asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the gross earnings of those earning less than £100 per week is, on average, taken up on local authority rates in Wales; and what the figures will be if the Government's proposals in their Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government" are implemented.

Only householders are directly liable for domestic rates, and there is no way of knowing the extent to which non-householders, earning or not, contribute to the cost of rates. Comparative information on the basis requested is not therefore available.

Does the Secretary of State accept that that is an inadequate and innumerate answer from his Department yet again, because the whole direction of Government policy in this area is to shift the burden to all householders? That is the basis of the poll tax. Does he accept that it is completely illogical to propose to introduce a poll tax without making such comparative information available so that we know that each adult householder in Wales will be substantially worse off as a result?

If anything is innumerate, it is the question. We know what the effect on households will be, and we know that the community charge will reduce bills for low-income households. We know that the domestic rate is 7·5 per cent. of the income of households with a net income of £100 or less, and we know that the new community charge will lessen the burden. What we do not know is all the information that the hon. Gentleman wants about single persons, young adults, and so on, who at present do not contribute directly to the rating system.

Referring to my right hon. Friend's recent rate support grant announcement, will he confirm that Clwyd, which is making a real and genuine effort to find savings in its budget, will receive a substantial part of the remaining unclaimed grant, as five other county councils in Wales have categorically said that they will not be making savings? Can he give me any idea of how much Clwyd will receive?

I am not sure that that arises from the question, but it is certainly true that the pressure on councils to reduce their expenditure remains and that those which have succeeded in cutting their expenditure will get a higher proportion of remaining grant than those which continue to spend at a high level.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my warning that the collection of the community charge—the poll tax—will be difficult? Why did the right hon. Gentleman hand over £13 million to the Welsh counties on 20 February after saying on 17 February that he would not do so? Why did he give in? I remind him of the heading, "Edwards gives in" in the Daily Post of 21 February.

I propose to say something on the subject in the debate on Welsh affairs, but the fact of the matter is that at the meeting on Monday I did not say that I would not. I said that if I did the county council should offer some reduction in expenditure. The county council said that it was impossible to reduce expenditure by a single penny. I am glad to say that subsequent to that the Clwyd council, by reducing its expenditure by £1·5 million, showed that it was possible, and it has passed on the benefit to its ratepayers.

I have a suspicion that that was somewhat wide of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what advice his Department has given to local authorities considering the establishment of sixth form colleges.

The Macfarlane report, which was commissioned by the Government and the local authority associations, identified the advantages and disadvantanges of establishing sixth form colleges and considered various patterns of provision.

Does my hon. Friend agree that whereas some schools have adequate and large sixth forms, many with falling school rolls no longer have and are unable to offer a sufficiently wide choice of subjects to those pupils who are academically able? In such circumstances, is it not wise for local authorities to consider setting up sixth form colleges?

My hon. Friend is right. We are faced with falling secondary school rolls, and between 1981 and 1991 there will be a decrease of 22·9 per cent. in secondary school pupils in Wales. That is why many local authorities are trying to rationalise by making alternative provision for them.

In any discussions that the Minister has with local authorities, will he ensure that if they are considering moving towards sixth-form colleges they take into account the Welsh language, especially those councils that have bi-lingual secondary schools, and the consequences that will flow unless there are Welsh language sixth-form colleges? Will he also consider the effect on rural areas and the need for local authorities to have more resources to cover transport costs or the cost of children staying at one centre?

The Welsh Office does not seek to prescribe the pattern of provision to local authorities. That provision is basically a matter for them. There are various options. For example, there are the traditional sixth-form colleges, tertiary colleges and further education colleges. The Macfarlane report states that special steps are needed to ensure continuity between sixth-form colleges and their feeder schools in both education and pastoral matters. I should have thought that the Welsh language was covered by that statement.

My hon. Friend may be aware that one of my constituents, Mr. John Rowlands, the headmaster of Holyhead school, is on a year's sabbatical to consider the problem raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Is it not imperative that we recognise that there is only one choice available to us if we are to provide the great variety of disciplines that are necessary in a sixth form, which is to establish sixth-form colleges, especially when we bear in mind falling school rolls?

I have already said that that is only one alternative. There is only one sixth-form college in Wales, and that is Yale at Wrexham. There are other options, including those that I mentioned, but it is important that there should be rationalisation of provision for secondary school pupils to reflect falling rolls.

