parade his knowledge of the latest vogue word or to twist to new uses the vocabulary or modes of expression that have lately become current in other contexts—in short he is affected or pretentious, rather than fresh or lively."
Even if the Treasury cannot preserve the value of our currency, I wish that it could be relied upon not to debase the coinage of the English language. Why is it necessary to have a first-class honours degree to enter the Treasury if not to protect the English language?

I remind the House that, according to the Treasury, Scenario I was based on extrapolating recent trends and, as it said in its paper:
"By historical standards, the average rate of GDP of about 3½ per cent. over a four year period is almost as fast a rate of growth as the fastest we have achieved in the past 20 years."
This aim is by no means a modest one. Scenario II, according to the Treasury.
"differs from Scenario I in that sufficient improvement in industrial performance has been assumed to achieve an acceptable balance of payments and level of employment in 1979."
As I have already pointed out, these changes would require an unprecedented rate of growth in manufacturing output of 8 per cent. on average from 1975 to 1979.

The clue to the adoption of Scenario II is given in the statement made after the NEDC meeting on 4th August when it was stated:
"The Council unanimously agreed that the first of the two scenarios presented in the current paper (based on no improvement in past performance) was unacceptable; and that only the second scenario provided for a sufficiently rapid return to full employment, based on the expansion of manufacturing industry through increased investment and higher productivity.
It must by now be evident that Scenario II was highly optimistic in its projections of future economic performance.

It seems that the Council's statement was really the Government's rejection of Scenario I because the Government did not like the consequences. That is rather like any one of us receiving a bank statement, particularly if we have an overdraft, and rejecting it because we do not like what it says. That is why I have described Scenario II as putting hope before experience.

I believe that the implication of accepting Scenario II was to nulify the whole exercise of providing guidelines about the future movement of the British economy up to 1980 in order to help individual industries and firms to plan ahead. Scenario II has failed to do this because it has made unrealistic and unwarranted assumptions about the rate of improvement in our economic performance.

When I raised this matter, on 28th October, I quoted figures from the chemical industry, with which I am quite familiar. I remind the House what I said on that occasion:
"Over the next four years, Scenario II involves an average growth rate in chemicals of 10·8 per cent. We are talking about a growth in chemical exports of 20 per cent. a year for each of the four years covered by Scenario II. That means in real terms a doubling of exports in four years."—[Official Report, 28th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 815–6.]
To me this is pure fiction. The growth would be more than twice the rate of increase in world trade foreseen either by the OECD forecast or by the Treasury in its assumptions. I give that example to show that even on their own terms the Government started Scenario II with basic internal inconsistencies. Now at the turn of the year, it seems an even more improbable model for the years up to 1980 than it did in August.

I hope that I am not being an economic Scrooge, an old misery-monger, in criticising Scenario II as being an act of mythology rather than one of serious economic forecast. We now have the first year's results, and they bear out again our mistrust of Scenario II.

With the assistance of statisticians in the Library, I have re- worked out the Scenario II targets. I wanted to table my findings as a document in the debate so that hon. Members attending the debate could have it before them and go through it as I spoke. That, however, is an improper practice, as I am told. I sought the advice of the Clerks, who told me that only the Government could do that. There was no way in which I as an individual Member could do that, but I have photographed the table I have produced and I should be delighted to give a copy to any hon. Member after the debate if he meets me behind the Chair.

I have calculated, first, the rates of growth of all the industries covered in the Treasury models and obtained the figures which were originally worked out. I then took the figures of the targets set in Scenario II and the figures for the first year, 1975–76, which I obtained through parliamentary Questions. On that basis I have worked out revised Scenario II targets which it would be necessary to reach in order to achieve the desired result.

The average rate of growth for all manufacturing industry for the years from 1971 to 1975 was 0·4 per cent. The Scenario II target was originally 7·9 per cent. But the rate of growth for the first year of Scenario II was not 7·9 per cent., but 0·8 per cent. That means that if we drop one year and if the figures are to be on target by 1980, the rate of growth in manufacturing industry for the next four years will have to be 9·7 per cent. I shall let the Minister of State have these figures afterwards. I do not expect him to comment on them off the cuff.

Let us then look at the key industrial sectors. Let us take mechanical engineering, the heart of industrial Britain. The rate of growth in that industry in 1971 to 1975 was 0·5 per cent. The Scenario II target as originally set was 7·4 per cent. The first year's result is not a rate of growth, but a reduction. It is minus 4·1 per cent. That means that the revised target will have to be 10·5 per cent. The situation is that mechanical engineering from 1971 to 1975 achieved a growth rate of 0·5 per cent. and it is expected from 1976 to 1980 to achieve a growth rate of 10·5 per cent. I do not think that I am being unfair when I insist that this is putting hope before experience.

Let us look now at electrical engineering. From 1971 to 1975 the growth rate was 2·7 per cent. The original target was 10·7 per cent. In the first year the rate of growth was minus 2·6 per cent. By simple arithmetic one can rewrite the target for the growth rate over the next four years to 14·3 per cent. This takes us into the world of mythology.

We move on to motor vehicles, another of our key industries. The rate of growth from 1971 to 1975 was minus 3·3 per cent. The Scenario II original target was 11·1 per cent. The rate of growth in the first year was 1·1 per cent. Therefore the revised target must be 13·8 per cent.

I hope that I have said enough to show how deceptively unrealistic these targets are. My conclusion is borne out very much by independent sources. The December issue of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin bears out my view. Looking ahead to 1977 it says:
"All in all, growth during the year ahead is now likely to be heavily dependent on exports and, to a much smaller extent, on stockbuilding and manufacturing investment; output can thus be expected to expand fairly slowly."
But Scenario II requires sensationally rapid expansion.

The National Institute has also produced some modest forecasts for the expansion of industry in 1977. However, this figure is of a growth rate of 3 per cent. I admit that it calculates this on the basis of the whole of industrial production, not simply of manufacturing output. The Minister and I know the distinction between the two.

If the Government really wish to help individual industries, and more especially individual firms, to increase exports and productivity, they should be prepared to offer advice on likely trends in three areas. These are the rate of inflation, the movement of sterling, and movements in interest rates. Individual firms have absolutely no control over these three variables, but they are vital in determining whether a firm makes a profit or loss in the export market. Without that knowledge a firm is in grave difficulty.

On the Friday before last I visited a firm in my constituency with an export record of more than 70 per cent. and expanding. I was asked just these questions. The firm was in the process of negotiating a fixed-price contract for equipment to be delivered to the Middle East, and some of it will not be delivered for two years. These are three areas of economic movement on which it wanted information and advice.

I suggest that if the Government and the Treasury wish to help industry on future predictions, these are the areas on which they should be giving advice. If things are going right, industry is perfectly capable of working out its own plans for expansion.

The other message that one gets loud and clear—I speak as someone who retains working connections in industry and commerce—is the constant plea for stability in the general environment set by the Government. Industry wants stability in taxation and, above all, in general legislation. Without going into the merits of things, they plead for the Government not to keep changing the ground rules. Sometimes they put it rather bluntly, saying "Please get off our backs and let us get on with the job".

In the Government's efforts to effect national recovery, to work with the TUC and the CBI, will they please remember middle management? I speak as a middle manager. Please will they remember the works manager, the sales manager and the staff manager? They are at the sharp end where the action is. They have to implement all the decisions entered into at high level by the Government, the TUC and the CBI, even when they find that the decisions are either impracticable, unintelligible or sometimes simply nonsense. They take the can. but they are not consulted and they are taken for granted. To coin a phrase, they are the Third Man in industry. I invite the Government this Christmas to bring the Third Man in from out of the cold.

Finally, I return to the two models of Scenario I and II. I believe that it will take all our efforts and a run of good luck to achieve the Scenario I targets. Indeed, if world economic growth remains sluggish, or if our position in the world market deteriorates, as it so easily could, we may not be able to achieve even Scenario I.

It does not help our national recovery to persits in the illusion of Scenario II simply because life would be a great deal more comfortable for us, including above all the Government, if the Scenario II targets were achieved.

