Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 975: debated on Wednesday 12 December 1979

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

House Of Commons

Wednesday 12 December 1979

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Oral Answers To Questions

I remind the House that brief supplementary questions are essential if we are to make progress.

Environment

Leasehold Reform Act

1.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to reform the Leasehold Reform Act.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales told the House on 3 December in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), the Housing Bill will contain proposals whereby valuation disputes arising under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 will be referred in the first instance to local leasehold valuation tribunals.

We are considering other aspects of leasehold reform but are not yet in a position to make a statement.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there are more leasehold properties in Wales than in many other parts of Britain? In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Government consider setting up a special inquiry, or a Royal Commission, to look into the whole affair?

I think it would be wiser if we waited to see what happens when the valuation disputes proceed through the new proposal that we have made. There are, after all, a substantial number of similar properties outside the Principality.

Is the Minister contemplating extending rights under the Leasehold Reform Act to flats? Has he any such proposals? Is he also considering the removal of rateable value limits? Does he realise that the limits can cause considerable hardship?

I have little to add to the original answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). All I can say is that the Act at present applies only to houses for technical, legal reasons. We want to look at the question of extension to leases of flats in the longer term. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a complex position.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of my constituents are not covered by the Leasehold Reform Act because they are in Crown Estate property? Will he initiate discussions to see whether they can be brought in some way, if not by legislation?

That is a different angle from the original question. I shall certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Will the Minister reconsider the five-year limit on eligibility? Will he say why the Government opposed a formula for enfranchisement?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait in patience a little longer.

County Boundaries

2.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to provide for minor changes to county boundaries to be made by statutory instrument in cases where there is general local approval of any proposed change.

The Local Government Act 1972 already empowers my right hon. Friend to make orders for changes in local government boundaries in accordance with proposals made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Does that reply include county boundaries? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the irrelevance of some county boundary lines, which run through newly created estates across streets and even through individual properties could, and should, be changed by speedier and simpler methods, especially where there is overwhelming local consent for this to be done? Is he aware that examples exist between the London borough of Barnet and Hertfordshire.

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the power exists at the moment. Where there is general agreement and there are exceptional circumstances, it is open to my right hon. Friend to make an order for this to be done. Fresh legislation is not required.

British Lions (Foreign Tours)

3.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his discussions with the rugby unions of Scotland, England and Wales on proposed tours of South Africa.

The home rugby unions are fully aware of the Government's stance on proposed tours to and from South Africa as set out in our press statement of 14 September. This was again made clear during my recent informal meeting with the chairman of the tours committee.

Is not British participation in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games jeopardised?

We hope that anyone responsible for staging such a tour is aware of all the possible implications. Rugby is not an Olympic sport. The rugby unions are not affiliated to the British Olympic Association. It is for the International Olympic Committee to decide which countries should participate in the Games.

Will my hon. Friend state why he has adopted this attitude to proposed tours in South Africa.? Would he not agree that taking tours to South Africa can educate the peole of South Africa and speed up the processes that are already taking place in that country? If he does accept the attitude that he has expressed—I find it difficult to believe that he really does—how can he agree to the holding of the Olympic Games in one of the most barbaric and totalitarian countries in the world?

The Government's position was made clear in our statement of 14 September. We shall discuss possible changes with our Commonwealth colleagues if or when sufficient progress has been made towards the integration of sport in South Africa.

Is the Minister aware that yesterday evening a meeting took place in the House between representatives of the home tours committee of the Rugby Football Union and the sports group of the Parliamentary Labour Party at which it was indicated to us that no decision has yet been taken on the proposed tour? Will the Minister prevail upon the rugby authorities not to undertake the tour, bearing in mind that it is necessary to honour the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Gleneagles agreement?

The rugby unions can be in no doubt of the Government's position. It was set out in my September letter and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release of 14 September.

Why are the Government involved in the matter at all? What have they to do with sport?

The Government are concerned to implement the Commonwealth agreement. We have made our position clear to the rugby unions.

Is the Minister aware that his strong, sensible, intelligent and civilised stand will be supported by all my right hon. and hon. Friends? Is it not the case that the Olympic Games is the only occasion on which the youth of the world from 146 nations, irrespective of their backgrounds—political, racial or religious—come together freely? Is that not something which we ought to treasure and preserve rather than surrender? Does the Minister also agree that one sport has no right to jeopardise the thousands of hours of dedicated training put in by hundreds of our finest sportsmen and women, and jeopardise their chances of representing themselves and their country at the Olympic Games? Finally—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Show the right hon. Gentleman the red card."]—

Order. It is the red card for the right hon. Gentleman. He must know that the same rules apply to Front Bench spokesmen as to Back Benchers. Perhaps he will conclude his question. Let us say that I have shown him a yellow card.

With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, when I was a referee I always took provocation into account.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister agree that it would be the greatest disservice to the Commonwealth if rugby tours to South Africa ended the Commonwealth Games or turned them once more into whites-only games?

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I know that many sporting bodies share his fears about the future. I am sure that the rugby unions will have heard what has been said in the House and will bear it in mind in their decision on any invitation to tour South Africa.

New Towns (Commercial And Industrial Assets)

4.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of the sales of commercial and industrial assets owned by new town development corporations and the New Towns Commission to date.

17.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on developments on the sale of commercial property in new towns.

In the present financial year industrial and commercial assets worth almost £4 million have so far been sold. The sale of assets worth another £24·5 million has been agreed but not finalised, and other assets valued at about £43 million are on the market.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many tenants of industrial properties, particularly small business men, whom his party promised to help, are up in arms against his policy? Does he recognise that small business men are not permitted to buy individual units when they form part of an estate, but are told that the estate must be sold as one unit? Is he also aware that they are not allowed to buy as sitting tenants, but have to put in a bid, which means that their property may be bought over their heads? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about those problems or recognise that the Government are striking a blow at many small business men who have worked to build up their businesses for many years in my constituency and others like it?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the small industrial community. I have ensured that guidelines are available in the disposal programme so that the small business owner gets every reasonable chance, subject to considerations of national financial concern, to buy his own property.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the new town in my constituency and in other new towns about the policy of selling commercial property? Is he further aware that the profitable enterprises will be snapped up and the remainder will be left to be added to the burden of the public purse? Does he agree that the principles of the private Stevenage Development Authority Bill, which is before the House, are of major importance and worthy of the Government's support?

The Stevenage Bill is in conflict with Government policy and we shall oppose it on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are determined to widen ownership in this country and our policy is in line with what we were elected to achieve.

Will my right hon. Friend note that, contrary to the remarks of Labour Members, many of us who represent new towns believe that his proposals are welcome to sitting tenants? Will he give us a categorical assurance that he will make every effort to throw out the Stevenage Bill, which is a weasel designed to transfer resources to district councils?

