HL Deb 19 June 1975 vol 361 cc1041-67

5.12 p.m.

Report of Amendments received.

Clause 1 [The Welsh Development Agency]:

Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph (d) and insert— ("(d) to promote, or help to promote, good industrial relations in, and appropriate means of employee involvement in the affairs of, undertakings with which the Agency are associated;")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have just had a debate on this subject in connection with the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill, in which our view was made perfectly clear that the words "industrial democracy", being undefined, are very difficult to interpret, are subject to all kinds of different interpretations by different people and are words which we consider thoroughly undesirable in these two Bills. I know that the noble Lord who is to reply to this Amendment will have "Resist" written on his brief, but I hope the fact that this new paragraph is now in the Scottish Bill will induce the Government to accept, at least for the time being, that the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill should run in parallel and that these words should also go into the Welsh Bill.

I fully realise that if the Government are prepared to accept this form of words they will accept them only at this stage of the Bill in this House, and that no doubt they will seek to overturn them in another place. However, in the interests of good Scottish-Welsh relationships and of keeping the two Bills running in parallel, I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. It is necessary for me to maintain consistency not so much between what has so far appeared in the two Bills, but between the attitude of my noble friend in the course of the Scottish debate and the attitude which I now find it desirable to take. My noble friend Lord Hughes explained why the Amendment was not acceptable during the course of the Scottish debate. During the Committee stage of the Bill, I ventured to say that fundamental changes in attitudes and relationships and in the balance of power and responsibility within industry are needed. That is now becoming well recognised not only in this country but on the Continent. In our view, the Amendment does not go far enough to reflect that recognition.

We think the phrase "industrial democracy" is a sufficient guide to, and it is no more than that, the duty of the Agency to ensure that undertakings under their control will provide for the participation of employees in decision-making. That being the view which I and my noble friends take, I am afraid that the draft which appears on the Amendment does not really go far enough to indicate the important change in attitudes that is required in industry. Therefore. I fear that I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and reject this Amendment.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that I am in some difficulty. Whereas he wishes to be consistent, so do I. In another context my noble friends have divided the House on this issue. There is a very grave danger that if I do the same the House may be counted out; then the noble and learned Lord would lose the rest of his business and I am sure he does not wish to do that. I hope he will think again. With the greatest reluctance I understand his complete reluctance to accept this Amendment, but because it has already been carried—we have already debated the matter and the House has expressed its view—although he does not agree with the Amendment, as I know his noble friend Lord Hughes did not agree with it, what I say must be consistent with what has been said by my noble friends. At the moving of the Report stage of the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill I protested very strongly at the speed with which this Bill, as well as the Scottish Bill, was being rushed through this House. At least it would be one way of having a little longer to consider it, if we were to find that there was not a House on this occasion. Therefore, I hope the noble and learned Lord will think again on this matter.

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that if he withdraws his Amendment he will still be consistent, because, no doubt due to an error in procedure on the Scottish Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, did not move the Amendment taking out the section relating to industrial democracy. Therefore, as it now stands the Bill is in the anomalous position that it includes both definitions. I have no doubt that at the next stage the noble Lord will again put down the Amendment which he failed to move today, to take out the reference to "industrial democracy". So it would meet the purpose if the noble Lord deferred the pursuit of this Amendment until the next stage. At least it would then be quite obvious that both Agencies were seeking consistency, in that the Scots would be taking out the part which they do not want, and the Welsh would be putting in the part which they want and taking out at the same time the part they do not want. Therefore, we can make progress with the Bill today and also achieve the degree of consistency, even though undesirable, which the noble Lord wants.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is willing to accept that Judgment of Solomon, which I am bound to say dazed and dazzled me in its concluding portions. If the noble Lord would be willing not to move the Amendment at this stage, so that we could get this package sorted out as between the Scottish and the Welsh scene at the next stage which I understand will be on Tuesday, I should be quite happy to leave it in that position without prejudice to the position which the noble Lord has taken in moving this Amendment.

Lord OGMORE

My Lords, may I express my concern about this most extraordinary situation that we have reached. If I understand correctly what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, there are two conflicting definitions in the Scottish Bill and another one which apparently is not conflicting with one of those definitions in the Welsh Bill, and there is now an Amendment to alter the Welsh Bill in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that he accepts the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and withdraws the Amendment today, so allowing the Government to look at it on the next stage of the Bill, which presumably will be on Third Reading, or even at a later stage of the Bill on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?