In my earlier speech on Scenario II, I described it as Tinkerbell in Peter Pan. The House will recall that Tinkerbell continued to exist only as long as boys and girls continued to believe in fairies. I was too kind and gentle in that analogy. Scenario II is not Peter Pan. It is the end of Pagliacci—"La Commedia é finita".

As the Adjournment debates started late, the timings have had to be slightly altered to be fair to hon. Members who have later Adjournment debates. I hope that this debate will finish at 1.30 p.m. The second debate will take place from 1.30 p.m. to 2 p.m., and the third will take place from 2 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. The rest will remain as on the Order Paper.

1.12 p.m.

May I first of all congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) for raising this subject on the day the House rises for the Christmas Recess. It is an extremely important topic, as he recognised in his speech, and there are considerable implications for British industry in general in getting these matters right.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for suggesting that perhaps I should not have to comment in detail on the figures he mentioned. We shall look at them and we shall try to get our economists with first-class honours degrees to look at them. I shall write to him and I shall do as much justice as I can to the figures he has mentioned.

Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member said that what we need is stability. The Government do not deny this. This is part of the reason for our industrial strategy, for sitting down with the CBI and the TUC to create some stability in planning for industry. We recognise that the constant chopping and changing, whether in rates of taxation or methods of taxation—such as corporation tax—whether in the case of investment grants or allowances, constitutes a whole range of matters which disrupt industry. Constant changing does not help anyone to plan industry, whether public or private. I accept that entirely, and I hope that we have gone some way to try to create more stability.

The hon. Member asked if we could tell industry what would be the rate of inflation in one year's or three years' time or what would be the movement of sterling or interest rates. We accept entirely that these are important matters for any company which has to plan for two or three years and has to deliver orders during that period. I think the hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that no Government—especially with an economy such as the United Kingdom economy, which is so subject to the whims of world events and world trade and commodity prices—could possibly try to give target figures for these factors. It would be irresponsible to try to do so. The Government's policy is to try to stabilise and bring down the rate of inflation. We consider that that is one of the most important tasks facing us.

The movement of sterling is governed to some extent by the rate of inflation, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. Again, it is our desire to stabilise that movement, because we recognise that industry, especially those who have to export, must as far as possible have certainty in regard to import costs. Interest rates are part of that package and follow from the rate of inflation and the movement of sterling. The Government's desire is to see a gradual reduction in interest rates. One reason why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his package last week was to try to create situations in the financial markets that would gradually reduce interest rates. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, interest rates are governed by the rate of inflation, and the Government cannot entirely control their movement.

The Minister of State will appreciate that it is really no good for the Press and Members of Parliament and the Government to lecture industry about not investing sufficiently when one has to borrow at 16 or 17 per cent. against a currency that is deteriorating at 14 or 15 per cent. a year. If we can get more stability, I think that we shall see the investment.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point entirely. I think he also referred to a dismal scenario. Some might refer to it as a dismal silence. There is a school of economics which says that interest rates do not matter all that much. I always believed that they did matter, especially for medium-size and small companies. Maybe the multinationals are not affected by interest rates.

I confirm that the Minister is absolutely correct. Whatever may appear to academic economists, the fact is that in the real world, particularly in a medium-size company, one has to borrow. The rate at which one borrows is part of the cost of investment. It is as simple at that.

We always thought so as well, but there are theorists who argue differently.

At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he thought the scenario was wrong and was far too optimistic and that we should not have put forward these figures in the first place. I remind him that Scenario II is not a target but a statistical exercise, although we have to have figures to try to carry out the underlying exercise. It is an attempt to get British manufacturing industry out of the "red" in which it has been since the war.

The basis of putting forward figures of acceptable balance of payment levels and acceptable rates of employment for 1979 was to try to sit down with industry and to say "If you want to achieve that situation, which we all want to achieve, this is what will have to be done". It is an exercise in realism. It is no good thinking that we shall arrive at the desirable situation of improving productivity in industry by fiscal or monetary measures or by fiddling around with exchange rates. The whole basis of Scenario II was to sit down with the TUC and the CBI and to say that we had got to get to that point.