Given the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am optimistic about the last part of the question. I have no doubt that the announcement that we intend to offer for sale properties in new towns has been widely welcomed by those who will now have an opportunity to own their properties direct.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are a number of local authorities that have the best reasons for wanting to purchase some of the assets currently in the ownership of new town development corporations or the New Towns Commission, because without being able to do so, and particularly without being able to gain the freehold on town centres, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out the sort of redevelopment work that they may need to do in future? That is possible in areas that have not been predominantly under the ownership of new towns.

Different powers are needed for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind and it is our intention to ensure that those reasonable powers are available to local atuhorities.

What advice has the Secretary of State received from the new town chairmen about the advantages to the community of selling the assets leasehold rather than freehold? How and when does he propose to respond to that advice?

We have discussed the matter. The arguments for selling leasehold or freehold have been well rehearsed and are known to all hon. Members. The Government's view is that we should sell freehold wherever possible.

Council House Sales

5.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public expenditure implications of his policy on the sale of council houses.

I intend to publish an appraisal of the financial effects of the sale of council houses for the parliamentary consideration of the forthcoming housing Bill.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that over a period of about 20 years the short-term gains from selling council houses could be converted into a loss of about £8,500 per house? Does he accept that his policy of selling council houses is denying homes to many couples and families in high-rise flats? Does he also agree that, by failing to give similar purchase rights to private tenants, he is busily supporting the principle of private affluence and public squalor?

If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in the figures, I do not understand why he did not press his own Government to publish the figures that were obviously available to them. As I, unlike Ministers in the previous Government, am to publish a detailed assessment of the matter, it would seem reasonable to await publication before trying to analyse the contents.

Will my right hon. Friend be in no way deterred from implementing our election pledge on the sale of council houses? Does he recognise that by implementing that pledge at the earliest date we shall be fulfilling the dreams of tens of thousands of would-be council house buyers?

My hon. Friend puts the matter extremely accurately. I am sure that those buyers will understand that we are implementing our policy in the teeth of Labour opposition.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the problem that he is introducing for local authorities when he instructs them to curtail expenditure? As a consequence of the Government's policy, more manpower will be required by local authorities in facilitating transactions for the sale of council houses. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make allowances to local authorities in their public expenditure to offset the burdens that he is imposing upon them?

I am sure that all local authorities will wish to make their own judgments on where the priorities for expenditure lie. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the authorities that have already sold council houses on a considerable scale have often produced large revenue surpluses as a consequence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures on which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has made his judgment are based on the assumption that rents will rise in line with inflation, which has never happened? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is now pushing the idea of increasing council rents all round.

I am sure that many hon. Members have come to regard with some suspicion the figures upon which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) bases his judgment.

Does the Secretary of State intend to sell, or persuade people to buy, at least one-third of the total stock of municipal houses? If that is so, is he aware that existing statistics indicate that rents will increase by one-quarter. Does that worry him?

If I were able to persuade one-third of council tenants to buy their homes, I should add 2 million owners to the present total. I should regard that as a remarkable achievement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the position in Southampton, where some tenants have been waiting for one year to 18 months to buy their council homes? Is he further aware that, through no fault of their own, their homes have been revalued in the meantime and the properties are costing between £2,000 and £3,000 more than the original verbal agreement? Is my right hon. Friend considering taking steps to reduce that problem? Is he finding that some local authorities' staff are slowing down the process through dogma?

I ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the Bill, which will answer his question clearly. There are two ways in which delays may take place. The first is administrative delay, which I deeply regret although in some circumstances it is understandable. What is totally unforgivable is the wholly doctrinal and dogmatic position of Opposition Members.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a crucial ingredient of the public expenditure implications of the sale of council houses is the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief on mortgage interest payments? Is he further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told me that it is impossible to make a meaningful estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the tax relief on the sale of any given number of council houses? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is not possible to make such an estimate, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do so?

I find the right hon. Gentleman's question difficult to square with the fact that we understand that a detailed paper was put to Ministers in the previous Administration which achieved exactly that purpose. Perhaps the question offers an answer that is important to the House. When I produce my financial analysis the House will realise that, according to the figures fed into the assumptions, so the results will vary dramatically. As one looks ahead for many years, one can make more or less whatever judgment one likes. That is purely a matter of personal opinion. It is for that reason, presumably, that the Labour Government considered the matter and decided that it was not worth publishing an estimate.

Local Authorities (Manpower)

6.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of local authority staff numbers.

On 8 September 1979, the joint manpower watch figures, published today, showed 2,092,271 full-time equivalent staff in local authorities in England and Wales. This figure represents a decrease of 11,871 full-time equivalent staff since June 1979, but is still 18,185 up on the figure for September 1978.

Does not that put into perspective the outlandish scares about severe cuts in services, since councils are employing more staff than they were at this time last year? Currently it appears that the figure for the employment of local authority staff is standing at an all-time high.

I hope that all hon. Members, especially those who are most profuse in their complaints about the severe effects of cuts on local government, will take the opportunity to study the joint manpower watch figures published today. They will find that across a wide category of employment in local authorities there is a continuing increase in employment, even though we asked for a curb on further recruitment in the interests of economy.

Is the Minister willing to admit that the reason why there has not been a dramatic reduction in the number of staff employed by local authorities is that even Conservative-controlled local authorities are now standing out in opposition to the Government's policies, which are attacking local authorities and requiring them to cut services? Is he also aware that within local government, especially among Conservative councillors, there is a strong feeling that the Government's proposals to pay local authority chairmen and to reintroduce political honours is a cynical and mercenary attempt by the Government to buy off Tory councillors who are opposed to the Government's policies?

In terms of the reductions that we are seeking, the cuts are nothing like as savage as those that were imposed on local authorities when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was Secretary of State for the Environment. The right hon. Gentleman imposed them as a result of the IMF cuts, and they had to be effected within that year. Part of the problem that we now face is that, having earlier recognised the need for economy, the right hon. Gentleman positively invited further recruitment last year, and invited local authorities to plan for growth. That was a totally irresponsible call in the light of the national economic position.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, notwithstanding the argument of the hon. Member for Bootle, (Mr. Roberts), one of the restraining factors in the attempt to reduce local government staff is the determination of certain Labour authorities to carry on as though nothing has changed, and to increase staff by 200 or 300 over the next year?

We hear some well publicised statements from some authorities, but I think that the great majority of responsible authorities now recognise the seriousness of the position. We still have a considerable way to go, but I hope that the figures represent a start. We shall look to local authorities in the coming months. As further figures come forward, we hope to see further encouraging trends.

Urban Development Corporations

7.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to establish further urban development corporations other than those in Liverpool and London.

I have no plans to set up urban development corporations other than in Merseyside and in London Docklands.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he realise that many local authorities would dearly love powers similar to the UDCs for themselves, to enable them to cut through red tape and get on with the job?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that my proposals have been widely welcomed on both sides of the House and by a wide audience outside.

