| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnorshire): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a previous Labour Government who introduced the Development Board for Rural Wales, which has social functions? In fact, those social functions stood rural Wales in good stead, and we would have been sore put if we did not have them.
Mr. Davies: I shall refer at length to the debates that took place in the Welsh Grand Committee. These were not on the words "social function" but on the exact words that are to be inserted into the proposed legislation. Again, it was old Labour intervening in the economy.
The Welsh Development Agency was supposed to promote wealth creation. If the changes are carried out, the WDA will have a mixed role. To an extent it will have a contradictory role, not only in wealth creation but in social function or social facilities. There could be problems along that path.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) is right. I take him back to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, which applies, until it is done away with, to a small but important part of Wales, Powys, Meirionnydd and Cardiganshire--or Ceredigion--and has been extended, perhaps, to parts of Carmarthenshire. I am not sure. The words "social development" are plain for all to see in that Act. They were taken originally from the Highlands and Islands development board legislation. I do not keep up with Scottish affairs, so do not know what happened to that board. It has probably gone, but whether it exists is immaterial.
There is no definition of "social development" in the Bill, and there is none in the 1976 Act. I do not complain about that; it is not an easy phrase to define. I do not know about the Highlands and Islands development board, as I have not checked. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that there was interesting discussion in Standing Committee K on the meaning of "social development". I refer to the Standing Committee debate in 1976, when these matters were debated, and to what was said by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary--who represented
Flint, East at the time but who now represents Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). At the time, amendments were tabled to change the wording from "social development" to "social needs". My hon. Friend resisted, saying:
My hon. Friend continued:
What will be the position when the Bill becomes law and we have an assembly? Will the check, if there is to be one, be transferred from the Secretary of State to the assembly, and will Treasury consent still be required? Will there be no check at all, or will the assembly be some kind of check? That is a subsidiary question, as to how any check will operate on moneys paid for social development, which would include social activity, village halls and voluntary bodies and associations.
On 28 July 1976, my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary mentioned assistance to rural councils and voluntary service councils--I am not sure what that means. He referred to assistance to the Council of Social Service for Wales. I am not sure whether that still exists. Again quite properly, he referred to assistance to the Welsh Committee--I am not sure what that refers to either--and then to young farmers' clubs. They do a wonderful job in rural Wales. I do not decry any of that at all. But my hon. Friend, who was describing what was meant by "social development", was saying that assistance to young farmers' clubs fell within that phrase, although he seemed to imply that the requirement of the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury would be a check.
My hon. Friend then referred to the splendid Association of Welsh Weavers. I am not sure whether that still exists. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has a Welsh weavers association in his constituency. I hope that he does. I hope that it still exists. If it does, it is surely a worthy body. I am trying to explain what Ministers in the previous Labour Government who introduced the phrase "social development", which is now being taken out of the Development of Rural Wales Act and put into this Bill, understood by that phrase.
My hon. Friend continued:
Mr. Livsey:
The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the social development work carried out by the Development Board for Rural Wales has been extremely beneficial, and if it is incorporated in the Bill, it will benefit other parts of rural Wales. For example, the development of the Brecon jazz festival and the Hay festival of literature would not have occurred without the DBRW's social development powers. It has created a lot of employment and interest in the locality.
Mr. Davies:
The hon. Gentleman is right. The only comment with which I take issue is that incorporation in the Bill would enable those benefits to continue to go to rural Wales. Of course, they would, but the point that I am making is that it would enable the benefits to go everywhere in Wales: to Rhymney or Llanelli--if the hon. Gentleman can have a jazz festival in Brecon, I presume that we shall get the same benefits as his constituents now get.
It would have been perfectly possible for the draftsman to incorporate the phrase in the Bill and confine it to the areas covered by the DBRW. It could have been said that social development should apply to a part of Wales, which could be defined as Powys, Ceredigion and Meirionnydd--the same areas covered by the development board. The hon. Gentleman made a good point. Indeed, he made the point for me. We are extending
a measure that was properly conceived for a small but important area of rural Wales to the whole of Wales: Cardiff, Newport--
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies:
I appreciate that Caernarfon was not included and that now it will be. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is delighted about that.
Mr. Wigley:
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, during the DBRW's 20 years' existence, several areas of Wales, particularly Dinefwr, Preseli, Glyndwr and Dwyfor, which are just as rural as areas in mid-Wales, argued strongly that they needed the powers that were available to the DBRW, but were not available under the WDA? This change at least meets that agenda.
"I must resist the amendments and I will explain why. The amended wording could be construed as restricting in some way the activities that the board might support".
These are the important words:
"The board should be able to provide facilities"--
social development facilities--
"in the form of additional physical amenities such as halls"--
I take it that he meant village halls--
"and playing fields, and that explains why the Government are right and the Opposition are wrong. The board should be able to support the activities undertaken in those halls by voluntary bodies"--
indeed, voluntary associations appeared throughout the debate--
"if they contribute to the growth and development of the area and enrich its culture."
My hon. Friend continued:
"There is no reason why the wording of the Bill should be restricted in a way which would throw doubt on whether the board could assist social activity."
We are approaching some kind of definition, or at least a description. Social development means, quite properly--I have nothing against it--helping village halls and voluntary associations, and assisting in what is called social activity. My hon. Friend said that the definition of the words was taken from the legislation governing the Highlands and Islands development board.
"A check on any possible and reasonable exercise by the board of the powers"--
there was an argument that the words were too wide and that there should be some kind of check--
"to support social development is not to be found in the legal definition of the powers"--
there was no legal definition--
"but rather in the need for the consent which the board"--
the Development Board for Rural Wales--
"must obtain from the Secretary of State"--
that is, my right hon. Friend until the Bill becomes law and the orders are made--
"and the Treasury for any assistance offered".--[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 22 July 1976; c. 82-83.]
Will my hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State deal with that specific point? Where will the checks apply in future? My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State properly referred to such checks. He said that there was no check in the legal definition--the courts might check that, and I shall return to that in a moment--but that rather there was a check in the need for the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury.
"'social development' is the wider term"--
wider than social needs--
"and includes what is suggested as community development."--[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 28 July 1976; c. 196.]
There had been speeches by the then hon. Member for Merioneth about the importance, perhaps rightly, of community development. According to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, community development was encompassed by the phrase "social development".
4.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |