HL Deb 08 June 1976 vol 371 cc474-94

2.50 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Establishment and general function of Development Board for Rural Wales]:

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert (" after consultation with local authorities and such other bodies as appear to him to have an interest.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suggest that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 might with advantage be considered together. Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage we had tabled a larger Amendment with the same intention. The intention of the Amendment relates in this instance to occasions when the Secretary of State intends to extend the area of responsibility of the Board. The parallel Amendment, No. 2, has a like effect on occasions when the Secretary of State intends to diminish the area of responsibility. In each case we have thought it fit that he should be required to consult the local authorities affected by the acquisition of greater amounts of land or the reduction of it. This suggestion was quite well received across the Chamber at the Committee stage. We have dropped requirements which we had earlier that such changes should he brought about using the Affirmative Resolution procedure for Statutory Instruments in the two Houses of Parliament, in the light of the objections raised to that procedure by the Government and in the hope that this gesture will secure their concurrence.

I should like to emphasise one point which appeared to be troubling some noble Lords on the other side at the Committee stage; namely, that the requirement that a particular body should he consulted does not exclude the possibility of consulting other bodies. A number of noble Lords objected to the Committee stage Amendment on the grounds that it necessarily narrowed the area of consultation; on the contrary, it expands the area of necessary consultation. I do not think that it would be profitable to argue this case in extenso at this stage, because we covered the ground with considerable thoroughness at the Committee stage. The arguments are simple and they are not really contentious.

The Bill is presented to us as a gesture in the direction of democracy; some of us see it as an interposition of bureaucracy between Government and the governed. One way of allaying this fear, which exists not only in this House but also among those who will live under the régime when it is introduced, is to make it clear that decisions of an order of magnitude of this kind, which will entirely alter the administration of a part of Wales from what it now is, cannot be carried out without adequate consultation of those nearest to the individual people, usually described as the " grass roots ". This is in the tradition of this House in protecting the rights of the individual and the principle of democracy, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, your Lordships will be aware of the very great efforts made by my noble friend Lord Simon in the earlier stages of this Bill and we on these Benches owe him a great debt of gratitude for his efforts in that respect. He has asked me to say that he is very sorry that he is unable to be present today and he has left me a document which I propose to refer to as my brief this afternoon in order to make some short interventions. I have nothing to add in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in support of them. My noble friend spoke in support of similar Amendments at other stages of the Bill, and we on these Benches support the Amendments as put forward.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

My Lords, I shall be as commendably brief as the two noble Lords who have spoken, by indicating that the Government are fully sympathetic to what is proposed in these Amendments, but as they stand they present difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton said, their effect is to place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult county councils, district councils, community councils and such other bodies as appear to him to have an interest before either extending or diminishing the Board's area of responsibility. That arises from the definition of local authorities in Clause 32(1) of the Bill. It may be that it was never the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that that degree of statutory duty of consultation should be extended over all those tiers of local authority responsibility. The message which really emerged from the Committee stage of the Bill was for more action and fewer words—less talk and more doing. If we multiply the extent of statutory duties imposed, then we may not get the necessary action.

However, I am very willing to look at this matter in the light of my acceptance of the view that certainly a duty of consultation arises here, and I can give the assurance that the Secretary of State intends such consultation. But perhaps the noble Lord would be content if the statutory duty were confined to the county councils and the district councils concerned, but did not extend to the other councils.

Another difficulty in the Amendment as it stands is that it is not clear from its reference to " local authorities " whether consultation should be confined to local authorities responsible for the actual or proposed area of the Board or whether it should cover all the local authorities of Wales. I hardly imagine that the latter was intended, but this is a matter which needs clarification. I certainly undertake to look again at what is proposed, so that what is desired by both noble Lords who have spoken can reasonably be met.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he said. Had he said less there would have been a doubt in our minds in that on the one hand he said that the Government intend that these consultations will take place, while on the other hand, a few sentences later, he will have been seen to have said that one must not have too many statutory duties because there will not be time to discharge them. Plainly if it is intended that they should be discharged, that argument must fall, and I am pleased to hear that it is the Government's intention that they shall be discharged. I see the difficulties which the noble and learned Lord has raised at least in relation to the number of local authorities which have to be consulted. This is a matter of drafting. If, as I understand him—and he will correct me if I am wrong—it is his intention to bring in at the Third Reading an Amendment on these lines but with the limitations he has suggested, then there would be no purpose in proceeding further with this Amendment. If the noble and learned Lord would like to stand up, metaphorically speaking, before I sit down, I think it would be in order for him to make an observation on that point.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I hope that at Third Reading I can achieve the purpose the noble Lord mentions. I use the words, " I hope ". I do not think there will be any real difficulty but I cannot, in this changing world, give an absolute guarantee.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am sure the emptiness of the Officials' Box also has some bearing on the noble and learned Lord's hesitancy, but I accept his good intentions. If we may leave it that this matter is open until Third Reading, in the expectation of a happy compromise, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No.3:

Page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (6).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 also refers back to something we have discussed at an earlier stage, and has been tabled as a means of avoiding giving the Secretary of State excessive powers which could, in unforeseen circumstances, be used ill-advisedly. I am happy to note the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make sure that proper advice is sought in the procedures referred to in this subsection, and that their intentions are validated by Amendment No. 15, which is to Schedule 1. In moving this Amendment, I think it would be proper if I were to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would refer to Amendment No. 15, because I suspect that the operations of that Amendment might go a long way to meet our intentions in the Amendment now under discussion. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the effect of the Amendment would be to delete from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to give the Board directions. Following the discussions which took place in Committee, the Government propose to adopt the suggestion that was made there that the Secretary of State should consult the Board, rather than the chairman, before making directions. I think that that really was the message that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, sought to put across, and, with his usual persuasiveness, he succeeded in doing so. It is therefore our intention to give effect to that proposal in Amendment No. 15. If that satisfies the noble Lord, then perhaps I need not elaborate on the need to give the Secretary of State power to give directions to the Board.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, it is common practice for Secretaries of State to be able to give directions to Boards under these circumstances, and, as the noble and learned Lord has clearly put it, it was our intention to see that these were not given without consultation with the Board as a whole. The Bill as it stood would have enabled the Secretary of State to find it impossible to get in touch with the chairman or vice-chairman of the Board, and to have given directions without any consultation at all. We are happy to see this possibility removed; and, in the light of that assurance, and welcoming in advance the advent of Amendment No. 15, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [General powers of the Board]:

3.4 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 4, line 22, leave out paragraph (g).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may he to the convenience of the House if we were to consider Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 together. They strike the Bill in Clause 3, and the intention in leaving out paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of Clause 3 is to remove an all-embracing power to undertake activities for all sorts of purposes given to the Board under the Bill. The two Amendments are a return to the attempt we made at Committee stage to reassure those who see in this Bill as it stands a threat that the Board will see fit to embark upon commercial or entrepreneurial activities in which it will stand at an immense and undesirable advantage vis-à-vis the private sector, which is made up, as noble Lords will recall from exchanges at the Committee stage, largely of very small units of business which feel themselves, rightly, exposed to the chill winds of unfair competition.

At Committee stage we put forward Amendments with a similar purpose, and we were told, first, that there was no intention to use these powers competitively. To that I now rejoin: Why, in that case, give the opportunity for the Board so to do at a future date? You do not, after all, put a catapult into a small boy's Christmas stocking simply because he says he will not use it. Particularly do you not do so if you have a lot of greenhouses at home and have heard him muttering about how he likes breaking windows. The earlier intentions of the Bill on the West Midlands Metropolitan Area will, I think, be taken as an indication that someone in authority does like the idea of breaking windows in the form of Government bodies undertaking competitive enterprises.

The Government were then, to follow our analogy, actually stretching the elastic in the direction of the conservatory. The deletion of paragraph (g) would, on its own, remove this temptation by removing the possibility of yielding to it. At the Committee stage, however, it was made clear that there were a number of activities upon which the Board should properly embark, which the deletion of paragraph (g) would prohibit them from executing if it stood as an Amendment on its own. This I accept, though I fancy that for a number of these activities there are other agencies capable of acting in their place. However, be that as it may, we have the second Amendment linked to cover this eventuality.