Does the Secretary of State recall a speech that he made in Liverpool in March or April of this year, when he said that the re-election of a Labour Government would no doubt mean the establishment of yet another quango to try to sort out the problems of Liverpool's dockland? What has suddenly brought about this great change of mind? Is he further aware that there are now 11 different agencies trying to sort out the problems of inner-city Liverpool? Will he say what accountability there will be on the part of the new UDC, and how much it will cost—

Order. It is quite clear that there are hon. Members who were not in the Chamber at the beginning of Question Time, when I appealed for brief supplementary questions to enable other hon. Members to be called.

I have never believed that everything that the Labour Party proposes is wrong—it is just that it usually is.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that private enterprise will come to the docks in Liverpool and London only if there are special financial inducements or tax advantages? Is it proposed that the urban development corporations will offer such inducements?

The urban development corporation proposals are included in a Bill which is shortly to come before the House. We shall have the opportunity in a wide-ranging debate to consider exactly what powers and areas should be considered as appropriate to the urban development corporations. I believe that we should wait until then before making any final decisions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all the experience of the new town movement suggests that the worst thing he could possibly do would be to set up urban development corporations in the teeth of local authority opposition in the areas concerned?

There are 5,000 acres of derelict land in the centre of London and 500 acres of such land on Merseyside. Unless we take the steps that I propose, that land will continue to be derelict.

Public Sector Housing (Rural Areas)

8.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the present levels of public sector rented housing are retained in all rural areas.

It is for local housing authorities to determine the appropriate levels of council house building in their areas within their capital allocations.

Will the Minister explain the apparent conflict between his right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Is he aware that farmers are being reassured that there will be no problems since relatively few rural homes will be sold? Does he agree that the purchase of many such houses will be sought, this creating severe problems in maintaining a social balance and an adequate rural economy?

The answer lies in the statistics collected by the Labour Government as a result of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The number of lettings made to those being rehoused under that Act amounted to half of 1 per cent. of the total number of relettings in rural areas.

Why, in rural areas as elsewhere, is the Secretary of State allowing council houses to be sold at values well below the cost of building them? Is the Minister aware that during the election campaign his right hon. Friend categorically stated that the Conservative Party could not agree to the purchase of homes based on values below the cost of building them? Why has he broken his word?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the consultation paper, he will be aware that the cost floor applies to all dwellings that have been completed since 1 April 1974.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the desire for home ownership is as great in rural areas as it is elsewhere?

Has the Minister noticed that whenever local authority houses are sold in rural areas they tend to fall into the hands of retired people from urban areas or of those who want second homes? Working-class families who live in rural areas are deprived of the opportunity of owning such houses. Why do the Government hold working-class people in rural areas in such total contempt?

The overwhelming evidence is that those who buy their council houses do so with the intention of staying in them.

Inner City Areas

9.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the expertise and knowledge acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.

21.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the knowledge and expertise acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.

The urban development corporations which I propose to set up for London and Merseyside Docklands will be modelled on the new town development corporations. Several of the new towns are setting a useful example through the improvement of the older settlements now absorbed into their areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. Does he agree that considerable benefit can be gained by involving private capital and private ownership at an earlier rather than a later stage in the development?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that that is one of the essential litmus papers by which the success of UDCs will be judged.

The Minister knows that 8,000 houses await completion in my constituency as part of the Beckton district plan. Will he give that plan the go-ahead and confirm the Docklands strategic plan so that regeneration may go ahead as soon as possible?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Beckton plan is an independent proceeding. I am anxious to bring as much urgency as I can to the development of Docklands.

Will my right hon. Friend consider forming an old town corporation run on new town corporation lines for inner areas where local authorities and national undertakings are hoarding land and leaving that land sterile and derelict?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I think that he has defined exactly what the urban development corporations will do.

Local Authorities (Manpower)

10.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with local authority leaders regarding the publication of individual staffing figures, authority by authority.

The Department is discussing with the local authority associations how the central and local government joint manpower watch might be extended to publish centrally manpower figures for all individual local authorities. We have also invited them to discuss what manpower and other figures might be published locally.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the figures are made publicly available, individual authority by individual authority, so that ratepayers may know which authorities are increasing their staff levels at a time of restraint?

It is extremely important that the House, local authorities, councillors and local electors should have this information. I was unable to reply more fully to an earlier question about the performance of different local authorities in making economies because at present the information is aggregated and it is not possible to form selective judgments. Local electors are unable to form an informed judgment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he used to argue that public expenditure cuts were required to get the Government off the backs of the people? He then argued that they were necessary because of the economic situation. Is he now saying that there are no real cuts? Does he believe in keeping good public services?

I have tried to make it clear to the House—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me—that we must call for improved economies. The economies that have been made in certain areas have been used by a number of Labour Members as an excuse to make extravagant claims about the extent of the economies that are being asked for. Extremely worrying allegations have been made that have disturbed many people. The allegations were not true. I am not seeking to conceal the fact that economies are necessary. I merely wish them to be understood in their true perspective.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in local government quality is required and not quantity? Large local staffs do not necessarily bring the greatest benefits. We want fewer but better public services.

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's argument. That is why we think it important initially to call for a freeze on local government recruitment and to pursue that policy so that electors may know what is happening to the staffing levels of local authorities. My hon. Friend will have noticed, in an answer I gave which appeared in Hansard recently, that in the past 15 years employment in local authorities has increased from 1·5 million to 2·6 million. I accept that there are some good reasons for that increase. However, it poses a number of questions—for instance, whether the increase was justified in some areas.

What relevance do the figures have if they are not related to the needs of certain areas? Surely that is the factor which determines the number of staff necessary in a certain area.

The greatest value of the figures will be to reveal movements within individual authorities. I accept that it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between the employment levels of various authorities which may serve different levels of population. However, the figures will be helpful to individual electors in individual areas. They will be able to know what is happening to the movement of recruitment and employment within their authority.

Opencast Mining (Hindley Green)

11.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that there will be no adverse environmental conditions created by his decision to allow a five-year extension to mine opencast coal at the Albert site in Hindley Green.

The letter giving my right hon. Friend's decision on this appeal sets out his conclusion that the need of the National Coal Board for the continued use of the Albert disposal point outweighs the traffic effects and other environmental objections. However, because of these objections, the life of the disposal point has been extended to November 1984 only.

Is the Minister aware that the decision made by his right hon. Friend to grant planning permission on the site, despite the fact that the county and district authorities have opposed it, has enraged my constituents who live in the Hindley Green area? Is he aware that when the site is fully operational there will be 24 lorries an hour leaving the site and heaving up and down the roads in my constituency? How can the hon. Gentleman justify a decision that will lead to great stress and hardship to those living in and around the area, who are sick and fed up of their environment being continually abused?

My right hon. Friend took into account all the matters that were brought to the inspector's notice. It is a temporary decision. In five years it is hoped that the NCB will find a more acceptable site. There were seven conditions attached to the decision, the seventh being that only 20 per cent. of the coal should be removed by road.

Development Commission

12.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has, relating to the future of the Development Commission and its associated organisation, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas; and if he will make a statement.