The hon. Member referred to a person receiving his overdraft figures from the bank. That is a good analogy. However, if one receives high figures on a high overdraft, the right thing to do is to ask how those figures can be reduced by 1979–80. What can be done to reduce them? Instead of living in the hope that the figures will be reduced, Scenario II is an attempt at realism in industry and the country. There is a question of public education. This desirable situation will not be achieved by fiscal measures, by Keynesian economics. monetary economics or all the other theories of economics. It will be achieved only by sitting down and planning, in the sense of planning at the lowest level and not the highest, talking to both sides of industry, which want to improve and to get British industry back on its feet so that it can compete with the Germans, the French and the Japanese where it has been failing in the past.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that those figures were agreed and that the targets—if they are to be called targets; I do not like using that word—were worked out with the chemical and the mechanical engineering industries. They are not arbitrary figures brought down from on high by the Government but are figures agreed with the sector working parties and with the particular industries, and the sector working parties are operating on that basis.

I think I am correct in saying that the targets for the chemical industry in the original copy of the scenario of 4th August were not agreed with the chemical sector working party.

I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said. Obviously, he knows more about it than I do. My point was that these figures were not produced by the Government from on high to put before industrialists who were to be told "You have to get on and achieve this rate of growth." We said that this rate was desirable in the interests of achieving a proper balance of payments situation and an acceptable level of unemployment in 1979. We need to look at the problems of industry and the difficulties of arriving at that point.

It was always recognised that world trade might grow differently. I accept that when the medium-term industrial strategy was drawn up it was thought that world trade would increase at a faster rate than it has done. These matters are almost entirely outside our control. What is within our control—this is why the industrial strategy is important—is that many non-price factors are involved in the constraints on British industry. Why have we not been able to produce more? Why are our goods not competitive with those of Germany and Japan? What are the non-price elements involved? That is the important part of the industrial strategy, not the figures in Scenarios I or II. We need to sit down and work out at ground level, not on high, how we can improve the constraints which have inhibited British industry in the past from competing successfully.

I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to put the figures first, as it were, but to look upon the statistics as a background or framework within which to work. It seems to me that this is the only way that we shall get British industry back on its feet. We cannot do it by a return to the completely free market system which has been advocated by many Conservative Members. We may not be able to do it by having rigid planning from above in the way that the French did and were successful after the Second World War, because our national temperament and everything else are not equipped to do that. But, given that fact, I think that the only way to remove the constraints and improve the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry is by sitting down together in groups and considering product by product the quality of the goods which we are producing and putting on world markets. That is the object of an industrial strategy.

We accept that world trade will affect us. Inflation and all the other factors must be taken into account. But we should not be deflected from carrying on. There will not be a dramatic improvement next year. There will not be a dramatic announcement in three weeks to the effect that we have sorted out and solved the problems of British manufacturing industry. Part of people's impatience with the industrial strategy is that they expect dramatic announcements. It is all very well to announce a dramatic improvement in the balance of payments, but that does not mean that we have solved the problems of the British economy. They are more deep-seated than that. That is why the Government are embarking on this industrial strategy.

I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on these matters. I do not know whether there are any other points that he wishes to raise.

There is one point which ties up with what the Minister said about trying to get a down-to-earth view product by product and sector by sector. Will he bring in the third man—middle management—from out of the cold? Middle management has a different view from the directors of companies whom he meets with the TUC at the NEDC.

I do not accept that the third man is out in the cold. We are well aware of the problems of middle management and of all sections of industry. There is the problem of incentives for skilled workers in industry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we wished to assist in creating greater incentives for people in the middle bracket, whether they be called middle management or not, who may have been overlooked in the last few years. The Government give the highest priority to manufacturing industry because 80 per cent. of our exports come from that sector. Many people are employed in manufacturing industry. If our manufacturing industry goes downhill as fast as it has done over the last 10 years, there will be little hope in future of creating the kind of competitive growth economy which we all want to see.

Central Lancashire New Town

1.24 p.m.

I am grateful that Mr. Speaker has enabled this debate on the future of the Central Lancashire New Town to take place.