It was secondly represented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that powers similar to those in question are granted under the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act in Section 6. The noble Lord twice quoted from the section the phrase: …carry on or set up…any business…which…will contribute to the economic or social development of the Highlands and islands ",

and he held it up for our approval. Having had this section held up to us as an example to follow we have, under his leadership, followed it. Here it is, in the Amendment, with the area of the Welsh Board substituted for the Highlands and Islands Board. The advantages that I see in following the precept urged upon us by the noble Lord at Committee stage are, first, that unlike the present drafting of the Bill it requires the Board to secure the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury whenever it intends to go into business on its own account, or on anyone else's; and, secondly, that the acquisition of a business or undertaking must be specifically by agreement. These are two provisions not at present in the Bill. Thirdly, as the Government have already expressed their approval of the terms of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act in this respect, which we have here exactly reproduced, we feel that for once we are asking them to pursue a course of action which they favour and in which we are in agreement with them. My Lords, I beg to move.

3.9 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be certainly to deny the Board the power to undertake a business. That would be a serious derogation from the powers of the Board as set out in this Bill. I am quite sure that that would not be received with enthusiasm, or indeed tolerance, in the area in Wales which this Bill is aimed to assist. The Amendment related to it is in fact different in certain important respects from the provision in the Bill. The noble Lord, with his usual clarity, has indicated at least some of them. First of all, the new clause would make it clear that the Board could undertake businesses only with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. On that, I would say that the Board is already required, under the terms of Clause 2(1) (b), to submit to the Secretary of State for Wales, for his approval, proposals, whether of a general or of a specific character, for the economic and social development of the area. Moreover, the Secretary of State under the provisions of Clause 10(1), may pay to the Board such sums in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Board for the purpose of meeting its obligations or discharging its functions as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine. The point about the involvement of the Secretary of State and the Treasury in any such action arising from the existing provisions is firmly met in the Bill as it stands.

As to the second difference which the new clause puts up, acquisition by agreement, I think it was indicated at Committee stage that the Board was likely to exercise the power where it is unable to interest developers or businesses in a proposition which it considers of advantage or in the interests of the area, and to exercise such a power only where it is perfectly clear that normal entrepreneurship is unable or unwilling to discharge such a function or render such a service: and it will exercise this power simply because of the absence of interest from the private sector and it will exercise this power on its own behalf. It is not the intention of the Board to acquire existing businesses in order to carry on the particular business.. This has been said and repeated; and I repeat it now. I do not know whether the noble Lord will wish me to deal with the point about carrying on business through an agent—I think that he is well advised of the argument on that one—or to retread the argument about the promotion of the economic and social development of the area.

The noble Lord raised the point about the phrasing or the wording of the powers given to the Highland and Islands Board and, in a nifty piece of verbal footwork, he attempted to father on to me the precise suggestion that he was hoping to get past this Front Bench in the House. I must confess to great admiration for his techniques but I regret that I cannot succumb to them.

Briefly the position is this. We are here engaged in a non-partisan effort to provide specifically for a specific problem. There are Members of this House who have long practical experience of the peculiar problems thrown up by this very vast rural area which has been dogged by unusually recalcitrant difficulties of an economic and, indeed, geographical character. The Welsh Agency will tackle the all too familiar problems of industrial Wales, South Wales and North West Wales, the quarrying areas; but we have in Wales what we are used broadly to describing as the area of Powys, the ancient kingdom of Powys, an area which for many centuries has been calling out for a specific solution. We think that in a bipartisan way, since about the middle 1960s, we have found the right answers. Indeed, the gradual revival of the economy of the area, certainly around Newtown itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will bear out, owes much to the techniques that we have used since 1965.

We consider this Bill, with the provisions that it makes and in particular the provisions enabling the Board to undertake business reasonably and within the parameters that I have tried to describe, to be essential for this purpose. No one in the area, whether among the local authorities or individuals of corporate bodies, has come to us and asked for a change in the wording of this provision. I would ask the noble Lord on reflection not to press this Amendment or the new clause to which it is aliened, on the assurance once more that this power is no new power and it will be exercised by the Board in firm consultation with, and under the veto of, the Secretary of State and the Treasury on the lines that I have once more tried to indicate.

Lord de CLIFFORD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down —and I say this in order to preserve the procedures—I must say that I am unhappy about his reply. His words and his expressions arc absolutely magnificent. They carry people away; and I am quite sure that his undertakings are meant. But many noble and learned Lords in this House have always told your Lordships that the intention of what is going to happen, the intention of what is in the Bill, does not matter in the slightest. We must read the words and see what they say. Here it says: to carry on any undertaking or business". To my mind that means exactly what it says: at any time in the future any undertaking or business can be carried on. I would support my noble friends strongly on this matter.