The functions of the Development Commission and COSIRA are currently under review.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those organisations are very important, particularly in rural areas, that they need adequate resources, that it is totally in line with Conservative policy to help small businesses, and that occasionally there is a real case for having seed corn?

I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and I know the value that many hon. Members place on the work done by the Development Commission and COSIRA. We are conducting a quick review, which I hope will be completed within the first two months of next year. We recognise the role that the Development Commission and COSIRA have played. On funding, we are anxious to find ways to encourage their work, other than through public resources, and I am encouraged by the response that the Development Commission has received. I understand that it is likely to get access to substantial funds from the private sector and from clearing banks, and that could be of great benefit. That is important in achieving our social and employment objectives without the restraint that may arise from public expenditure cuts.

Does the Minister recognise that frequently the biggest problem facing those who wish to set up a small enterprise in a rural area is that of obtaining industrial premises? Does the Minister accept the necessity of providing industrial estates where premises can be rented cheaply, such as were previously provided by new town corporations and which the Secretary of State now proposes to sell off?

I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman managed to drag new town corporations into the subject of industry in rural areas. There is a problem as regards premises, and many district councils are helping to support the installation of small new industrial estates. We also attach great importance to the use of existing buildings in rural areas. The Secretary of State and I have stressed to the planning authorities that they should allow better use of existing buildings, such as farm buildings, that are suitable for small industrial purposes.

Could not the grant-aided functions of COSIRA and the Development Commission be undertaken by the Department of Trade? Are not both of those organisations quangos which should go?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the Department of Trade would be the most obvious home for those activities. However, we are reviewing their operation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are concerned about the problems affecting rural areas and we are keeping these alternative propositions in mind.

Is the Minister aware that the Development Commission and COSIRA are held in high regard for the work that they have done? Does he recognise that that has been achieved because of Government aid? Is not the review a way of getting out of giving Government help? The right hon. Gentleman claims that private funds are available, but I doubt that very much.

We wish to discover how the rural areas can be helped most effectively. The obsession of Labour Members with public help has been a positive hindrance to making real improvements in rural areas. As I have said, the Development Commission, with our encouragement, has now found ways of increasing the funds available to it, by enlisting private sector financial support. Many of the projects in which COSIRA and the Development Commission are involved are perfectly viable and do not necessarily need to be funded purely from public funds.

Tenants (Right Of Purchase)

13.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now completed his study of the possibility of providing a statutory right of purchase for private and housing association tenants; and if he will make a statement.

Regarding private tenants, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on 11 June. As far as housing association tenants are concerned, we shall provide wide powers to enable housing associations to sell to sitting tenants, and are still considering to what extent such powers might be combined with a right to buy.

Is the Minister aware that that is an entirely unsatisfactory answer. Is he further aware that it is totally reprehensible for a Government who are supposedly committed to home ownership to apply double standards as regards a person's right to buy? The Government are acting like a tame pussy cat about private owners but like a dictator towards local authorities. Does he appreciate that the Government are making the housing tasks of those authorities very difficult?

On our best estimate, over the past 40 years, 800,000 private tenants have purchased their homes from landlords. I only wish that Labour councils had furthered the cause of home ownership to the same extent among their tenants.

Will my hon. Friend consider allowing tenants of private blocks of flats a collective right to purchase, when that block comes on to the market?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He has made strong representations to us as have other of my hon. Friends, and we are certainly considering that point.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether tenants who have lived in privately owned houses for a long time, and who have spent thousands of pounds in making those properties habitable, should be given statutory authority to purchase those homes?

The Government have the right to dispose only of assets that are in public ownership.

If the Minister is not prepared to give general consent so that all private tenants can become home owners, does he accept the principle that those who are living in homes where landlords will not provide inside sanitation should have the right to serve notice on those landlords of their intention to acquire the property and so become home owners and do the improvements themselves?

There are certain circumstances under existing legislation where privately rented property can be compulsorily improved. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the consultation paper on improvements, he will see that arrangements are being made whereby property can be improved on a piecemeal basis. That will make the basic improvements, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, easier to undertake.

May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), namely that where blocks of flats are sold, particularly in inner city areas, tenants should collectively be given the opportunity, under the new legislation, to match the price of a particular transaction? After all, it is their homes that are involved.

My hon. Friend has already written to us on that point and we are considering the matter.

Now that the Minister has come out of hiding and admitted that the sale of council houses is part of a policy of disposing of public assets, rather than assisting home ownership, now that he has asserted that he does not wish those who live in privately tenanted houses to be able to buy them, and as lie has not given a commitment that tenants of housing associations will be given the right to buy—although they are public sector tenants—does he agree that the Government are simply pursuing a vendetta against local authorities?

With regard to housing association tenants, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to await the details that will be found in the Bill when it is published. Only the right hon. Gentleman could conclude that the policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants does not encourage home ownership.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

14.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from local authorities to his request for economies in local government spending in 1980–81.

Local authorities have not yet completed their plans for 1980–81. However, the local authority associations have assured me that the economies which we are seeking can be achieved.

I am grateful for that generally encouraging reply. What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take over authorities such as the London borough of Lambeth, which have expressed their unwillingness to co-operate with his calls for economy?

I shall ask the House to give me powers to deal with those authorities which have flagrantly and consistently ignored the Government's request for proper and prudent management of their affairs.

Does the Secretary of State agree that enormous economies have already been made in local government during the last four or five years? Has it not now reached the point where any further economies will lead to the public being deprived of services to which they are entitled?

In one respect I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, capital expenditure by local authorities was gravely reduced on a wide basis. Of course, on staff levels, as my right hon. Friend has said, we now have a situation where we have the largest ever number of people employed in local government, subject only to the change that my hon. Friend has just announced.

Will my right hon. Friend note the shining example of the borough of Preston, which reduced its rates from 32p to 8p in the pound, which reduction was brought about, among other things, by a reduction in staff without hardship or heartbreak? Will he offer that as an example to the London boroughs of Lambeth and Haringey as a way in which they could reduce their staff and rates to the benefit of their ratepayers?

It would be very difficult for me to improve on my hon. Friend's contribution.

Is it not time that Ministers stopped shedding crocodile tears about the role of the voluntary bodies, and in particular stopped urging local authorities to continue their support for them while at the same time cutting off the essential funds that make it possible for that to happen?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Labour Party voted so often for policies of that sort that they must have become used to it by now.

Building Regulations

15.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the persons and organisations who have submitted evidence to him in connection with his review of the building regulations.

We have received comments from a wide variety of people and organisations. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall place a list in the Library, excluding, of course, those private individuals who wrote in confidence.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he give the House some indication as to when we can expect some liberalising of the building regulations because many industrialists in particular find that building regulations are a gross inconvenience in relation to the future development of their industries?

I hope that it will not be too long. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that, although a variety of comments have been received, all agree that building control needs substantial change.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the minimum standards of thermal insulation will be uprated rather than removed?