The new towns of post-war Britain have been amongst the most effective developments of their kind anywhere in the world. Our nation has successfully pioneered a positive approach to land planning and land assembly which has proved highly attractive to industrial and commercial developers. New town project have provided a better life for many thousands of people who previously lived in overcrowded areas. Thriving new communities have been established, and the programme is highly praised not only in this country but by a constant flow of visitors from abroad. Good standard accommodation which now houses three-quarters of a million people has been constructed in new towns. Some 18,000 firms have set up enterprises and brought over 160,000 jobs.

In short, the new town concept has demonstrated that the vision and boldness shown by the Labour Ministers in the Government of 1945 was rooted in sound common sense as well as political principle. The late Lewis Silkin, his successors, and disciples have influenced events and enriched lives in our community. In my view insufficient tribute has been paid to their achievements, though it is fair to add that others with differing political allegiances have contributed to the continuing success of the new town story.

My brief this afternoon is to focus attention on the Central Lancashire New Town, though I hope that before too long we shall decide on a more attractive and appropriate title for the development. My purpose is to dispel any doubts, hesitations or misunderstandings that might be associated with its future. At present, we await a decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the outline plan. The decision is long overdue. Indeed, it was expected that it would have been made about 12 months ago.

Perhaps I should make it clear that the situation is not that there has been an inquiry into whether there should be a new town or not. In fact, Central Lancashire received new town designation on 26th March 1970. The outline plan is about land assembly and land usage, but the delay in the outline plan decision is beginning to affect not just the activities of the Development Corporation but the natural momentum of development in the area.

The Central Lancashire area has proved remarkably resilient. Unemployment is consistently below the average for England and Wales and the North-West Region. Despite the recession, the Development Corporation has let virtually all the factories that it has built, and many under construction are pre-let. The British Aircraft Corporation's factories are flourishing, as are those of firms such as BTR and GEC. British Leyland truck and bus division has major plans for expansion in the pipeline, but the lack of a proper land use framework, which endorsement of the outline plan would provide, is beginning to inhibit a number of development proposals.

The paradoxical situation developing is that natural growth is being stifled in an area designated for accelerated growth. We just cannot afford, in the present economic situation and at a time when investment in new manufacturing industry is of the highest national importance, to allow delay over land use decisions to prevent vital new investment.

Another worrying effect of the delay is blight. The Development Corporation, in accordance with current practice, suggested a number of alternative routes for various roads. Inevitably, that kind of exercise creates a lot of uncertainty. It is likely to cause distress to individuals and create difficulties in house sales and purchases. There is evidence that, with the long delay, the consequences of this uncertainty are becoming more serious and may well lead to very heavy financial claims on the Corporation. All this could be avoided by a decision on the plan. A decision on the plan is not, I believe, likely to create new public expenditure, but rather to reduce it.

Another area where uncertainty is creating problems is in relation to agriculture. The Development Corporation has a large land bank and some hundreds of farmers farm land owned by the Corporation. Until the land use pattern is established, the Corporation can give them only annual licences. Once it is known which land will not be required in the near future, these can be converted into tenancies giving the farmers more security. Approval of the outline plan will allow the Corporation to consider a programme of farm improvements.

Regrettably, I think that there has been a great deal of confusion over the nature of the outline plan. Too many people think that it was an inquiry into whether there should be a new town or not and that the Minister's endorsement will somehow create new expenditure commitments. This is just not the case. The Department has complete control over the resources that it allocates to development corporations whether they have approved outline plans or not.

The case for the Central Lancashire New Town is overwhelming. Household formation continues and whatever policy changes are made, the drift of population from the conurbations will continue and the chronic unemployment problems of areas such as Merseyside, which must be remedied, will not change overnight. We are living in a very hard world and it would be criminal folly to inhibit the development of prosperous areas such as those around Preston containing industries whose export performance is vital for national survival.

The Central Lancashire New Town can spearhead a revitalisation of the whole region as well as catering for spontaneous growth in the central area.