I must just say this. I can only hope that when the Welsh Assembly is in being it will never be put into the position that this House has been put into today. I hope they will run their business better than we have done on this Bill because, so far as I can see, this is a complete travesty of Parliamentary proceedings. I cannot remember a case of this kind before. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, undoubtedly it is partly due to the fact that we are trying to rush the Bill through. There is not really sufficient time between the various stages for noble Lords to be completely in accord with what everybody else is trying to do. If the Government could give the House a little more time to consider the various stages I do not think there would be this muddle.

Lord HUGHES

My Lords, if I may be permitted to say so, what is happening is not because of any rushing of the Bill.

I could hardly believe my ears when I discovered that the second Amendment had not been moved. I thought in fact that the noble Lord had said, "I beg to move ", but maybe by a slip of the tongue he said, "Amendment not moved ". So we have the ridiculous position that he did not move the second leg of his Amendment. That could have happened if he had had a fortnight to consider it. It is something which is quite incapable of understanding.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, if I may intervene I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been a little censorious. These slips and errors do take place at stages of a Bill where a number of Amendments are being dealt with. It has not been unknown to happen in another place; so I hope he will be a little more forgiving. This was obviously a mistake, and we can return to it at the Third Reading of the Bill. For the clearing up of the difficulty at this moment, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to withdraw his Amendment and to return to it at Third Reading. I am afraid I cannot give any undertakings of a probable change of attitude on the part of the Government in the meantime, but if he does not feel moved to take that course I am afraid the matter will fall for a Division.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion, hardly suitable for a Report stage. If I may, with permission, speak again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his "Judgment of Solomon ". I am perfectly prepared not to risk a Division which might end in the counting out of the House. I do not think that would be at all desirable. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was a little hard on us in regard to the Welsh Bill because there was nothing wrong in our procedure. Things did go wrong on the Scottish ill, I think for understandable reasons which I will not go into.

Lord OGMORE

My Lords, I was not complaining about us; I was complaining about the Scots.

Lord ABERDARE

Then, my Lords, I quite agree. I rather thought the noble Lord was including us in his censure. in view of what has occurred, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, with the intention of returning to it at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.25 p.m.

Lord RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, earlier this afternoon I moved an Amendment to a similar passage in the Scottish equivalent of this Bill, to which my noble friend Lord Hughes gave a reply which I may say did not reassure me. However, I will not continue in the same way with this Amendment because I have already taken up quite some time of the House this afternoon. If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who heard me speak at the Committee stage, has some further comments which he would like to make—that is further to those which were given by my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis at Committee stage—and if he has had an opportunity of reconsidering the matter I should be glad to hear his comments and not to go any further with the Amendment.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend still feels unhappy about this clause, but I respectfully think that his concern is not really well placed. It is decided law that a statutory company can do things which are necessary, incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions. The provision in subsection (4) simply reflects that and confers no novel or wide powers but simply follows accepted practice. It does not give the Agency any powers to override existing laws and that is made very clear in subsection (13).

In connection with that the point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the Committee stage as to whether the words "any enactment" in subsection (13) included the present Bill, and the answer to that is that it does. So that the provision in the Bill simply makes it clear, to remove any possible doubt on anyone's part, that the Agency had the usual rights and powers of a private corporation. If I may give an example, the Agency have as one of their functions to promote Wales as a location of industrial development but they do not have a power specifically expressed to open and run offices, whether in Cardiff, in London or even in New York, for the promotion of Wales as a location. The effect and value of subsection (4) is to enable the Agency to open an office for that reason; that is to say, they would be able to do so as it would be conducive to the discharge of that function of promoting Wales as a location of industrial development.

The same would apply in London or New York, except that as the Bill is drafted they would need the approval of the Secretary of State to do so in New York. The inclusion of the words, "with-the approval of the Secretary of State" outside Wales carries with it the connotation that the approval of the Secretary of State is not required in Wales only if one misunderstands what the provisions mean. and I do not think there is any real cause for doubt about that.

The point I wish to emphasise to my noble friend is that we are not here talking about special powers. The fact that the Secretary of State's consent is required outside Wales is a reflection of the fact that the Agency will carry out their activities almost wholly within Wales, but when they step outside they should be in no doubt that they are under the control of the Secretary of State, who is much more able to take a wider view (in view of the advice that is available to him) of what is proposed and consult other interested organisations before approving what might be proposed by the Agency.