What advice would the Minister give to anxious parents of sixth formers at our small comprehensive schools? I am thinking of the one in Llandovery, which is quite a distance from any other school and has only 400 pupils. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the choice of A-level subjects at such schools is disgustingly small? The choice is extremely limited and the pupils at such schools are suffering a disadvantage when compared with those who attend schools in more populated areas.

One of the advantages of sixth-form colleges, as outlined by the Macfarlane report, is that they are able to offer a wider range of subjects than sixth-form schools. I am glad the hon. Gentleman is apparently prepared to support a proposal for the rationalisation of secondary education in his constituency and county.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to take steps to provide further employment opportunities in the light of continuing colliery closures.

Following the closure of several consistently uneconomic collieries, the NCB has no current plans for further closures in south Wales, and the industry can look forward to much greater stability and renewed development. Efforts to provide other employment opportunities are continuing, using the instruments of regional industrial policy, the urban programme, and the Welsh Development Agency and drawing on the support of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.

It is not surprising that we have heard nothing new yet again from the Secretary of State. When will he show some sign of understanding, let alone compassion or concern, of the effect of the Government's policies on the south Wales valleys? Is he aware that in the lower Rhymney valley 500 jobs will be lost as a result of the closure of the Bedwas colliery? The Government, the Welsh Office and NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. have nothing to offer.

I agree that regional policy has an important role to play. The hon. Gentleman knows that his constituency has the maximum level of assistance that is available under regional policy. The fact that assistance differs in various areas gives the policy its impact. NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has made a good start by supporting projects in Wales. The cost of the investment has been over £11 million and about 1,400 jobs have been provided. I am taking other initiatives for the valleys, of which I have sent the hon. Gentleman details and to which I shall refer in the debate that is to follow.

Can my right hon. Friend estimate the number of jobs lost in Wales as a result of the miners' strike last year?

I cannot. We know that more than 6,000 jobs have been lost in the pits that have been closed. We cannot tell what the total effect of that strike has been. It affected many other industries and many small firms.

Does the right hon. Gentleman have any plans to increase the proportion of the working population living in parts of Wales eligible for regional development grant?

We carried out a major review of regional policy comparatively recently. I do not believe that it would be sensible, so soon after the last review, to recast the present distribution of coverage. There is no doubt that if we extended coverage in Wales there would have to be a major extension of coverage in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is therefore by no means clear that Wales would benefit from such a change.

Although it is true that in recent years there have been pit closures in south Wales, did not the most marked decline in employment in the coal industry in Wales occur during the period of the Labour Government?

That is true. That decline continued for many decades. We can be thankful that we have probably reached the end of that long historic process.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the end of the miners' strike, which the Prime Minister, MacGregor and others conspired to ensure took place, every colliery in Ogmore has been closed? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that 1,500 of the 6,000 people whose jobs were lost were living and working in Ogmore before the strike? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to replace the jobs which he and his Government have ended during the past 18 months?

There is no truth whatsoever in the allegation about a conspiracy. It has been denied by the Prime Minister's Office and by Mr. MacGregor. The hon. Gentleman knows that the allegation is nonsense.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the NCB on progress with the coal to oil liquefaction plant at Point of Ayr, on which construction has now started and which is expected to be completed by December 1987, providing 80 new jobs?

That is part of the major investment programme which the NCB is undertaking in the Welsh coalfields. There has been substantial investment in the south Wales coalfield as well, much of it in new equipment at the faces. That holds out a much better prospect for the future.

Does the review of regional development grant, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, take account of the sudden avalanche of job losses in the colliery areas?

Most of the colliery areas are substantially covered under the existing provisions, giving maximum levels of assistance. I do not believe that there would be any sense in having a major extension of coverage. That would be bound to cover a large part of the English and the Scottish regions as well. Instead of increased incentives to encourage people to come to Wales, there would probably be greater competition. An extension of coverage would not benefit Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate when the Welsh Office and the Welsh Advisory Body will sanction the joint degree in agricultural technology, which has been initiated by University College, Aberystwyth, and the Welsh Agricultural College.

A working group set up by the University Grants Committee and the public sector higher education advisory bodies has concluded that sufficient course capacity already exists to meet the industry's demands for graduates and diploma holders. However, the two colleges are now considering a suggestion that a new degree course could be established at Aberystwyth by transferring student places from the existing higher national diploma and degree courses.

Will the Minister explain why this strictly Welsh matter was referred to the National Advisory Body? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that colleges such as Harper Adams and Seale Hayne in England have 100 HND students and 40 graduate students per course? Why is Wales losing out in that way? Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that sufficient resources will be made available to run the course as a viable one?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the working group's report related to the position in Great Britain as a whole. The demand for graduates in production agriculture and the capacity of existing degree courses in Wales to meet it are in line with the position in Great Britain. What is needed now is a change in the type of course available, and that possibility is now being examined.

Will my hon. Friend make certain that he does not begin poaching from Seal Hayne in the way that the Welsh Development Agency might be doing for jobs in the west country in other instances?

I am sure that there will be no poaching or any hint of illegality. The hope is that student places can be transferred from existing higher national diploma and degree courses to provide this new course.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he had with the chairman of the Welsh water authority prior to his statement to the House on privatisation; and on what date they took place.

I met the chairman of the Welsh water authority on 25 June 1985 to discuss the authority's response to the Government's consultation paper on privatisation. I also spoke to the chairman on the morning of 5 February to inform him that I would be making a statement on privatisation that afternoon.

On Friday 5 February, how far did the right hon. Gentleman screw the chairman's arm around his back to get him to agree to the idea that we should have privatisation of the water industry, because for months before—indeed, in all probability during the whole of 1985—John Elfed Jones had publicly declared, together with the board, that he was against any sort of privatisation? I should like an inquiry into what happened with the Secretary of State and what pressure he put on the chairman of the Welsh water authority to obtain his agreement.

The thought of trying to twist someone's arm over the telephone is interesting. If anyone imagines that John Elfed Jones is the sort of man to have his arm twisted, he clearly does not know the man. He is well able to stick up for himself and to express his own views. He and the board will be considering the proposals put forward in detail and will be presenting their fully considered views to the Government in due course.

Has my right hon. Friend been asked to convey any apology to the chief executive of the Welsh water authority for what must have been, at best, a sincere misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)?

I have no desire to act as a postbox between the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the chief executive of the Welsh water authority. I am sure that they are able to conduct their exchanges directly and on their own.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the quality of water that is being drunk by residents in the Wrexham area? Is he further aware—

Order. There is another question on the Order Paper about that.

I was thinking that it might not be reached. It fits in with the present question.

It is quite clear that none of the evils described by the hon. Gentleman could arise from privatisation. If the water authority is privatised, it will operate under a licence from the new Director General of Water Services, who will lay down strict conditions under which the service will operate. Undoubtedly one of the advantages of privatisation is that it will be easier for the authority to carry out its capital programme without the day-to-day and year-to-year interference from the Treasury and Ministers which is inherent in the present system.

Is it not apparent to anybody who takes the trouble to read the White Paper that two things flow from the privatisation proposals: first, that the money would be raised from the private sector so that capital investment could be undertaken without the present great charges to many subscribers; secondly, that there would be much greater pricing protection and protection of the water consumer in the proposals than is presently enjoyed?

I am sure that sewage will continue to flow as well. However, my hon. Friend is right.

Is it not a fact that the only way that privatisation of the Welsh water authority can be carried out is if the Government and the Secretary of State wipe off the vast majority of its debt? Instead of doing that for the benefit of future shareholders, why does the right hon. Gentleman not do it now for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of Welsh water consumers?

We have made it clear that we shall be looking at the financial structure of the authority before privatisation. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot object to any reconstruction of the debt position, because it is something for which Welsh Members have long pressed. In particular, it helps the authority to raise its capital more easily and carry out its programmes more satisfactorily, which is directly to the benefit of consumers.

May I press the Secretary of State further on this point? If, in order to make privatisation viable, it is necessary to write off £450 million of historic debt, why does the right hon. Gentleman not do it now and give even more benefit to consumers?

We shall look at the capital structure when we privatise and consider what is necessary for a sensible structure, but it is not the capital structure that controls the external financing limits—the borrowing—of the water authority. They are laid down by the Treasury, because of the need to control the totality of Government expenditure. That is the principal constraint on the capital programme at present — not the debt position of the water authority.

Is it not a fact that prior to the big nationalisation programme of 20 or 30 years ago, many utilities in the private sector—gas, water, electricity and so on — had a splendid record of service to the community, and is it not likely that that will be reproduced in future?

