COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 30 October 1975)

§ Lord LOVELL-DAVIS
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. As noble Lords are well aware by now this clause defines the Agency's responsibilities in respect of the operation of news media. It follows precisely the comparable provision in the Industry Bill. In particular the Agency will not be able to initiate an enterprise in the news media and it is clear that directions given by the Secretary of State to allow the Agency or their subsidiaries to retain the media interests are not intended to be permanent. Such directions will continue in operation only while there is a danger of serious commercial injury being caused to a newspaper or periodical if the Welsh Development Agency were obliged to dispose of their interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has already given me notice of a 717 question in respect of this. The reason why we have provided something rather fuller is simply one of drafting and I think perhaps of national independence. It was felt better to set the matter out in full in our Bill without referring to or depending in any way on another Bill. So that unlike the Scottish Development Agency Bill the Welsh Development Agency Bill in this respect stand on their own feet.
I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation about the difference between the new clauses in the two Bills, because on the Scottish Development Agency Bill I raised the point that the equivalent clause there was only five lines, and I referred to the Industry Bill and the National Enterprise Board. My object was to find out whether there was any difference. The noble Lord has kindly replied and made it clear that it is simply another way of drafting, and of course I see no objection at all.
I am sure it is right that Welsh and Scottish legislation should go about these things in their different ways if that seems best and convenient. But in your Lordships' House I think I was the first person to raise the whole question of the Agencies and their relationship to the media, and the difficulties that there might be if there was not some provision for situations where they were trying to help companies in the media and where the control of those companies might come into question. So I think your Lordships will be as glad to see this additional clause in the Welsh Development Agency Bill, as we have been to see a similar, though differently worded, clause in the Scottish Development Agency Bill.
May I add that, when I drew attention to the difference between the drafting of these two clauses, I did not make any unfavourable comparisons about the reasons for this as between Scotland and Wales, but I should like to draw atten 718 tion to the fact that in the previous Amendment No. 33, "may" and "shall" is something that continually occurs in Scottish debates on Bills, so I am sure that also is common to both Scottish and Welsh legislative discussions.

§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN
My Lords, may I add that I am glad we in Wales have scored over Scotland in this matter. This clause has been properly drafted in the modern sense because all lawyers and all businessmen know what a nuisance it is when a clause refers to another Bill, and what the draftsman of this Welsh Bill has done is merely to quote largely passages from the Industry Bill to make it readable to the ordinary person. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, on the point he made about drafting.