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we recognise that energy conservation is a vitally important issue, for which provision will be made.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

16.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the efforts of local authorities to control their expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14 November to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in which I welcomed the assurance I had received from the local authority associations about the co-operation of the vast majority of authorities.

In the light of the concern about local government waste and failure to trim unnecessary expenditure, will my right hon. Friend perhaps give his moral support to the creation of "fiscal vigilantes", comprised of local people, such as has been started in respect of the Birmingham housing corporation, to keep an eye on local government expenditure? Does he not consider that local ratepayers are perhaps the best people of all to point out what they consider to be misdemeanours in expenditure matters by their own local authorities?

My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The answer that I would give him is simply that the powers that we shall seek from Parliament is the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill will enable us to ensure that a wide range of information about the performance of individual authorities is available, which will enable local people and the local press to make much more informed judgments upon such matters than they are currently able to do.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is deep anxiety among county and borough councillors about the financial proposals in the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill that will shortly come before the House? Will he have serious consultations with the local authorities before that monstrous Bill is presented?

I think that it is now too late to promise further consultations with the local authorities, but we shall now have the widest possible consultation process, which is what the procedures of this House are all about.

Will my right hon. Friend offer his unqualified support to the anti-waste drives that have been launched by a number of newspapers, such as the Leicester Mercury, in areas where local government waste is apparent at the moment?

It adds to the strength of local democracy if local people and the local press become involved in the debate about the wide range of options for reducing public expenditure. I have no doubt whatever that there are a considerable number of areas where local authorities can reduce public expenditure on a scale that has not yet been requested.

If the right hon. Gentleman believes that local people are the best people to decide what they want, why is he and the Government interfering with that right by imposing policies on those local authorities which the local people freely elected to do the things that they wanted to be done?

Because the policies that the Government were elected to carry through with regard to the sale of council houses carry the mandate of the whole of the people. What hon. Members must clearly understand is that this House has a right to prevail over the local authority view so long as there is a mandate to do so in a general election. That is exactly the claim that was made by Labour Members when they pushed the Education Act through this House.

Housing Investment Programme

18.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the original total of the housing investment programme allocations for 1979–80; and what was the total of the reductions in those allocations which was notified to individual housing authorities in August.

£2,862 million and £318 million respectively for authorities in England, both at 1979–80 outturn prices.

Is the Minister aware that there is all-party agreement on the Conservative-controlled Leeds city council that the cuts this year will make even more difficult the problem of dealing with the 15,000 people on the waiting list, the 19,000 pre-war council houses that require improvement and just as many private tenants who require their homes improved? Can the Minister explain why the HIP for next year has recently been withdrawn from regional offices back to Whitehall? Does that indicate that there will be further cuts in the HIP for next year? Will not that make housing problems even more difficult to resolve?

With regard to Leeds, I am not able to offer an increased allocation for this year. However, as the council so far, in the first half of this financial year, has spent somewhat under half of its allocation—about 44 per cent.—I am sure that it will wish to make certain that it takes up its allocation in full. In addition, it has some tolerance from the previous year which it is able to carry forward. As to the HIP allocations, I am not yet able to make those.

With regard to the HIP allocation for 1980–81, which has been very much delayed because of the strange processes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) referred, can we be assured that it will be brought forward in sufficient time to enable local authorities to make their plans? Secondly, can we be categorically assured that it will not be sneaked out during the recess?

I do not have the actual dates for the recess in 1978, but I notice that in that year—the financial year 1978–79–the allocation was made on 4 January.

Central Berkshire Structure Plan

20.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a final decision on his proposed amendments to the central Berkshire structure plan.

The final decisions will be taken when we have completed our consideration of the objections to the proposed modifications.

In the meantime, can my hon. Friend confirm that he will take carefully into account the stern interview that he had yesterday with four Conservative Members of Parliament from the county of Berkshire and assure me that he will take account of the many representation that he has already received, and will receive, in this matter?

I can assure my hon. Friend that, along with the many other objections—the closing date being tomorrow—the fullest consideration will be given to these matters before my right hon. Friend announces his approval.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the deep concern in the county of Berkshire to the effect that the infrastructure costs for providing services for the projected 10,000 houses may fall upon the ratepayers of Berkshire?

The most forceful point that was made yesterday concerned the question of funds for the infrastructure. Certainly, within our proposals, those matters will be very fully considered.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these proposals have caused more trouble in the county of Berkshire than any other proposals that I can recollect? However, I am quite certain that he will take into consideration all the objections that have been put to him, particularly the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair- Wilson) about the infrastructure and who will pay for it.

Brekshire is perhaps under more pressure than any other part of the country in certain respects. It is because of that that we shall give the fullest consideration to all these points.

Building Land

22.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his proposals for speeding up the release of land for building.

A number of proposals to streamline the planning system and encourage the release of land for development will be set out in our Local Government, Planning and Land Bill.

As it is difficult, in structure planning, to reconcile the need for an adequate amount of land for the house building programme with the need to conserve good agricultural land, is it not all the more important to see that surplus public sector land is released and that inner-city improvement area schemes go ahead as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have a proposal to encourage the bringing on to the market of under-used publicly-owned land in urban areas. We hope that that will help to meet the important need of land availability for house building.

Post Office Board (Industrial Democracy)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker I will make a statement about the future of the Post Office Board.

It is the Government's policy to encourage increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests, but it is not for the Government to lay down how this should be achieved. The precise arrangements are for discussion and agreement between employers and their employees in the light of the particular circumstances of each individual business. This applies equally to nationalised industries, subject to any necessary Government and parliamentary approval.

In the case of the Post Office, the management and the Council of Post Office Unions agreed two years ago that there should be an experiment in industrial democracy at all levels in the business, including the main board. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), facilitated in January 1978 the main board experiment by appointing seven representatives of the Post Office trade unions to be part-time members of the board. He also appointed two consumer representatives. These appointments are due to expire on 31 December, at the end of the agreed two-year period of the experiment.

In accordance with our general policy, it is for the Post Office and the Post Office unions to decide together what form they wish employee participation to take after the end of this year. One thing is quite clear at the present time—they do not agree that this particular experiment at main board level should continue. Broadly, the unions are in favour of a continuation, while management and a majority of the independent members of the board are not.

The chairman of the Post Office is continuing consultations with the unions and is making new proposals for close employee involvement in top level Post Office decision-making. It is for the Post Office management and the unions to agree on the way forward. I shall, of course, be ready to take any action that might fall to me to facilitate whatever new arrangements might be agreed between the Post Office and the unions. If an agreement were to be reached within the next two months which required such action, this could include bringing before Parliament an order under the terms of the Post Office Act 1977 to make permanent the statutory powers to make additional appointments to the board. However, in the absence of agreement that the two-year experiment should continue, the board appointments made for the purpose of that experiment will lapse at the end of the year.

I should like to express my appreciation of the contribution made by all those who have played a part in this experiment.