There can be no question about the Secretary of State's control over the Agency's activities within Wales. At various places in the Bill the requirement for the Secretary of State's approval is spelt out—for example in Clause 7(1) and (2) relating to industrial sites; Clause 12(2) relating to the transfer of publicly-owned property; Clause 13 relating to environmental shemes, and there are other illustrations.

Of course, as my noble friend will have noticed, the Secretary of State has power to issue not only general, but specific, directions to the Agency. Therefore there is no question of the Agency not being subject to control within Wales. I hope, therefore, that he will feel there is nothing sinister or unusual in the section which has caused him concern, but which is in keeping with the ordinary powers given to ordinary companies and corporations.

Lord RAGLAN

My Lords. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for once more providing me with an explanation. However, I am still very far from being satisfied. What divides us is the interpretation. My noble and learned friend again used the word "misunderstanding ". I am sure that the intentions of the Government are good, as pure as the driven snow. However. what their intentions may be, and my noble and learned friend knows that better than I, has no relevance to the interpretation of the law. Whatever the intentions of the draftsmen, whatever the intentions of Parliament when passing a Statute, they have no relevance to interpretation when it comes to the people who read the Bill outside Parliament, or the judges who have to interpret the law.

My Lords, the difference between us arises from the fact that I believe these powers are much too wide. I believe they are much wider than necessary. The Government Agencies with which I have had association do things outside Britain. At present, I am instigating an advertising office in Brussels for our new town. We are to have a little booth which will advertise industrial sites in our new town. But I do not have to have these enormous powers conferred by this Bill to enable me to do that. There is nothing in the New Towns Act as wide as this. I am very nervous indeed, and very worried, that these powers, in all innocence written into the Bill, are much wider than necessary, and that the Executive are demanding, in effect, much more power than they need, and powers which will put them beyond either Parliamentary control or Parliamentary accountability.

My Lords, as I said just now during the Report stage of the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill, the main culprit here is probably the Industry Bill. Having read what my noble and learned friend has said, I will reserve my position until I see how the Industry Bill emerges from the other place. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 4, leave out ("and (c)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to the removal of a paragraph in the Bill on Committee stage. This is Amendment No. 4. and later on there will be Amendments Nos. 15 and 28 which, again, are simply consequential on having removed this paragraph at Committee stage. I hope they will be agreeable to the Government. I beg to move.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, this Amendment is consequential. The Government accept that it is consequential upon the removal from the Bill of the function of the Agency, to carry on industrial undertakings and to establish and carry on new industrial undertakings". Our views on this are fully recorded in Hansard, so I will say only that we will seek to restore this reference in another place.

Clause 2 [Constitution and status]:

5.35 p.m.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 29, leave out ("four") and insert ("six").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to increase the size of the Agency from a chairman, deputy-chairman and no fewer than four or more than six other members to a chairman, deputy-chairman and no fewer than six nor more than eight other members. The Government have reconsidered their views on the size of the Agency in the light of the very reasoned arguments put forward on all sides of the House during Committee stage. We are particularly anxious, as I stressed previously, to avoid creating too large a body, which would simply become a forum for discussion. For this reason, we do not want to go quite as far as was proposed in the original Amendment. We believe this is a view which many will share. Therefore, we are ready to sec an increase in the size of the Agency's Board to the extent indicated in the Amendment. I hope that this will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, was speaking also to Amendment No. 6. As he says, these follow on an Amendment I put down during Committee stage, although the top limit does not go as high as I suggested at the time. However, this Amendment is preferable to mine. I think six is the right figure for the minimum number of members, and eight is the right figure for the maximum. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given consideration to this point, and for having put down an Amendment.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, leave out ("six") and insert("eight").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 39, after ("State") insert (",after consultation with the chairman or chairman-designate of the Agency,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to speak to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 26 to Schedule 1. The Government have reconsidered this provision. Here again we have taken into consideration the strong views expressed by the House in Committee. I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time by going over the arguments in detail once again. Suffice it to say that we are prepared to make a substantial bow in the direction of the Committee, as evidenced by the Amendments I am moving. In essence, they bring this Bill very much into line with the Scottish Development Agency Bill. I hope and believe that.the Amendments will commend themselves to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, I am very grateful once again to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. Thin was another Amendment moved by myself, although I had not provided for the first appointment to be made by the Secretary of State. I understand that this is what is happening in Scotland. For administrative reasons it is worth doing this way, but certainly there was strong feeling in the Committee that the chief executive should be a servant of the Agency appointed by the Agency. This is made after the first appointment of the Amendment. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord.

Lord OGMORE

My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to other members of the Government who accepted the strong desire of the Committee that something of this kind should be done. If I may say so, this is an excellent compromise. I hope the House will accept it.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 40, at end insert— ("(4A) Subsequent appointments to the office of chief executive shall be made by the Agency, with the approval of the Secretary of State."). —(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

Clause 5 [Power to form coinmittees]:

Baroness WHITE moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 40, leave out ("with the approval of the Secretary of State ")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. May I apologise to your Lordships for not having been in my place to move the first Amendment in my name. I was in deep discussion at the other end of the building. I am encouraged by the attitude which the Government has taken to the Amendment we have just discussed on Clause 2. As your Lordships may remember, in Committee I suggested that the way in which Clause 5 is drafted to my mind restricts quite unreasonably the authority and responsibility of the Agency.

If your Lordships look at Clause 5(2), it will be apparent that not only does the Secretary of State have to approve any members of any committee who are not members of the Agency, but from the way in which it is drafted the Agency cannot even appoint members of their own to serve on committees without obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State. They may not say which of themselves may serve on a particular committee without his approbation.

Quite frankly, I do not think that any self-respecting Agency could accept a position of that kind where they could not even designate their own members to be members of committees. As your Lordships see, the actual establishment of any committees by the Agency is itself subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. In other words, he has the last word as to how many committees or what committees are to be set up. It appears to me that the Agency then ought to be able to go ahead with appointing members, both their own members and, I should have said, others who are not members of the Agency, to such committees. This would mean that the Secretary of State would have complete control over what he might consider to be undesirable proliferation of committees; that may be understandable. But I do not think that we ought to pass Clause 5(2) as it stands.

I can, of course, speak for myself, but I simply would not serve, if I were invited to, on an Agency of this description if they were so much under the thumb of the Secretary of State and of the Welsh Office that they were not even allowed to say which of their own members should sit on a committee which had been approved by the Secretary of State to be established. Throughout this Bill it is emphasised that the Agency-arc the agents of the Secretary of State, but they lire surely not his creature. I hope very much, therefore, that the Government will appreciate the position of the Agency in this matter. If they are suggesting, as I am very glad to learn that they are, that they approve of the idea that the Agency might be trusted to appoint their chief executive, admittedly with the direct approval of the Secretary of State—that, after all, is an extremely important appointment— surely they could have sufficient confidence in the Agency appointed by the Secretary of State to permit them to establish committees of their own and have real authority as to who are to be members of those committees. I beg to move.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in a conciliatory mood this afternoon, and I am very sorry, therefore, that I have to resist the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is intended that the Agency's power to establish committees should not be exercised too frequently, and this is the point I should like to emphasise. That is why it is accepted, I believe, that the Secretary of State's approval should be sought. The committees, as we envisage them, will be extremely important advisory groups, and it would be equally important to get the best available membership. While certainly this can be left to the Agency, who can be relied on to seek out the best candidates, it is better, we feel, that the Secretary of State should also be involved. This is surely a matter which can best be worked out between the chairman, the Board of the Agency and the Secretary of State.

We have, furthermore, gone to pains in the Bill to ensure that the same rigorous requirements laid down for the members of the Agency itself to satisfy the Secretary of State, with regard to financial interests, for example, should apply equally to members of committees. We feel it right, therefore, that the need for the Secretary of State's approval should be retained. However, I accept the strength of feeling of the noble Baroness on this matter. The fact is, as she knows, that in the Scottish Development Agency Bill the power to establish committees and appoint members is left with the Agency. This is not necessarily a precedent which should be made to apply elsewhere, but if the noble Baroness, Lady White, will agree to withdraw her Amendment, I will certainly undertake to look at this particular clause of the Bill again.

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, if I may, with permission, speak again, I am, of course, very grateful to my noble friend for giving an assurance that he will look at it again. I hope he will in particular look at the matter of the Agency's position in deciding which of their own members should sit on certain committees. That is what really sticks in my gullet.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her Amendment, perhaps it would be possible to say, "who may be either members of the Agency or, with the approval of the Secretary of State, persons who are not members". Perhaps that would meet this point.