3.16 p.m.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister, as one would expect, spoke sympathetically of the problems of the area in Wales that both he and I know so well and of the attempts being made to improve conditions there. But with great respect to the noble Lord the Minister, I did not quite appreciate some of the remarks he made in relation to his inability to accept an Amendment something on the lines of that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is an Amendment which is very similar to the wording in the Highlands and Islands Act and I had hoped that the Government might see fit, if they could not accept the exact wording proposed, to accept something on these lines for one single reason. The noble Lord said how suspicious the people in this area might be of bureaucratic institutions coming in to undertake a business in competition with the many small businesses and the small farms in that area.

Although, as the Minister has clearly stated, there is a relationship between this Clause 3 and also Clause 2(1)(b) which says that, the Board shall have the following duties…to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals (whether of a general or specific character) for the economic and social development of the area ", I wonder whether, in spite of that reference in Clause 2, he would not at least make some limitation in relation to the broad matters in Clause 3(1)(g) which is under consideration, which shows that the business undertakings with which this body will be concerned will be solely dealing with the economic and social development of the area. As I read the previous discussion on this point, that seems to be the message for the Members of this House: that there should be a clear differentiation of the duties of the Board in that if it did concern itself with businesses in any way it was solely for the economic and social development of the area. I may have misinterpreted the whole of the construction of this Bill: but it seems to me that it will be helpful to those who know the area if some modification of Clause 3 could once again he looked at by the Minister.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the beginning of this discussion, having had guests in another part of the building. I wanted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I wonder whether he has considered that the real parentage of this matter is not the Highlands and Islands Act but, if I may suggest so, the New Towns Act 1946. As we have made clear in earlier debates on the details of the Bill, the Development Board will be taking over the new towns functions in that area. If this Amendment is passed as it is now drafted, it will make this unique among new towns. It would be the " odd man out " in a new town system which is working extremely well at the moment and about which, so far as I know, there is no complaint.

This body will be the successor running the new town in the middle of Wales in addition to its other duties. Section 2(2) of the New Towns Act 1946 gives a development corporation—and the development corporation in this area possesses this power now—the following powers: to carry on any business or undertaking in or for the purposes of the new town, and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidental thereto. This is a part of our new towns legislation which is operating in that area today without any worries at all.

I come now to the details of the Amendments put down by the noble Lord. It does not require the assent of the Secretary of State to operate those powers. The first point about the Amendment is that there is suddenly put in the Bill that these powers —which are already being operated in that area—shall henceforth be operated only with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. They have been doing this in the ordinary way and do not misuse those powers at the moment. The second point of detail is when we conic to the phraseology of the new clause where the noble Lord says that the Board shall have power to carry on any business or undertaking which in the opinion of the Board will contribute to the economic or social development of the area.

I wonder whether the noble Lord would put his mind to something that can arise in a new town. A piece of land is purchased with the proposal that it is to be used for part of housing development in the future. It is found that there is some farm land on it. Because the farmer has to sell the whole farm, or it is uneconomic to sell a part and be left with a truncated piece, the development corporation has to say, " We must carry on the business of farming for a while until we develop this land."

I should like to hear what the noble Lord says, but I would not think he could bring that under the umbrella that this farm will contribute to the economic or social development of the area. It is incidental to and is as a result of proposals for the economic and social development of the area, but it will not contribute directly to the economic or social development of the area. So the wording of the new clause is defective. If it is to go into the Bill it will have to be amended by the words used in the 1946 Act which is not— to use the noble Lord's phrase—to, " contribute to the economic or social development of the area ", but, …for the purposes of the new town or the purposes of development ". That is a totally different meaning which would cover the eventuality that arises every day or every year in the development ' of a new town. It would he dangerous to pass this new clause as it is presently worded.

I wonder whether noble Lords have honestly addressed themselves to the experience that we have in this country of operating new towns legislation. These powers have been in the New Towns Act for 30 years. None of them has been misused. I have never heard noble Lords or Members of another place saying, "tinder the New Towns Act the bodies in various parts of this country arc setting up undertakings and usurping the function of private business ". It has not happened. It has not happened because of assurances given in Parliament that that is not the intention of the Act and because in the original Act the Minister could tell them to desist if they operated such an undertaking that was not necessary in the circumstances. The situation is totally safeguarded by the assurances that have operated absolutely satisfactorily for 30 years in new towns legislation.