The Secretary of State started his statement by saying that it was not for the Government to lay down how increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests might be encouraged. Does he agree that that is a totally different attitude from the one that he takes to the National Enterprise Board, in that on several occasions he has asked for trade union representation? He says that it is clear that there is a disagreement between the Post Office management and the unions on the question whether the experiment should continue. Was that not always the case right from the beginning? Indeed, was it not the case when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), the former Secretary of State for Industry, rightly insisted that the experiment should take place against the then wishes of the management? That has not changed.

In ending the experiment, the consumer representation is also brought to an end. Is it not a fact that the Post Office management would also object to consumer representatives for just the same reason that they would object to union representatives? When will the Secretary of State publish the Warwick university report? That report is highly critical of management's attitude to the experiment and is extremely favourable to the continuation of the experiment. However the Secretary of State cares to dress up the matter, at a time when industrial relations throughout the country as a result of his Government's attitude is at its lowest, this will be seen as an attack upon the trade union movement and upon industrial relations.

There is a great difference between the National Enterprise Board, which is an agency set up by the Government with trade union members, and a trading business such as the Post Office, which serves the customer. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he suggests that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, had to impose trade union participation in the main board upon Sir William Barlow. Sir William Barlow has told me that he was most courteously asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether, the trade union experiment having been proposed, he still wished to take the chairmanship of the Post Office. He accepted the invitation with enthusiastic agreement to an experiment that he hoped at the time would succeed.

I propose shortly to appoint new independent members to the Post Office Board and I shall bear in mind the point made about representation for the consumer. The board serves primarily to look after the consumer's interest. The Warwick university report will be laid in the Library. It was commissioned by the Post Office Board and I understand that it is being made available for publication.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question about consumers? I made the point that the Post Office Board would be against the appointment of consumer directors. At the start of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not interfere with anything that took place within the management of the Post Office.

As a whole, the board would regard its prime duty as being to serve the consumers. As part of that duty, it is essential that it should have the good will of those who work for the Post Office. That forms part of an effective service to the consumer. The appointment of specific representatives on the board to represent the consumers' interest is a possibility that the Government will consider. However, I, for one, regard the board's function as being directed towards the service of the consumer.

I appreciate the restrictions on my right hon. Friend's position in the matter and his enlightened approach to these questions, but is this not, on the face of it, a retreat from the concept of employee participation? Most of us would like to see that participation progress in the interests of industrial relations and improved productivity. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend cross-examine closely and conscientiously the Post Office management about the reasons underlying its attitude and any alternative proposals that it might have?

My right hon. and learned Friend would not be happy if the Government imposed upon one unwilling partner a constitution, after the allotted period, of an experiment that was undertaken by agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has taken immense trouble to consult everybody concerned and I have read the papers that have been provided. I understand that Sir William Barlow, in whom I have great confidence, proposes that there should be closer participation with the trade unions. He will be making those proposals at the right time.

Will the Secretary of State explain why he has caved in to the chairman of the Post Office Board and killed off this rather imaginative experiment in industrial democracy? The right hon. Gentleman seems to rest on the idea that an agreement between Post Office management and trade unions was an essential prerequisite for the experiment to proceed. Legislation that was enacted in this House made no such provision.

But it is precisely so. Agreement was the essential prerequisite. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, emphasised that it was by agreement that the development of participation was encouraged.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us, on both sides of the House, who are believers in an extension of consultation across the floor of industry and the extension of industrial democracy, do not think that the disappearance of this experiment with worker directors is a retreat? Does he not agree with me that the real lesson that has come out from, for example, West Germany, in the successful practice of industrial democracy is that it is better developed by starting down the line rather than at the top of the line, and that co-determination and consultation are better achieved at the middle range of management and below that?

I think that there is much in what my hon. Friend says. I emphasise that all the arrangements for participation between unions and management in the Post Office, except that at the main board—and they are very extensive—will continue.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many Labour Members are appreciative of the courteous and very constructive manner in which the Minister of State has tried to tackle this problem? Is he further aware that many of us who are members of the Post Office Engineering Union are disturbed that detailed talks with management on this question did not take place earlier, but that we are very hopeful that in the forthcoming talks between the unions and management industrial democracy will be continued? We hope that that will be so, as we are fully committed to it because we believe that it has so much to offer.

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about my hon. Friend's conscientious consultation. I note his other remarks, although I must say that I think that the subject of the continuation of the experiment has been extensively discussed over recent months between management and the trade unions, and by the board itself in two full discussions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while an organisation of the size and scope of the Post Office must obviously make its contribution to the evolution of industrial democracy, the Post Office carries a most formidable national responsibility in the area of information technology and in ensuring that British industry as a whole has every opportunity of using the most modern forms of information technology? Will he, therefore, encourage the Post Office to continue with the dismantling of the restrictions that it has currently imposed on applications over a very wide area?

My hon. Friend will know that in a previous statement the Government's intentions in this field have been made plain.

Does the Secretary of State agree that not only is there a need to discuss the Warwick report but there will be a need in the weeks ahead to discuss the evidence coming from the experiment? Will he concede that there will be two reports coming from the experiment, and that an undertaking was given in 1977 that the House would have an opportunity to debate the outcome of this experiment?

Finally, will the Secretary of State impress on the chairman of the Post Office Board, Sir William Barlow, the urgency of coming to a further agreement with the unions for the reintroduction of this experiment and ask him to treat this matter very seriously indeed?

I am anxious that as much information as possible should be made available. I can tell the House that in addition to the Warwick university report, which will be placed in the Library, there will be placed in the Library, by the initiative of the Post Office Board, the relevant board minutes and the discussion on which the experiment was considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be serious disappointment and anger about the fact that he should have allowed the management alone to veto a scheme, in that boards do not veto appointments by Ministers and cannot do so, and that the whole principle of industrial democracy is that one is moving towards joint determination?

Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed changes in the Post Office and the introduction of new technology there both make the continuation of this experiment most necessary?

Thirdly, why has the right hon. Gentleman not acceded to the representations of the TUC, members of which have been to see him on, I think, two occasions and have asked for a further three months to be allowed for a proper joint evaluation between the unions and the management before a final decision is taken?

I have a whole sheaf of quotations here from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), emphasising, perfectly honourably and straightforwardly, that this experiment and its continuation rested upon agreement by both sides. It is not the Government, let alone I, who are bringing this experiment to a close; it is the fact that there is no such continuing agreement.

There is a breathing space, a period of grace, inasmuch as although the membership of those appointed for the experiment lapses at the end of this year there is still an opportunity permanently to renew the facility for there to be extra board members, if the House chooses to use the period given by the original Act and to invite me, because of agreement between the unions and the Post Office management, to lay an order before about the beginning of February.

Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising, provided that questions are brief—and it is dependent upon that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the consumer representatives would not have been on the board if the Liberal Party had not insisted that they were put there? What possible reason has he now for not ensuring the continued presence on the board of people who owe their allegiance to the consumers?