Baroness WHITE

Quite so. I hope my noble friends will consider this, and in the light of the assurance he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7. [Provision of sites and premises for industry.]:

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. A question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, during Committee stage of the Bill, drew our attention to this minor drafting deficiency, and as I mentioned in my correspondence witth him, we acknowledge our debt to him. This is a purely drafting Amendment. Clause 19 sets out the procedures to be followed in acquiring and disposing of land. The power to acquire land is conferred on the Agency under Clause 1(5)(g). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13, leave out ("19 below") and insert ("1(5)(g) above ").—(Lord Lovell Davis.)

Lord ELTON

My Lords, may I at this point say that of course we accept the drafting nature of this Amendment. I have looked into the point which I made at Committee stage, and for the record I see, as I was informed subsequently, that the effect of Clause 19(1) and (2) is that the approval of the Secretary of State is required for the acquisition of land under Clause 1(5)(g), in any case under which it arises. Since I made the point at some length on the last occasion, I should now say that I now see that it is the case that the Secretary of State has this supervisory power.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Clause 10 [Selective financial assistance]:

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I am raising this in the knowledge that the Government are in as much difficulty as we are with the speed with which this Bill is required of us. I am, as it were, keeping a foot in the door, because this was a point which was raised at Committee stage and which was very favourably looked on by the Committee. I think Her Majesty's Government undertook to review the matter and make further announcements thereupon. I suspect that they will not in fact be ready so to do and that they would wish to wait till Tuesday to do so, but I wished to have means, first of all, of obtaining their views now if they are available; and, secondly, establishing my right to raise the matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 28, at end insert— ("( ) Any direction given under this section shall be reported immediately to the House of Commons in terms agreed with the directors of the company seeking assistance.").—(Lord Elton.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, it is undoubtedly the case that at the Committee stage, on behalf of the Government, I gave an undertaking to look at and consider the method and time of publication of the directions referred to, and the degree of detail that should be published. We are indeed anxious to strike the right balance between the demands of commercial confidence and those of public accountability.

It would seem desirable that this matter should be considered in conjunction with similar provisions in the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill and the Industry Bill.

I am afraid that I am not in any position today to indicate the way in which the Government propose to deal with this matter, and I fear that I am not absolutely certain that we shall be able to do so at the stage of the Third Reading. I give an assurance that consideration is being given to this point by the Government, and I am sorry that I cannot give a more conclusive answer today.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, may I ask whether the noble and learned Lord was speaking at the same time to the next Amendment, since he was referring to the nature of the publication? If he was speaking to both Amendments at the same time, may I ask whether there is a distinction in his mind, or the mind of Her Majesty's Government, in the approach to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12? My recollection is that of these two Amendments it was No. 11 which was the Amendment moved—and which we are now discussing—which was most enthusiastically received by the Committee. As the points are not identical, I should like to know whether his view of Amendment No. 11 is the same as his view of Amendment No. 12, or whether we should consider them separately.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, my view is the same and my undertakings are the same, but I am afraid that I cannot give effect to the undertakings today. What is proposed in both Amendments is under urgent consideration, and I hope that we may be able to give a conclusion to the matter on Tuesday. I cannot absolutely guarantee that, but we shall do our best.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I undertake to ask the noble and learned Lord to do this on Tuesday, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 [Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board]:

5.53 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 13: Page 7, line 12, leave out ("six") and insert ("seven").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this perpetual motion is inducing a condition where I shall soon be unable to remember my own name, let alone that of my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis. Amendment No. 13 is intended to bring the size of the proposed Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board into line with the size of the present non-statutory Welsh Industrial Development Board which has operated—and, indeed, operated very effectively—on the basis of a chairman and seven members. The Amendment takes acount of the wish that was expressed by noble Lords for some flexibility in the number of members of boards. I beg to move.

Baroness WHITE moved Amendment No. 14: Page 7, line 16, after ("finance"} insert ("local government ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which would add "local government" to the areas of experience which should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in making his appointments to the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board. I have been asked to do this by the local authority associations in the Principality, who are anxious that their voice should be heard. The fact that the Amendment just moved by my noble and learned friend has been accepted should make this slightly easier, as it adds one further member to the number agreed for the Advisory Board.

Some of the Welsh local authorities have been extremely active in promoting industry in their areas. They are jealous of their responsibilities in these matters. While I have no doubt that they will be anxious to work in the closest co-operation with the Development Agency, I am equally sure that it would be advisable for the Secretary of State and the Agency to make the local authorities in Wales feel that they are genuine partners in this matter. They put to me that while, of course, they have no absolute claim for a place, they would very much wish that their membership should at least be considered when appointments are being made to this Advisory Board. They wished to make it clear that they wanted to have two members on the Agency. Because it seemed to me that the more general Amendments, which we made to Clause 2, increasing the numbers was the more desirable way of doing this, I did not press the point when we were discussing Clause 2.