Of course, the Central Lancashire development offers a bonus over the green field sites which were the starting points for the earlier generation of new towns as the scheme does not have to start from scratch. Thus advantage can be taken of the social capital that already exists in parts of the older towns. I have in mind particularly that older Chorley and Preston can be renewed as the new town areas are being developed.

Some steps towards urban renewal in the Chorley district are taking place, but a closer partnership between local authorities in the designated areas and the New Town Development Corporation must be created. One formula worthy of consideration is the introduction of joint staff working between borough and county councils and development boards. Progress has been made by an addition to the number serving on new town boards in order that members of local authorities can be accommodated. However, to some extent the formula is bedevilled by electoral changes and the fact that the nominees from the councils to the new town board do not directly represent the elected authorities. It should not be beyond our wit to devise an acceptable and democratic pattern of board membership.

There is a need, too, for a financial arrangment that will enable local authorities to meet the additional expense brought about by the new town undertakings. All the layers of local government welcome the impact of prosperity that will come from the advent of the CLNT. But it must be recognised that a development designed to superimpose a substantial new population on an existing community numbering 235,000 and living in an area covering 55 square miles, or 35,000 acres, will require good will, skill and financial ingenuity. Nevertheless, the fiscal consequences are trivial compared with the enormity of public spending that will be absorbed in tackling the problems of the inner cities. The new town programme can relieve many of these problems.

I should like to comment on the speech made in Manchester by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 17th September 1976. It was a first-class speech which presented the problems of the inner areas in lucid and decisive terms. Not surprisingly, sections of the Press misinterpreted it completely.

The Minister pointed out that most of those who have moved from the inner cities have gone to existing towns. Only 11—4 per cent. of the 140,000 who left the conurbation of Merseyside between 1966 and 1971 moved to new towns elsewhere in the region. The figure for Greater Manchester was even smaller. Nor has there been a massive loss of jobs in the inner areas because firms have moved out. The greatest cause of job loss and industrial decline in the inner areas has been the contraction of firms, their extinction, through loss of markets, or an inability to sell their goods in current economic circumstances.

In any case, it is the policy of Government to back winners, and all industries and firms will make their location decisions according to which is likely to produce the best return. It would be incredible folly to obstruct successful industrial advance and investment in one area because of unrelated problems in another. The Secretary of State has never advocated such a hazardous policy, and the record should be put straight. Of course, there are massive difficulties in resolving the problems of inner city decay, and my right hon. Friend expressed his determination to tackle the grim situation. The strategy being applied to the London Dockland is an indication of his concern and urgency of approach. There must be no conflict between the new towns and the inner urban areas, both of which are aspects of overall industrial and economic policy.

It is reasonable to ask how I justify my absolute faith in the success of the Central Lancashire New Town. I am confident that the developments and benefits which have already been brought to Lancashire and which would not otherwise have taken place will convince those who have doubts that the nation has in-indeed backed a winner by launching this exciting venture in the North-West.

The Development Corporation's advance factory programme so far consists of 18 factories let and occupied, totalling 140,000 sq ft; a further eight factories completed, totalling 102,000 sq ft, of which three are let, but not yet occupied; an additional 11 factories under construction, of which, already three are agreed to be let; and 22 factory units totalling 137,000 sq ft in the planning and design pipelines—to ensure vital continuity of factory availability.

Factories constructed privately on Development Corporation land comprise 80,000 sq ft under construction, and 6,000 sq ft already built, with 3,000 sq ft extensions now planned.

The first of the Development Corporation's advance factories became available only some 10 months ago, and the Corporation has plans for a regular annual programme of factory building of at least 150,000 sq ft a year.

Companies which are already in occupation of new Corporation factories, or new factories on Corporation land, and those which have agreed leases but not yet occupied property, have an initial programme to provide 450 jobs. The companies estimate that expansion already foreseen will take that total to at least 600.

Of the factory jobs already created, over 400 come not simply from outside the new town area but either from outside the whole of the North-West Region, or, alternatively, represent brand new business ventures. This must represent one of the most valuable economic benefits which the new town can bring to the North-West. It is interesting to note that up-to-date figures contradict the theory that the CLNT is drawing and draining population from Merseyside. In fact, only 3·1 per cent. of the applications for housing emerge from Merseyside, while 7·1 per cent. are from the South-East Region.