I think I am right in saying that one quarter of the water in England and Wales is presently supplied by private companies. Therefore, the idea that it is not possible to supply it efficiently and economically is disproved by existing facts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the director of the School of Water Sciences at Cranfield has predicted that when the details of privatisation are considered they will look impractical? Even at this late stage, will he strive to exempt Wales from the water privatisation proposals? Does he understand that the proposals have offended public opinion in Wales because they put profit before public service?

No doubt we shall have many predictions. I predict that privatisation can go ahead and will result in an improvement in the service and the charging structure for the users of the Welsh water authority's services.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales when the planned new paediatric and obstetric unit at Singleton hospital, Swansea will be completed.

Construction is expected to start in December 1987 and the unit is expected to be in service in 1991.

Is the Minister aware that on 12 December 1983, in an oral reply, I was told that the West Glamorgan health authority was planning to open that unit in 1988–89? For how long must the Welsh Office endure health authorities pulling the wool over its eyes and over the eyes of the public at large? In view of the answer that I received earlier, it appears that the unit will be delayed by at least another two years. I hope that the shambles with the casualty unit at Singleton is not repeated in connection with the paediatric and obstetric units there.

The date previously given was the best estimate for completion at that time and was based on preliminary planning only. More detailed planning for the development, which involves considerable reorganisation and expansion of existing support services and departments, has identified a need to reprogramme a sequence of building operations to enable replacement accommodation to be built to free the site location for the new paediatric and obstetric block.

Will the Minister recognise that there will be genuine regret in that part of Wales about the two-year slippage that he has just announced? Will he bear in mind that we are grateful for the fact that the announcement that the casualty unit is about to be opened has been made? The Opposition would like to put on record our thanks to the general practitioners and the consultants who made that possible. Will the Minister say whether he has made it clear to the West Glamorgan health authority that, while the unit can start on a part-time basis, he hopes that it will soon be on a 24-hour basis?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will concede that it is important to get the building of the new unit right. With regard to the casualty service, on Friday we received the formal proposal from the health authority and we are considering that. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that our reply will be issued in the very near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect on sheltered housing in Wales of the Housing Act 1980 as amended by the Housing and Building Control Act 1984.

The effect of the Housing Act 1980, as amended by the Housing and Building Control Act 1984, is to exclude sheltered housing from the right-to-buy provisions. These provisions are consolidated in the Housing Act 1985, which comes into effect on 1 April.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Delyn borough council has a particular concern in this matter, which is highlighted by the case of 3 St. Mary's Drive, Northop Hall? What assurance can he give the council that its sheltered housing stock will not be eroded under the amended right-to-buy provisions should it replace resident wardens by visiting wardens on schemes where there is no common room nearby?

My hon. Friend wrote to me on 10 February and I replied to him on 28 February. We do not consider that there will be any erosion of sheltered accommodation under these provisions, as the purpose of the provisions was to remove the accommodation that had been adapted for the elderly or disabled several years ago and which is no longer suitable using today's criteria.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of unemployment in both numerical and percentage terms in Merthyr Tydfil in 1979; what is the current percentage; and what are the similar figures for Wales.

On 6 February 1986 there were 11,279 unemployed claimants in the Merthyr and Rhymney travel-to-work area, a rate of 21·4 per cent. A comparable claimant-based figure for February 1979 is not available. For Wales as a whole, for the same dates, the seasonally adjusted claimant-based figures were 176,000 and 76,400, or 16·6 per cent. and 6·9 per cent. respectively.

In the face of those terrifying figures, should not the Secretary of State's complacency have been shattered by the past two month's unemployment records, and the trends that are accompanying them? Does he agree that we are not seeing the light at the end of any tunnel and that unemployment is rising? In addition to the genuine problems of the young unemployed, is the Secretary of State aware of the growing anxiety that hon. Members have witnessed over the 50-year-old unemployed, who now believe that they will never work again unless the Government change their direction and policy?

Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that the recent, more encouraging, trend in unemployment figures has come to an end and that we have had two or three poor months. That is one reason why we are continuing to extend, enlarge and improve the wide range of employment and training measures generally, and those for the category of people to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned improvements in training measures, can he tell us whether he has sorted out the problem of the heavy extra burden which he and the Government are imposing on local authorities in carrying out the second part of the two-year programme? All of us want to assist the young through the YTS programme, but it is unfair that such a heavy, increased burden should be put on local authorities.