I hope that it might be possible to include local government among the various types of experience which would at least make someone eligible for consideration in appointments to the Advisory Board. I am aware that the functions of the Advisory Board are primarily financial, but there are members of local authorities who are experienced in financial matters and could provide useful service on the Board. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary of State on the exercise of his functions under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972. Its prime purpose is to provide detailed appraisals of commercial investment proposals. Clause 11(3) obliges the Secretary of State to include persons who appear to him to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry, banking, accountancy, finance or the organisation or representation of workers. Certainly the work of the Board has an impact on local government affairs, particularly in Wales where many local authorities take an active part in industrial promotion, but the emphasis of the work of the Board is the highly specialised one of financial appraisal, and we have found from experience of the non-statutory board that people with the specified qualifications are the most valuable to the efficient workings of the Board. But the list in the subsection is, of course, not intended to be exclusive and the Secretary of State could appoint someone with local authority or, indeed, other experience if he felt that the services of the individual concerned would contribute fully to the work of the Board. However, having said that, I am impressed by the manner in which the Amendment was explained by my noble friend, and although I fear that I must resist it at this stage I am certainly willing to look at the proposal in more detail and consider its implications at the next stage of the Bill.

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, I am most grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said. I hope very much that he will feel able to reconsider this, and I look forward to hearing further from him at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 [Other limits on Agency's powers]:

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Aberdare. )

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, the Government accept that this is consequential upon the removal from the Bill of the Agency's powers to form bodies corporate, and again we shall seek to restore the provision in another place.

Clause 19 [Acquisition, disposal and appropriation of land]:

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 16: Page 11, line 17, after ("10,") insert ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this is a matter which is still under review by the Government. I raised it at the last stage of the Bill and for the sake of clarity I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 17 so that it is clear what we are talking about. We are talking about the Diocese of Hereford and the 17 parishes, all parts of which are in fact in the Principality of Wales. I understand that the daunting complexities of Welsh disestablishmentarianism are on the flank of this subject, but I do not think they will intrude on it. I wish merely to protect the Province of Canterbury from spoliation by the Principality of Wales and I think that if some Amendment analogous to mine is not accepted, that will be the net result. I do not know whether the Government are in a position to say anything about this or whether this is something which they would prefer to deal with next week.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am happy to say that on this occasion I am prepared to meet the noble Lord's wishes immediately and to accept his Amendment, alarmed though I am at the prospect of treading into the fields of Welsh disestablishment and alarming my Church friends in Hereford.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I rise merely to express both my thanks for the noble and learned Lord's realistic and practical gesture and my admiration of the speed with which he has been able to collect and marshal the evidence in order to be able to accede to it.

Lord ELTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 17.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 17, leave out ("and 31").—(Lord Elton.)

Clause 20 [Powers of entry]:

6.5 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 18: Page 11, line 38. leave out ("forty-eight hours") and insert ("five days").

The noble Lord said: I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on this, because I believe that the conciliatory feelings of Her Majesty's Government may well extend to this Amendment, with which I will, with permission, discuss also Amendment No. 19 as the matter is the same though the wording is different. It is simply a question of the length of notice which must be given before an entry is made as of right by an agent of the Agency on to, in the first case, agricultural land and, in the second, on to land which is occupied for residential purposes.

I think that anybody who is on the receiving end of access as of right would agree that in both cases these are the minimum periods which are practicable. Your Lordships may recall that I was hoping for seven days in the first case rather than five, but I understand that the Scots have settled for five and I hope that your Lordships will feel that I am not in any way retreating from the position which I ought to occupy on behalf of my temporary acting compatriots in Wales by accepting five days rather than seven.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords. the Government have reconsidered the position in the light of the arguments put forward in Committee and I am glad to say that we are happy to accept this Amendment, which will have the added advantage of leaving the conscience of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor clear of aborted lambs.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, for that relief, much thanks.

Lord ELTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 19.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 39, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen ").—(Lord Elton.)