I consider this clause is defective as drafted; it goes against the traditions of the way we have operated satisfactorily for over 30 years in the new towns movement in this country. Going back to the ancestry of this matter, the correct phraseology is to copy the 1946 Act. In the last resort we have to reflect on the effect of the new towns in this area of Wales if suddenly it is made the " odd man out " of all the new towns up and down the country. That would he the effect of the proposals which noble Lords are making.

3.36 p.m.

Lord HAWKE

My Lords, I must say that I never realised what goes on in darkest Wales, if they are going to be covered with new towns. If the Amendments are unsuitable for the purpose of a body which is going to develop new towns, obviously the Amendment will have to be worded in such a way to conform with the normal new towns machinery.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is perhaps unaware that a new town already exists in this area. This Board is merely taking over that new town as well as doing other things.

Lord HAWKE

My Lords, that does not alter my case. Apparently there are two completely different functions. One is to act as a new town corporation and the other is to develop the depths of darkest Wales. Clearly, we want two Amendments: one that brings the matter up to date regarding the new towns, and the other which conforms to the Highlands and Islands Development Board in its relations to the function that it exercises in rural Wales. I do not think that the Amendment should be entirely condemned just because one portion of its activities happens to he in a new town which apparently in England has these powers.

Lord LYELL

My Lords, I should like to support " hat the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. has been saying on this Amendment. It seems to many of-us that the Amendment, as drafted, provides powers for the Board, and we hope that these powers can be used in the same successful way as they have been used in the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, believed that these powers would clash with the powers of the new town. It seems to me that the powers, as set out in the Amendment, in no way restrict the powers of the new town. The new town is, albeit small, a geographical part of this large area of rural Wales and, as has been pointed out, perhaps there might need to be two Amendments. There are two particular powers which can be separated in this case.

The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, mentioned farming. Farming is to he specifically covered by Amendment No. 5 which the noble Lord, Lord Elton. and I will be moving. It may appear to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that farming could be covered by this, as indeed any other undertaking or business could include farming. If the noble Lord could contain himself with patience, we shall be moving an Amendment which deals specifically with the problems he pointed out. They are in our minds and in the minds of the farming community in Wales.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, it does not alter my argument. A piece of land could be purchased on which quarrying or any other business which existed on that land had to be continued.

Lord LYELL

My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned farming. We are going to mention farming in Amendment No. 5. Reference has been made to quarrying. and also market gardening was mentioned at an earlier stage. We accept this, hut our Amendment No. 5 will cover agricultural undertakings in this area. I cannot say that I was altogether convinced by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. He went part of the way towards convincing us and at an earlier stage he mentioned part of a section in the Highlands and Islands Development Act. He did not refer to the whole of it, and we believe the whole of this section fits into this Bill.

I have a personal interest in that I live in an area which is covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and we have found the activities of that Board carried out with the utmost discretion and a great deal of responsibility. We believe that should these powers referred to in the Amendment he included in the Bill they would bring an increased degree of clarity.

I should like to raise one final point. The noble Lord. Lord Goronwy-Roberts. mentioned Clause 10 and the financial outlook of the Board. Would the noble Lord be able to clarify for us a Situation, which is entirely feasible, in which the Board might accumulate over a year or two some small surplus—because it is not acting to make an enormous profit but there is a good chance that it could accumulate a surplus—and would he be able to give some guidance as to whether it would be dealt with by the Secretary of State or the Board? Also. should the Board have this surplus financial assistance available. would it be able to use that for the purposes of paragraph (g)?—because this is a point which worries us a little.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. made a specific point about accumulated surpluses and perhaps I might direct him to Clause 12 which refers to the disposal of surplus funds by the Board. If there is any point beyond those contained in that clause which he would like to pursue, I should be pleased to do my best to help him.