The Government are providing substantial resources for this important new major extension of training provision. Local authorities are also playing their part, and I am glad that all Welsh local authorities, including Mid Glamorgan, which has had difficulties in the past, will participate fully in the next phase of the programme.

The right hon. Gentleman has not told us how he proposes to make major inroads into the terrifying unemployment in Wales. Can he throw some light upon the firm Biomass International in my constituency? Does he know that £1·1 million of county council, Development Agency and Government money was on offer to create only 76 jobs on Deeside? Before Biomass International ceased activities, only nine jobs had been created. Has the Welsh Development Agency's £416,000 investment been lost? What moneys can be rescued? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Biomass follows the problems with the Parrot Corporation. Does he plan to review investment policy in his Department?

The hon. Gentleman identifies the great difficulty that all venture capital organisations, in the public and private sectors, have in always backing successful projects. If he wishes to encourage the support of the new high technology industries, especially in areas such as biotechnology, there will always be risks and failures. I hope that in developing the Labour party's general policies for investing vast sums of public money into such ventures and directing them centrally, he will realise that they are hazardous and risky choices. It is unlikely that public funds will be recovered in this case, except on a very small scale.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of new jobs created in Wales since 1979.

In a period of rapid change, in which large investment has taken place in industrial and service sector projects in a more diversified economy, no comprehensive statistics on new jobs are available. Many new jobs are created without Government financial assistance, and between 1981 and 1984 the number of self- employed increased by 30,000.

Bearing in mind the worthwhile meeting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had exactly a week ago with academics from the universities, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a much closer empathy between education and industry, so that each understands the other?

I was present at that meeting. In addition to representatives of the universities we met several leading representatives of British industry, who drew attention to many of the shortcomings of our education system, which is failing to provide the mathematicians and scientists who are needed. I agree that one conclusion that emerged from the meeting was that we must have closer links between industry and local schools, to persuade pupils that industry offers attractive careers, and to point them towards the skills that they will need to acquire.

The Secretary of State cannot tell us how many new jobs have been created in Wales, but he must agree that not many of them were created in the Cynon Valley, which has the highest male unemployment in Wales, and among the worst male unemployment of any industrial area in Britain. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that substantial sums of Government money are necessary to create the infrastructure and employment opportunities that are needed in the valleys of south Wales?

I do not doubt the problems of the Cynon Valley. However, the hon. Lady will agree that the recent completion of the Cardiff to Merthyr road provides greatly improved access to the Cynon Valley, which will improve its inhabitants' chances, and which is part of the substantial infrastructure expenditure in the area, which we shall continue to make. The hon. Lady should remember that, although there are serious problems, between April 1985 and January of this year—the latest period for which figures are available—at least 200,000 people have taken up employment in Wales. Although many people—too many—are on the unemployment register, many more are going into new employment all the time.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the hon. Member for Ynys Môon (Mr. Best) is keen to find out how many new jobs have been created since 1979. The majority of Opposition Members would be glad to know how many jobs have been lost in Wales since 1979.

The hon. Member has frequently tabled questions on that subject and we have answered them. In a changing industrial world, even he must understand that there will be many job losses and job gains. I am sure he will be glad to know that we have a higher proportion of the working population in employment than almost any other country in Europe, with the exception of Denmark.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the Government of which he is a member have tinkered with the base on which the officially registered unemployment figures are calculated at least 15 times since the Government took office in 1979? One day, will the Secretary of State come to the House and give us the number of jobs lost in Wales since that date?

If the hon. Member tables a question I shall do so, but it does not arise from this question.

I can help the right hon. Gentleman. Since 1979,, under his regime, Wales has lost 105,000 manufacturing jobs. We have heard nothing from him in six years as to how we shall regain those lost manufacturing jobs. It is about time he came to the House and told us that he has a plan to bring Wales back to work. May I remind him that in Anglesey one in four men are jobless. What will he do to help north-west Wales?

There are few developed countries in the world where there has not been a loss of jobs in manufacturing. We are witnessing a major change in the pattern of employment. There are far more jobs in the service sector, and far more self-employed, than before. A large number of new small firms are being created continuously.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with whom he consulted before appointing the trustees of the national musuems and galleries on Merseyside under paragraph 3(2) of the schedule to the Merseyside Museums and Galleries Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 226).

The appointments were made upon the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who will assume full responsibility for the Merseyside museums and galleries after the forthcoming transfer of functions order is made.