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 20: Page 11, line 41, after ("land") insert ("or property")

The noble Lord said: I have tabled this Amendment in response to a request from the farmers' organisations, which are aware of a good number of cases where it has become apparent that, whereas property comprises land, land does not necessarily comprise property. They are anxious, therefore, that it shall be clear that they may have recourse to the courts for damage in this context. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate beyond that, since the point, though it may be large, is succinct.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, if by "property" the intention is to cover buildings and so on affixed to the land—including, for example, farm buildings, fences, and so on, and even growing crops —then there is no need to specify it. The meaning of "land "in this context would cover such things. If personal property is intended, then of course the normal Common Law remedies are available through the courts. Hence if, for example, livestock were injured, an action in negligence could be brought. If farmers in Wales are at all concerned about this Bill, which I hope they are not, then I trust that what I have said will reassure them. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be kind enough not to press the Amendment, I may be able to satisfy him when we come to Amendment No. 23 which we feel covers this aspect of rights of entry.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, before accepting that position I think I should give the noble Lord an opportunity to withdraw from the position he just took up. of hoping that farmers in Wales were not concerned about this Bill. I am certain he did not intend to say that, but say it he did but in the light of his undertaking about a later Amendment I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, I meant it in the sense of over-concern or worry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 21: Page 12, line 4, leave out from ("if") to ("to") in line 5 and insert (" the owner objects").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment over which we passed rather fast at the last stage and to which we were intending to return on this occasion. In moving it, I should say that a manuscript Amendment or at least an allusion to defects in syntax must be made at this stage, since by asking your Lordships to substitute "owner", who is presumably singular, for "public body ", which is plural—and an owner has an interest whereas a public body has an undertaking—it may be necessary to alter a sentence later in the Bill and I have a manuscript Amendment to hand should the necessity arise.

The point we wish to elicit here is why, whatever the precedents, greater protection and facility should be given to public undertakings than to individual people. There may be reason for it, but it needs to be a very substantial reason thus to exclude the private owner from a protection which is given to a body, which is much better able to protect itself than he is likely to be, and I shall be interested to hear the arguments which the Government will deploy to explain this rather partisan attitude of the different kinds of owner.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, the effect of the Amendment would be to require the Agency to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State if any owner of land, not just statutory undertakers as at present, objected to the Agency carrying out boring in pursuance of the power of survey conveyed by subsection (2). There needs to be special protection for statutory undertakers because of the particular vulnerability of their pipelines, gas conduits, electric cables, and so on. under the ground which would be affected by boring. This is a provision which, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in Committee. is well precedented in existing legislation. It does no more than put the Agency on a par wit, for example, local authorities in Section 281(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Section 10(4) of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. However, I should stress and make it absolutely clear that the rights of the individual are fully protected, in that prospecting on any scale would require planning permission for which the Agency would have to apply in the normal way. I should also make it clear that any person who wished to object to the carrying out of works would, of course, if damage were feared, have recourse to action in the courts by seeking an injunction. For reasons which I have already given. the position of statutory undertakers is specifically provided for. For these reasons I must continue to resist this Amendment.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that exposition. I am advised that five days, which is now granted to our agricultural friends, is long enough to obtain an injunction should that appear to be necessary. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.11 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 22: Page 12, line 12, after ("any") insert ("land or")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is analogous to Amendment No. 20 which we discussed earlier, but it is not the same point and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look kindly upon it. The effect is to extend the provision of this subsection to agricultural land as well as to premises. Taken with the next Amendment, to which I shall speak separately, it brings into effect a code of conduct on agricultural property which is necessarily different from the code of conduct on industrial property. I am advised—and, in fact, the noble Lord has already adduced this argument for me when speaking to an earlier Amendment—that whereas the land comprises the premises which are built upon it, the premises do not comprise the land which surrounds them. Therefore, if we are to legislate for damage to or interference with livestock or farm machinery which is standing outside agricultural premises or in a field, then we need to insert the words "land or "before" the premises ", in order to make the clause effective.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, I am glad to say that we are prepared to allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in regard to an army of pipelayers, surveyors, ditch diggers and other disturbers of the rural peace, by accepting this Amendment in principle. In fact, it flows from the first reference in the subsection to land. However, there is one small point, which is that in order to get the drafting absolutely correct there would need to be two further references to "land or" in the subsection; otherwise, it would read oddly. However, as I said, the Government accept the Amendment in principle and we will undertake to move the Amendments required to get this right throughout the subsection.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am not quite sure whether he is suggesting that I should withdraw this Amendment so that the three can be moved together, or whether I should move this now and put it right at a later stage. I will do whatever he wishes.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, I think it would be better if the noble Lord would agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 23: Page 12, line 15, at end insert (":and while entering upon, surveying or leaving agricultural land or premises shall take reasonable care to avoid causing unnecessary harm or disturbance to livestock, crops or enclosures.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we covered this ground at the Committee stage and I do not think it is necessary for me to recapitulate what was said then, except that it was felt by myself, and with greater force by the farmers concerned, that if it was necessary to have a stipulation about the securing of industrial premises on leaving it was even more important to have the securing of agricultural premises and the field gate. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that the leaving open of gates is the most common form of agricultural damage inflicted on the farmer by the general public.