Certain objections, as I take them to be, were raised to the Board's undertaking any business at all. The fact is, as my noble friend Lord Northfield has pointed out, that the Board is empowered to carry out the development of new towns, and there is already a new town in this area which may be expanded in the future. There is at least a possibility that another new town might be set up in this area on the analogy of that already commenced. Neither will be a very large new town in the traditional sense. They will be of a size and character which marry conveniently to the geography and sociology of the area. So the Board is, and must be, empowered to act as a development corporation. This means, under the Statute quoted by my noble friend, and certainly under the New Towns Act 1965 in Section 3(2)(d), that they must have powers to carry on any business or undertaking in or for the purposes of the new town ". I hardly think it would be the intention of this House to take away from one part of the United Kingdom, placed in this condition and under this necessity, a provision enjoyed by other parts of the United Kingdom under a Statute which provides for powers for developing new towns. Nothing is provided for here other than what is conferred by the Statute quoted by my noble friend and the one I have added to it in reference. So much for the need to provide power to undertake a business. It is not new; it is necessary in regard to the new town functions and obligations of this Board.

Regarding the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, I quoted Clause 2(1)(b). I hesitate to read out the whole of the relevant words, but it is quite clear in what it says: …the Board shall have the following duties…from time to time to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals (whether of a general or specific character) for the economic and social development of the area or any part of it ". The Secretary of State is very much in control. As to the Treasury, Clause 10(1), to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, refers, also is quite clear as to conditions under which the Secretary of State, as the dispensing Minister: may pay to the Board such sums in respect of expenditure incurred or to he incurred…". That brings in the consent of the Treasury. So there the control, if one cares to use the word, of the Secretary of State and the Treasury are firmly worked into this Bill in Clauses 2 and 10.

As to the point that no such business or undertaking should be undertaken by the Board unless it conduces to the social and economic development of the area, this, too, is properly and fully provided for in the Bill as it now stands. I would refer your Lordships to Clause 1, Establishment and general function of Development Board for Rural Wales: This is what it says: For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area of Wales for which it is responsible…there shall be a body to he called the Development Board for Rural Wales…having, in relation to that area, the functions conferred or imposed by this Act. I repeat: For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area ". The Board would be ultra tires if it undertook any business or any act outside the general provisions of Clause I which says so clearly: For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area. So I am a little at a loss to understand how—

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the words as they stand do not put a time limit on it. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made the point that if they anticipated a new town they wanted an area for future development and would have to acquire a farm. How far ahead can they anticipate? Can they act in anticipation of what they intend to do in 30 years' time? The words are very general and not specific and do not give any time limit.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, here I think we should rest on a fairly long experience of how the Statutes have worked in practice. It is a fact, is it not, that these provisions have not been misused, certainly not in the sense suggested by the noble Lord. I think it would be misleading to indicate a date. But certainly I do not think a Board of this nature—any more than a new town authority—

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but this is the second time we have heard that everything is whiter than white and that abuse has never taken place or advantage has not been taken of the powers bestowed. In the new Peterborough town (and the noble Baroness who sits alongside the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite would have knowledge of this) powers have been used to acquire the ownership of the whole of the centre of a shopping town, when in my view only part of it was required for the planning purposes involved. That was a case where these general powers, when put into practice, were to sonic extent abused.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, while I am not familiar with what goes on in Peterborough, I imagine that they would have recourse to the normal procedures which need the proper approvals. I imagine that there would he the whole gamut of inquiry or Ministerial approval. Therefore I do not see that that argument is apposite to what we have in mind. I am tempted to say that I cannot think of a shopping centre in the whole of Mid Wales that is in danger of being taken over by anybody, because there is hardly a shopping centre there—not that Mid Wales is, in the rather pejorative terms used by the noble Lord, darkest Wales. Indeed, if the illumination of our darkness depended on the noble Lord, we should still persist in the most Stygian darkness.

Lord HAWKE

My Lords, I should have thought that the quality of darkness could be measured by the fact that there were no shops there.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, everybody has his own standards by which to measure darkness and light. do not know that the incidence of shops would commend itself to the somewhat more advanced population of Mid Wales. There are other considerations. However, we are on to a solid point here, that the Secretary of State and the Treasury are firmly brought into this and that the new towns powers, if I may so describe them, of the Board are necessary and will be exercised with at least the same sensibility and sensitiveness as over at least 30 years, going back only to the Silkin Act, we are familiar with. Certainly in Mid Wales, since 1965, we are familiar with a pattern of sensitive behaviour in regard to what people want and will wear, and I suggest that in these days of over-government, if I may borrow the argument, it might be helpful to let them get on with this, applying these powers in their own way. There is always the question of approval from the Minister. There is also the question of approval of expenditure. I would not say there was too much danger of abuse of these powers, such as they are. Some of us may feel that the good people of Mid Wales who will man this Board ought to be given a little more freedom to develop in the way they want.