I can understand the Chancellor's reticence about assuming responsibility for the arts on Merseyside. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, under section 46 of the Local Government Act 1985, the order was laid before Parliament setting up the trust before consultation with other political parties and indeed with Parliament itself? What was the particular hurry in proceeding with the appointment of the Duke of Westminster, whose previous affinities with the arts on Merseyside are not especially well known?

The hon. Gentleman chooses one appointment — that of the Duke of Westminster. If I recollect rightly, 13 appointments were made. The appointments make up a group of good, well-balanced people who have had a long interest in Merseyside and in the arts. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be very pleased about that and should stop trying to introduce political factors.

Will the Chancellor accept that not all those living on Merseyside share the views that have just been expressed? Many of us are extremely pleased that the Government have established most of the museums on Merseyside as national museums.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I must confess to the House that those actions were taken primarily on the recommendations of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, and I am sure that he heard the hon. Gentleman's words.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what functions he exercises in relation to the arts.

When the then Minister for the Arts was appointed to the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1984, his arts functions were formally vested in that office by virtue of the Transfer of Functions (Arts, Libraries and National Heritage) Order 1984 (No. 1814). They will be the subject of a further transfer of functions order shortly, since my right hon. Friend the present Minister for the Arts does not hold the office of Chancellor. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend exercises all day-to-day arts functions on my behalf.

Will the Chancellor tell the House why it has taken from September of last year until now to effect a transfer of functions order? As the right hon. Gentleman is travelling and down the country talking about the incompetence of the arts, will he accept the Government's appalling incompetence in allowing this to go on for so long? Is there not an overwhelming reason for having a Minister for the Arts instead of this nonsense of incompetence in which different people have different responsibilities?

I do not accept a word of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The arts function will formally be passed back to the Lord President of the Council, to whose Department the present Minister for the Arts is technically attached. That was the case between the summer of 1983 and late 1984, before my noble Friend Lord Gowrie was appointed Chancellor of the Duchy. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would just listen for a moment, he would get the answer. The transfer of functions order will be made shortly. It has taken longer than usual because of a study of possible alternative ways of legally vesting the arts functions without requiring an order every time the ministerial portfolio changes hands. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has full authority to conduct the day-to-day arts business, while the ultimate legal power rests with the Chancellor of the Duchy. There are no legal or administrative problems whatsoever about this.

But there may be many artistic problems, and it does not give the Opposition much comfort to know that the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of the arts. Does he not think it is time that he gave some consideration to the all-party Select Committee report, which simply said that there should be a Ministry for the Arts, Communication and Tourism, which would bring in films, broadcasting and the arts, and above all strip the responsibility from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and make a proper Ministry for the arts?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman's party did not take that view when it was in office, and this Government do not take that view now. I do not think that these problems are best dealt with by permanent restructuring of the Departments in Whitehall. The arrangement is working very well and effectively today, and that is the best way to leave it.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of his time in the week beginning 24 February he has spent on matters relating to the Duchy of Lancaster.

It is my practice to devote such time as is necessary to carry out my responsibilities as Chancellor fully and effectively. In the week beginning 24 February, I estimate that some three hours were required for this.

Would not some of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues, such as the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House, prefer him to spend much more time looking after the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster? Is it altogether a coincidence that since the right hon. Gentleman became chairman the Conservative party has gone even further down the polls? Does he connect that in any way with his taking over the job?

I do not answer in this House for my responsibilities as chairman of the Conservative party, and most certainly I would not abuse my post as Chancellor of the Duchy by doing so. I was very glad to note that on Saturday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in vigorous and raucous form, busily scragging the Opposition.

With his intimate knowledge of the Prime Minister and what, if anything, she is thinking, will the Minister say whether it is true that Mr. MacGregor is going to Downing street tomorrow—

Order. That was a good try, but I doubt whether it has very much to do with the Duchy of Lancaster.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has answered the question about how much time he spends on these duties, the inference being that he has other time for other duties. I wish to ask him whether he can confirm or deny that Mr. MacGregor is seeking to shorten his term of office—

Order. The point is that that has nothing to do with the Duchy of Lancaster.

Does the Minister recall that his predecessor could not manage on £33,000 a year in that job and went to other fields to feather his nest? The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he does about three hours work for this £33,000. It is not a bad number, is it? He gets £33,000 for three hours' work, yet last week one of his playmates on the Government Front Bench came here and said that they would give single pensioners an extra 40p in the coldest February for 40 years—just enough to buy a mustard plaster.