In addition to factory jobs, the housing and civil engineering contracts generated by the Corporation are estimated to provide in excess of 1,000 jobs for construction trades workers, and with the Corporation's own staff and the indirect generation of new jobs caused by the additional wage and salary inputs, there can be no doubt that the Corporation's activities have already led to the creation of at least 2,000 additional jobs in the area. The Corporation has announced that its current level of industrial inquiries is running at a rate almost three times as high as that experienced in 1975.

The Corporation is making a general contribution to the prosperity of not only the designated area but the county as a whole. There is plenty of evidence of beneficial spin-off in the surrounding towns. While movement of industry and people within the county cannot be prevented, the Corporation's primary concern is with new growth. Lancashire must compete with other regions and, indeed, countries for new industrial growth. It cannot afford not to maximise the attractions of the best strategic areas.

Before assembling the material for this debate, I spoke to trade union officers and members. I held conversations with local authority officials in the designated area and with leading local industrialists. I exchanged views with the editor of the Chorley Guardian and representatives of the Lancashire Evening Post. So far as was possible in the limited time available, I endeavoured to secure the views of a wide section of the concerned community. Without exception there was approval and enthusiasm for the new town. Naturally some suggested that the programme could be spread over a longer period. One or two proposed that the Runshaw district, on an attractive undulating feature, should be preserved. Indeed, the editor of the Chorley Guardian is conducting a campaign to secure allies to preserve that area of land. But all preferred a planned and co-ordinated development, rather than the squalid sprawl that has scarred so many towns in Lancashire.

It is vitally important that the bus and truck division of British Leyland—the prosperous end of the enterprise—should receive the go-ahead for its extension programme, which will include an assembly hall, a foundry, research facilities, new test beds, and new jobs for some 2,000 workers. This programme is dependent on the provision of essential road links to the motorway system as shown in the outline plan.

I quote a letter that I have received from the Chief Executive Officer of the South Ribble Borough Council, which demonstrates the anxiety felt in the area of the delay in announcing a decision.
"The problems for South Ribble because of the delay in the Secretary of State's decision, are far more acute in my view than anywhere else within the designated area, because of the Truck and Bus Division of British Leyland's proposals to invest a further £35 million in new facilities for Research and Development assembly etc., for the launching of a new truck early in the 1980s to compete with the world market.
Critically linked to this development is the construction of the Farington Link Road to provide improved access facilities to the new assembly hall etc.
In addition the future development of existing 'white area' land could be inhibited in connection with this development, also because of the delay by the Secretary of State. It is also true to say that other significant developments may well be adversely affected because of the then lengthier planning proceedures and the absence of the Outline Plan, involving Public Inquiries. Other significant developments that could well be affected in the centre of Leyland for the first and second phases of the Town Centre development not only to serve existing population but on possible projected development. Other urban redevelopments by large private investors are also critically linked to the Secretary of State's decision on the Outline Plan".
I received that letter only last Friday.

The BTR company has demolished existing buildings to facilitate the construction, but the new development which would provide industrial opportunities, employment prospects and housing construction hinges on the long-awaited decision on the outline plan. There is considerable expense involved in the conduct of public inquires, which have become necessary only because of the long delay. Many of the inquiries are in fact a repetition of inquiries which took place when the outline plan was originally submitted.

Around the perimeter of the new town boundary there is an area of planning blight between two and five miles wide. Activity in this zone is stultified as all proposed development must be referred to the new town corporation which cannot respond adequately in the absence of a firm decision by the Minister.

It is appreciated that economic circumstances might mean a change in the pace of the programme and in the scale of development. However, it appears that there are no powers to wind up a development corporation before it has substantially completed its task. That would require an Act of Parliament. The confirmation of the order would be enormously helpful. Certainly the announcement will stimulate investment, industrial activity, and job opportunities.