When the matter was raised it became clear that some Amendment, such as the one we are now considering, was necessary to be tacked on to the end of subsection (6), if there was to be an indication in the Bill when it became law of how these potential disturbers, as I think the noble Lord said, of the agricultural peace were to conduct themselves in order to minimise that disturbance. I trust that is not too truncated a version of my views to persuade Her Majesty's Government that this is a good Amendment.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

My Lords, as I said when referring to Amendment No. 20, I hope that we can meet the noble Lord's intention. We have considered this again in the light of the arguments put forward in Committee. I could continue to argue that there is no need to specify in the Bill that reasonable care will be taken to avoid disturbance or harm, but it would be churlish to continue to cavil with the Amendment. We certainly have no quarrel with its intention and I am glad to say that we are prepared to accept it.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am delighted with the co-operative attitude of Her Majesty's Government and so, I think, will be the farmers who have not had an over-concern with the Bill but have a natural and, I hope, approving concern with the Bill, which is what the noble Lord intended to impute to them. My Lords, I beg to move.

Clause 23 [Crown Land]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 24: Page 14, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert ("Crown land, but none of the provisions of this Act shall be construed as prejudicing any Crown interest or Duchy interest in Crown land; and expressions used in this section and section 266(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 have the same meaning in this section as in that subsection.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment designed to shorten and simplify the elaborate existing provision in the Bill concerning the exercise of the Agency's powers in relation to Crown land. There is no change in policy and I am happy to say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others that the Crown Estates Commissioners have been consulted and are content.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, Amendment No. 25 links with Amendment No. 24 and flows from it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 13, leave out subsection (2).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Schedule 1 [The Welsh Development Agency]:

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 26: Page 17, line 15, leave out ("The staff of the Agency, other than the chief executive,") and insert ("Subject to section 2(4) and (4A) above, the staff of the Agency").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this Amendment when speaking to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. This Amendment to Schedule 1 is consequential upon the two previous Amendments and brings into line the reference there to the appointment of the chief executive. My Lords, I beg to move.

6.19 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 27: Page 19, line 13, leave out ("having perpetual succession and a common seal").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to delete from the Bill the reference to the Welsh Development Agency having, as a body corporate, perpetual succession—attractive as that proposition sounds—and a common seal. This is purely a drafting Amendment. The words sought to be deleted are not strictly necessary. It is in the nature of a body corporate to have perpetual succession and a common seal, and other Bills currently before the House, such as the Employment Protection Bill, omit to mention these details. A parallel Amendment has been put down to the Industry Bill in another place. The Amendment has no substantial effect but is desirable in the interests of uniformly in legislation

Schedule 3 [Financial and administrative provisions relating to Agency]:

6.20 p.m.

Lord ABERDARE

My Lords, Amendment No. 28 is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 24, leave out ("and (c)").— (Lord Aberdare.)

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS

Once again the Government accept that this is an Amendment consequential upon the removal from the Bill of the Agency's function to carry on industrial undertakings and to establish and carry on new industrial undertakings. "Once again, I say that we shall seek to reinstate the reference in another place.

Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31:

Page 22, line 11 , leave out (" in accordance, and ").

Page 22, line 12, at end insert— ("or (b) from their wholly-owned subsidiaries.").

(4)

Page 22, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 en bloc These are purely drafting Amendments. As Schedule 3, paragraph 3, is drafted at present there is a slight doubt as to whether sub-paragraph (4)—which seeks to provide that the Welsh Development Agency is free without special permission from the Secretary of State to borrow from its own wholly-owned subsidiaries —has effect or not, since sub-paragraph (1) states that: The Agency may borrow money … only in accordance, with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) …". It does not mention sub-paragraph (4). The Amendments bring about the original intention more concisely. A parallel Amendment has been put down to the Industry Bill in another place. I beg to move.