If the hon. Gentleman was right about my salary, he might conceivably have some sort of point. I am not paid as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from public funds. I do not receive a salary as a Cabinet Minister from public funds. I do receive a nominal salary as Chancellor of the Duchy from the Duchy itself.

asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what response the Church Commissioners have received from those retail companies of which they are shareholders regarding the proposed deregulation of Sunday trading.

Of the responses received so far, the majority have indicated in varying degree that they are not in favour of Sunday trading, although many say they may well feel compelled to open if their competitors do.

In view of the General Synod voting 427 to six against Sunday trading, I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware that the cathedral bookshops at Canterbury and Guildford have now closed and are awaiting the debate on Sunday trading? Will my hon. Friend impress on shop chains in which the Commissioners hold shares that they should close on Sunday, to ensure that Sunday is a day for recreation, religion and leisure?

The Church Commissioners would expect any institutions in which they hold shares to obey the law. Perhaps I might add that the nearest biblical analogy that I can find for the Government's present stance on this issue, if they insist on persevering, is that of the Gadarene swine.

When we next ask questions on this subject, may we ask the Second Estates Commissioner to draw attention to the Prime Minister's post? She has received only 100 letters in support of her proposal, and 37,000 against.

I shall bear that suggestion in mind. The interesting experience of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and with differing views of the legislation, concerns the number of people who express their anxiety when they have no religious observance whatever.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the implications for the arts of the increase of Government funding for the Arts Council since 1979.

Arts Council funding from 1979–80 to 1986–87 has been increased by 32 per cent. in real terms, including the extra abolition money, and by 7 per cent. in real terms excluding it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a 7 per cent. increase in real terms, with a 10 per cent. increase in real terms in overall arts funding and £20 million-plus from business sponsorship, means that there are excellent implications for the arts?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The picture that is painted by some of gloom, doom and despondency in the arts world, is the very contrary of the fact. The Government have increased the amount of resources for the arts in real terms.

It is not a matter of gloom and doom. Is the Minister aware that since 1982–83, excluding abolition money—which we must, as it is an inadequate substitute for the money previously put into the arts by metropolitan county councils and the GLC—the real increase in the arts funding by the Government is less than 1 per cent.? That figure was produced by the House of Commons Library. Does the Minister not feel that it is an obscenity in terms of values for the Government to spend £18 billion on defence and only £136 million on the arts?

The hon. Gentleman abuses the English language by suggesting that it is an obscenity when we have increased overall resources available for the arts. He should bear in mind that local authorities give a great deal of support to the arts. The diversity and plurality of funding is the very strength of arts in the long term.

How far does my right hon. Friend think the arts should rely on the Government rather than on local government? As for abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, does my right hon. Friend agree that the 32 London boroughs and other successor authorities could do rather more than they have so far shown signs of doing?

My hon. Friend is right. We have to remember that the Government have switched £43 million from local government funding to Government funding. As a result, we are relieving local authorities of the overall burden. On Merseyside, for example, we are merely asking successor authorities to fund 10 per cent. of what is being precepted from them under present policies.

We are in the classic situation of asking why, if things are so good, they are so bloody awful? Theatres, music halls, concert halls and arts centres throughout Britain are desperately anxious about the fall in the amount of money that they receive. Does the Minister agree that since the Government came to office arts funding has collapsed in real terms? Does he agree also that local authorities are being cut and capped, if not abolished, and that it is a cruel and obscene joke to suggest that they can match the proper funding given earlier?

The hon. Gentleman is painting a wholly false picture. The West End commercial theatres are doing exceedingly well and their attendances are increasing. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that everything should be done by the state. He should welcome the fact that one of the major ways of finding a solution to the problems of the Empire theatre in Liverpool, for example, has been through the private sector, not the ratepayers. Both the private and public sectors should work in partnership in the arts world, and that is what we are seeking.

asked the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received from those theatres and concert halls threatened with closure as a result of the abolition of the metropolitan authorities.

I have received a number of representations about some of those theatres and concert halls, and I have discussed their concerns with the Arts Council. As the House will know, good progress is being made on a number of issues, including Sadler's Wells, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic and the Liverpool Empire.