I acknowledge that it was the Liberal Party that sought to have two independent members appointed for that purpose, but I repeat that the chairman of the Post Office, Sir William Barlow, and the board as a whole—I hope—hold the interests of the consumer to be their prime concern. We distort the purpose of boards of management if we think that we have to appoint special representatives for the consumer in order that the consumer shall be served.

As the right hon. Gentleman has clearly been studying carefully the parliamentary proceedings on the Post Office Act 1977, perhaps I may ask him whether he recalls that, as reported at column 77 of the proceedings on 27 June, in response to an Opposition amendment calling for a White Paper to be presented to Parliament by the Government on the outcome of the report, I, on behalf of the Government, gave a firm undertaking that a report by the Government would be presented to Parliament, and that that undertaking which I gave was welcomed from the Opposition Front Bench. Therefore, while we welcome the information that is to come from the Post Office and from the Warwick university report, may we ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will fulfil what was a joint undertaking and, within the next three months, present a Government report to Parliament, so that Parliament may consider it?

I shall have to look up the context in which the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, but I am quite sure that in the absence of agreement I have no power to continue this experiment.

No matter what the Secretary of State may say about the position of the chairman of the Post Office, his own position is perfectly clear. He is the Minister who appoints the board and it is up to him to make an assessment of the value of this experiment. How can he, within two years, make an adequate assessment of this situation? Secondly, will he say how he thinks that his decision not to reappoint the union members to the board will in some way improve industrial democracy and further better industrial relations?

I fear that I have a much simpler question to ask than that which the right hon. Gentleman invites me to consider. I have to ask: is there an agreement? There is not an agreement. Only if there were to be agreement was a continuation of this experiment proposed under the original Act.

If the prime duty of the board is what the right hon. Gentleman says it is I assume that he has pointed out to the board that it has been failing in its duty under successive Governments over the last few years by providing a worse service to its customers. Will the Secretary of State note that there is a view that trade unionists cannot readily sit on boards making management decisions to which their members might subsequently object? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the present situation in relation to the implementation of the Carter report?

I have been saying for some time, as has the chairman of the Post Office, that the standard of service to consumers has fallen. It is for that reason that I have told the House that I am considering various possibilities, including modifications of the postal monopoly. As for the Carter report, I made a statement to the House a few months ago explaining that we hope to legislate in the next Session of Parliament.

Is it not the case that the Government refuse to intervene when there is a slap in the face for trade unions but will intervene to attack the trade unions whenever they can? If the Secretary of State does not intend to do anything until there is agreement why does he not tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to get agreement with the TUC before introducing an employment Bill?

The right hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion the directors of the Post Office Board represented consumer interests. Will he, instead of taking this attitude, think again and strengthen consumer representation on the board? I can tell him from experience that my parliamentary mail, which should arrive at my home not later than Saturday morning, regularly arrives on Monday morning. That is a reason why it is essential that we should strengthen trade union representation on the board rather than take representatives off.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I regard the whole board as having the function of serving the consumer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman admit to the House that the Warwick university report is highly critical of management's attitude throughout the experiment and that it praises the trade unions for their constructive role? Does he not understand that whatever he says to the House, and not matter what he said in his statement, his decision represents a retreat from industrial democracy that will put back the clock in industrial relations in the Post Office?

I do not wish to pursue the two last points made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that the phrase "industrial democracy" is misleading. I believe that participation is not put back one jot by the decision made today. As for the Warwick report, I regarded it as totally confidential to the Post Office. It was made available to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself only two days ago and I have not yet read it.

European Community(Agriculture Ministers'meeting)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 10 and 11 December. My hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

At my request the Commission proposed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound in order to boost the resources available to British agriculture. The devaluation will take effect on 17 December for all the main commodities except cereals and eggs and poultry, where the change will take place at the start of the next marketing year on 1 August 1980. For wine, the devaluation will not take effect until December 1980. This devaluation will be of great importance to British agriculture and it will add about £150 million to farmers' returns in a full year. The effect on consumer prices will amount to one quarter of 1 per cent. on the retail price index, but it will be many months before the full effect of the0·25 per cent. increase reaches the shops. The Council also agreed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the Italian green lira.

The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to negotiate voluntary restraint arrangements by third countries exporting sheep meat to the Community. The mandate was in accordance with our insistence that any agreement should be a totally voluntary agreement on the part of New Zealand and that there would be no unbinding of the GATT tariff arrangements. We rejected a French proposal that there should be a threat of unbinding the GATT for any country that refused to reach a voluntary agreement.

We and the Commission also rejected a French request to the Commission that no action should be taken by the Commission in respect of the illegal French measures on sheepmeat imports. We again made it clear we would not accept any sheepmeat regime that failed to give a net benefit to Britain or included intervention.

Proposals were before the Council for a wine package designed to restore balance in the wine market and to avoid surpluses. The package was such that Community payments of £32·5 million per year would have resulted in equivalent Community savings of £32·5 million per year. We succeeded in negotiating a substantial reduction in the Commission's proposed FEOGA payments so that the savings will outweigh the payments and produce an anticipated net reduction in the Community budget of £6·5 million per year over the period of the programme. We also resisted French pressure to bring into the package, at the very last moment, an extension of present temporary arrangements protecting producers from low market prices at the end of long term storage contracts.

We secured an agreement that at the end of the current seven-year programme of restructuring, with its ban on new plantings, there would be a review by the Commission. This should ensure that planting controls will be maintained if there is any further risk of surplus production. The package finally agreed will therefore reduce the contribution of the United Kingdom towards Europe's wine regime.

Agreement was reached on a group of animal health measures, which fully meet the United Kingdom's requirements, and we obtained an extension for a further six months of the derogation enabling the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic and Denmark to maintain their national swine fever requirements for imports of pigs and fresh pigmeat.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that report. Is he aware that with a 17 per cent. inflation rate and a record high minimum lending rate these factors are forcing our farmers into their present difficulties? Government policies are forcing the Minister to go for quick devaluations and to appeal to his agricultural colleagues in the Community who then blackmail him on other measures. It is the British consumer who suffers every time as a result.

Is the Minister aware that in the last six months since he came to office his devaluations and food price increases have increased the food price index by at least 2 per cent. and that the weekly food bill of the average family has increased by 50p? Does he accept that though the farmers may have benefited by £300 million it is likely that the cost to the British consumer will be over £450 million?

The British housewife now realises that she has been conned. That is the reason for the 9 per cent. swing recorded today against the Tories by the women of Britain. Will the Secretary of State say specifically what this devaluation has added to the national food bill and what are the separate food increases?

The wine package appears to be a good deal. We hope that the reductions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will be realised. The Minister still seems to be standing firm on the issue of sheepmeat. Does he still maintain that any new regime to assist the French will not be at the expense of the Community but will come from the national French pursue? Will he continue to stave off any threats to New Zealand lamb exports to the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman surprises me with his reasons for the increased farm costs. He did not mention the biggest increase that farm workers have ever had in their wages. If farm workers are to benefit by £220 million—a much better wage increase than they ever obtained under a Labour Government—the right hon. Gentleman must expect some increase, since the farming industry has to meet the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he talks of the negotiations for green pound devaluation resulting in the threat of blackmail. The negotiations resulted in a threat of blackmail that was totally unsuccessful. The French demanded that if they agreed to the green pound devaluation they must have a major concession on wine and a major agreement on sheepmeat. Even the Commission's proposals on wine were reduced by 20 per cent. as a result of the skilled negotiations by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The resulting wine package is of net benefit to Britain.

No concession of any kind was made on sheepmeat. After starting with what the right hon. Gentleman described as a "blackmail" technique the French finished the day having achieved absolutely nothing. As for price increases, I do not think that I can do better than refer to the previous 5 per cent. devaluation by my predecessor, the Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour Government. When introducing his 5 per cent. devaluation he stated that when that devaluation—which was necessary for the well-being of British agriculture and to help safeguard employment in our pig-meat processing plants—had eventually worked through into prices it was expected to increase the retail price index by one-fifth of 1 per cent.

That was the view of a Labour Minister on a 5 per cent. devaluation. I am therefore surprised that his successor as spokesman on agriculture should take a different attitude. In relation to assurances about the position of New Zealand and sheepmeat, I guarantee that there will be no support from the British Government, which will provide Community financing for French farmers. Any premium system that we agree to must bring a net benefit to the United Kingdom. If there is no such system there will be no agreement on a system for sheepmeat. I categorically state that under no circumstances will the British Government change the conditions for the entry of New Zealand sheepmeat unless it is by voluntary agreement and based upon a decision by the New Zealand Government.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved. He has given nothing away, contrary to what is said in The Guardian today. What further steps can he take in the immediate future to open up the lamb export market to France? Does he agree that the present situation is damaging to farmers, particularly in the South-West of England.

I agree that the position has been exceedingly damaging. During the last year not only have the French pursued their present policy on sheep-meat; they have substantially reduced the quota compared with the allowance for 1978. The final rejoinder of the French Government to the Commission's legal procedures is due to take place today. I am glad to say that the Commission confirmed yesterday that it is its duty to ensure that the law is obeyed.

Mention has been made of the interpretation of the wine package. Credit is due to the Minister of State. Not only did the wine producers not receive what they required; even the Commission's proposals were cut by 20 per cent. through the Minister of State's efforts. That brought about a saving of £45 million on the total wine package over the period. I do not see how that can be interpreted as giving way.

I congratulate the Minister on his determined efforts to give the farmers a much-needed boost to their incomes. Will the Minister point out to his Cabinet colleagues that because interest rates are running as they are, the package of £150 million is worth probably only £75 million? Does he agree that there is a need to bring down interest rates? I congratulate him on his resistance to the French demands, but when will there he help for the horticulture industry? Am I correct in believing that fuel subsidies are paid to Dutch and French horticulturists?

I agree that there are problems in the horticulture industry. Only one country has obtained benefit, and that is due to the provision of cheap gas in Holland, which is of particular help. Dutch horticulturists are angry because the Dutch Government have made substantial increases in the price of gas, in line with their undertaking to bring the price up to the price of oil. The Dutch Government are genuinely trying to achieve an appropriate adjustment in the Community in that respect.

Interest rates impose a heavy burden on the farming community. All my colleagues in the Cabinet hope that as a result of our policies we shall be able to reduce the interest rate in the near future. This boost to British agriculture is not just of direct financial benefit; it takes away the unfair competition for those countries with positive MCAs. I hope that that will provide a further boost for the agriculture community.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he skipped rather rapidly over the question of health regulations? What will happen to milk on 1 January 1980? The British consumer must be protected.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that question. I should like to make it clear that the general impression that our health regulations for milk will expire at the end of this year is untrue. The regulations on the metric pack end then, but the health position continues. In our view, and in the view of the Advocate General of the European Court, those health regulations are totally justified until such time as a European regulation is introduced. There is no prospect of a European regulation being introduced before 1982. Any such regulation will be applied only two years after that date. In our judgment there is no threat from milk imports.

Was not the green currency system originally introduced partly to provide a subsidy to the consumer but mainly as a means of protecting the farmer against sudden fluctuations in the value of the currency in which he is paid? Is it not clear that the green currency system has worked to the detriment of British farmers? In view of that, and as we are approaching the devaluation parity of the sterling exchange rate, does my right hon. Friend have any views about the long-term future of the green currency system? Would it not be better to move towards discontinuing it?

The question whether we discontinue the system is not a matter for us alone. When there are large variations in currencies, without an adjusting mechanism there can be no common agriculture prices policy. At present we certainly do not have a common agriculture prices policy. After today's 5 per cent. devaluation the prices paid to British farmers will be the lowest or the second lowest, in the European Community. The whole operation of this mechanism has been bad for British agriculture. It was particularly bad during the period when we had a Government who allowed MCAs to develop against British farmers at 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nothing in the package, even in the interim, will permit the French to impose temporary import levies on British lamb? Will he confirm that any such action will be strictly illegal and outside the agreement.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for this action on the horticulture scene. Did he put any questions to his colleagues about intervention in the apple industry? Did he begin to investigate the possibility of fostering the British apple juice industry, which is dear to the heart of the NFU?

No, Sir. This was not on the agenda at the meeting but I recently met representatives of British apple producers. It was the most encouraging meeting in that sphere that my Department has had for many years. There was an appreciation that if we are to succeed in reviving that industry we must have better marketing and be as effective as the best in the Community. We must investigate the possibilities of the apple juice industry developing in Britain. I promise to work in close co-operation with the apple producers. I hope that we shall make substantial progress.

Is not the latest wrangle with the French further evidence that in Brussels issues are not decided on their real merits? Would not it be better for us all if each country decided its policies according to its own needs and paid for them itself?

That is the classic view of someone who is totally opposed to the European Community—and I understand it. The periods when some countries were not part of the Community were not noted for the brilliance of their Governments or their dramatic economic successes.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since Britain's payments to the Community are related to the level of food imports the 5 pet cent. devaluation of the green pound that he has gained for milk will help to protect Britain from excess contributions to the EEC budget?

Yes, Sir. The budgetary effects are relatively small, because, theoretically, in budget terms they are compensated for by adjustments in the MCAs—but that depends upon one's attitude towards MCAs. I have never shared the view that they are of great benefit to the country against which they are exercised.

Is the Minister aware of the wide discussions on the ethyl alcohol directive? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and myself are concerned about the possibility of damage to the £60 million BP chemical project at Grangemouth? Can the Minister say anything about that difficulty?

The alcohol regime was on the agenda, but it was decided to delay discussion on it until the next meeting.

Was my right hon. Friend able to resist further blackmail on the question of sugar beet? Did he make it clear to our European partners that we cannot accept a reduction in the acreage of this valuable crop?

Mr. Walker