In view of the importance of an early and favourable decision to the economic wellbeing of the whole of the North-Western Region, I look to my hon. Friend who will answer the debate to enlighten the House on the Government's intentions. His recent visit to Central Lancashire did much to encourage the enthusiastic but somewhat bewildered staff at the new town headquarters. A positive response will also have the effect of dissolving doubts and suspicions amongst the many who are eager to see a generating of prosperity in a region that has more than its share of environmental and industrial problems.

1.42 p.m.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) on his selection of subject for this Adjournment debate and I am pleased to have the opportunity of taking part in it.

The hon. Member said that the staff of the Central Lancashire New Town were bewildered by the delays that we are now suffering. The people who live within and just outside the boundaries, as they are likely to be, are also bewildered. I hope that the Minister fully understands that the delay in this case of making known the decisions on the future of the new town, in the view of those suffering from the delay, is unreasonable and intolerable.

Their anxiety is the anxiety of people who want to know what will happen to their individual futures and to the future of this area, which is vital to Lancashire and to the whole country. By Written Question, I asked when the Minister would make up his mind. He was good enough to give me a reply on Monday of this week, saying that I would have a reply on the decision as soon as possible. Why can we not have an answer today? Why can we not know today the future of the new town? That would be a Christmas message to cheer us up. These people are distressed. They are suffering from blight on their land and from an inability to make their personal and vital plans for the future.

I am sure that most hon. Members will share the great respect and admiration—and, indeed, friendship—that I feel for the Chairman of the Central Lancashire New Town Corporation, Sir Frank Pearson. However, after some reflection and experience, I would say responsibly that I do not think that he is always well served by those officials with the duty of meeting and negotiating with members of the public.

When I came to the constituency and fought the 1970 General Election I found many people who, if not enthusiastic, were not openly hostile to the concept of the new town. Now, in places like Penwortham, Grimsargh and Haighton, I find hardly a friend of the Central Lancashire New Town. If there are people there who support it, I have the greatest difficulty in finding them.

The Corporation, like all others, is an unelected and undemocratic body which, provided that it stays within the strict but wide limits of the law, can behave as autocratically as it likes. It therefore has a particular duty to be sensitive to the aspirations and ambitions of those who live within its boundaries. Instead, my constituents complain, with a frequency which is becoming extraordinary, about what they call the ham-fisted approach of officials.

Reflecting my constituents' views, as I am seeking to do, I would say that in Penwortham, where the Corporation is putting up houses of a character that they do not like, and in Grimsargh and Haighton, where people believe—I think rightly—that the land should be left for agriculture, they are depressed by the thought that they can no longer rely on the Corporation to act on their wishes. They must therefore look to the Government to see that, for example, development in Penwortham is restricted and ultimately brought to a stop and that Grimsargh and Haighton are not left within the boundaries of the new town.

1.49 p.m.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) for raising this subject and for the interesting speech he made about the Central Lancashire New Town. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). Many of the points made have a bearing upon the Development Corporation's outline plan, which is, of course, formally before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his decision. As hon. Members will appreciate, in these circumstances I must refrain from commenting on the merits of any of the arguments put forward that reflect upon features of the outline plan.

I understand the points made by my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman about the consequences of delay, and I assure them that I have taken careful note of everything that has been said in the debate. I shall consider each individual point, although I hope it is understood that I cannot comment on many of them now.

I can well understand the frustration arising from the delay in an announcement about the future of the new town—frustration felt not only by industrialists who want to expand in the area but also by people who might be affected by the various development proposals in the outline plan and by the Development Corporation's as yet unconfirmed compulsory purchase orders.

In the light of what has been said, I should explain the reasons for that delay. The outline plan necessarily has to be considered in the context of future policy for new towns as a whole. Following the speech about inner cities made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in Manchester on 17th September, a reappraisal of the rôle of new towns is taking place as part of a review of the policies which, since the war, have favoured dispersal of population from the inner areas of our conurbations. I am sure my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that such a reappraisal is timely. It is a recognition of the country's changing needs and in particular of the special problems facing inner cities. This review is being undertaken with all possible speed, but by its very nature the subject is extremely complex and wide in its scope—particularly as it is necessary to include a look at the factors that have led to the voluntary and unplanned exodus, which accoun