Notwithstanding that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the director of the Merseyside Arts Association, Mr. Peter Booth, is reported as having said last Friday that he is fed up with hearing that everything is safe, that the crisis is still a deep one, and that some £600,000 will be required to save the philharmonic, the Everyman, the Playhouse and 30 other smaller art groups on Merseyside? What hope is there of that £600,000 being found? What co-operation is the Minister receiving from the five district councils on Merseyside?

The Arts Council, under the chairmanship of Sir William Rees-Mogg, is doing an excellent job in trying to solve all these problems in turn. On Merseyside, the local authorities are being asked to take a small burden. I emphasise that it is small, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply worried about the continuity of the arts on Merseyside. The local authorities are being asked to pay only 10 per cent. of what they are being precepted until 1 April. The whole burden of supporting museums and galleries is being assumed by central Government on behalf of taxpayers. That is a genuine demonstration of the Government's anxiety to ensure that we play our part. We now look to the local authorities to pay their share of the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils, such halls and theatres will have to survive because of the plural funding, which he mentioned earlier, from local authorities, the Arts Council, business sponsorship and one group that has so far not been mentioned—the public, who attend such shows? Does my right hon. Friend further believe that some sensible taxation reforms may help to encourage more people to donate money to their local theatres and concert halls?

My hon. Friend is right about the paying public being important. Indeed, at present they are the largest supporters and funders of the arts—way beyond any other source of funding. The Government have already made some tax concessions to encourage people to give to the arts, and we are concerned to ensure that everything possible is being done to improve on that.

Does the Minister realise that, despite being within one month of the abolition of Merseyside county council, many arts facilities on Merseyside still do not know whether they will be open or closed after 1 April? Is he aware that Liverpool city council, which is short of resources and is being rate-capped, cannot finance all those services? He has had correspondence over the Croxteth hall and community park, for example. Is he about to respond to my request that he visits the area and sees the people concerned with that hall and park?

The hon. Gentleman is not quite with it. As I said in Friday's debate, I have already visited Merseyside and seen a large cross-section of the arts. On the question of funding, which is important for the continuity of the arts, Arts Council clients which are not affected by the abolition of the metropolitan county councils have been informed of their allocation for 1986–87, and those affected by abolition are being given interim assurances that their Arts Council funding will be no less than at present. Their final figures will depend on the outcome of negotiations with local authorities. It is now up to local authorities to show that they wish to play their part in the partnership.

Will there not be a genuine problem if the various local authorities taking over responsibilities for such things as health, safety, fire precautions, and so on, make differing interpretations of their duties, which could affect, for example, the activities of touring companies? Will my right hon. Friend keep an eye on this and help to bring a balanced and reasonable approach across the board wherever he can?

Although I have been somewhat critical of some local authorities, principally Merseyside and Islington, in the large bulk of the cases, including Tyne and Wear, Manchester arid South Yorkshire, local authorities have been co-operating extremely well with the Arts Council in negotiations to deal with abolition problems. They have set a good lead and we look to other local authorities to follow their good example.

asked the Minister for the Arts what progress has been made by the Government in implementing recommendations of the Attenborough report on arts for disabled people.

Good progress has been made. The Arts Council published a "Code of Practice on Arts and Disability" on 6 December 1985. The public libraries, museums and galleries have for many years made special efforts, within the resources available, to facilitate visits by disabled people. I shall continue to take a close interest.

Is the Minister aware that that is a very disappointing answer, in that there were a series of specific proposals in the report, most of which have not yet been taken up? Has he had any discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to implementing some of those suggestions in this year's Budget? Will funding for the proposals in the report come from the expenditure of his Department, or from that of other Departments?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recommendations in the report about Government activity, I can tell him that I have already had a preliminary meeting with representatives of the Carnegie trust, which produced the report and the recommendations, and I have had meetings with my hon. Friend in the Department of Health and Social Security to discuss these matters. My problem is that I am clearly limited by available resources in doing much more, but I am giving every support to the work of the Arts Council in trying to ensure that the code of practice is implemented by arts organisations.

We all welcome the report and that partial response to it, but the crucial question is to what extent there will be resources so that it can be implemented? Is the Minister aware that we shall give him full support in any argument that he has with the Treasury to achieve that purpose?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. In libraries, museums and galleries a good deal of progress has been made in providing access to the disabled. There is more of a problem with the performing arts, but a great deal of attention is being given to this sector.