As to the exercise of the power, where that is necessary because other agencies—I do not advance this point in any partisan way—have found it impracticable, impossible or unattractive to do something, the Board, as in other new town contexts, will move to provide necessary facilities. I described its role as that of the reluctant entrepreneur. It would prefer private enterprise to get on with the work. I am sure it will do everything it can—in fact, it has done so in other contexts—to assist existing entrepreneurs to make a good job of providing certain facilities. But where, for quite substantial reasons, private organisations are unable to provide a facility, surely the Board has a duty to move in and do its best. Certainly, it would acquire by agreement. How otherwise could it move in an area like this, where there is the right kind of relationship and familiarity and a consensus of purpose? Certainly, in putting up a proposal to the Secretary of State it would find, whichever Party was in power, that he was very sensitive indeed to this point.

I close with an apology for having spoken at some length on this matter. I regard this Bill as something which, fundamentally, both sides of the House want to see implemented. I think that Wales wants it and Mid Wales is waiting for it. My noble friend Lord Northfield, with his great expertise, referred to the drafting of at least one of these two Amendments, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who made a rather spirited intervention which he repeated on the subject of light and darkness, also had a point when he suggested that the Amendments might need to be looked at. The-onus is on those who move Amendments to see that they are in proper form. suggest to your Lordships that the right way to proceed is to leave the Bill as it is, which I think fulfills all the requirements that we have in mind, and certainly meets all the objections I have heard. It is not for the Government to change the Bill. If anything is to be changed it is. perhaps, the drafting of the. two Amendments which have been moved.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, particularly in view of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the general assurances given by Ministers in the course of discussions in this House and in the other place, whether he is now saying that when Clause 3(1)(g) gives general powers to the Board " to carry on any undertaking or business ", those powers will be exercised only in the very broad context that they are for the promotion of the economic and social wellbeing of the people in the area of Wales?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, my noble friend has quoted Clause 1, which lays down the purpose of the Bill and the scope of the Board's activities. The rest of the Bill is to exemplify what is laid clown in Clause 1. I entirely agree with his interpretation of Clause 1.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, contrary to appearances perhaps, this is not a Committee stage and I regret that fact because I think further exchanges would be useful. If I may summarise one or two points, the question of control by the Secretary of State and the Treasury was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who referred us to Clause 12(1) which calls for the repayment of any unrequired surplus of funds. He raised this point in reply to a question by my noble friend Lord Lyell. What lies behind our question is this. The noble Lord says that all embarkations upon the seas of competitive enterprise by the Board would be under the surveillance of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, because of Clause 12(1). But it is not clear to me whether Clause 12(1) precludes the retention of a surplus—a cash float, if you like—by the Board, which it could deploy in embarking on, for instance, private enterprise under a public banner. That is the reason why we raised that point and the reply did not make the position clear.

Of more substance, once the temporary refulgence of nationalism abated, is that there is a genuine doubt about the drafting of the Amendment as it affects existing new town legislation. As the noble Lord has rightly said, the onus of correctly amending a Bill rests upon those who move Amendments. I take his point, and I would not wish to commit the solecism of asking the House to divide on an Amendment which may he technically incorrect in a way which we had not suspected. But I must make it clear that nothing that has been said has allayed our feeling that there is a threat that the Board may use public money to the detriment of private enterprise.

This is a question not of motive, which noble Lords have hastened to reassure us about, but of actual effect. It is quite possible for a person of one philosophic persuasion to embark upon a course of action which he would regard as beneficial to the social and economic conditions of the region but with which others of a different, though not very different, persuasion would hotly disagree. For instance, some people think that to have a municipal chain of groceries would sharpen up the groceries business. We think that it would make an end of it. Now it would be open to those people to justify taking this course of action by saying that Clause I of the Bill provides that they could do anything, under Clause 3(1)(g)—

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

But subject to the provisions of Clause 1(1).

Lord ELTON

Precisely. That is what I mean. But it is a question of argument as to what is covered, and that we should want to make watertight. It is with regret that at this stage I do not press the Amendment because I feel that there is a majority in the House who would like to see it carried, but I would riot want the responsibility of having to alter it later. I feel that the noble Lord sitting opposite has further arguments to advance and that he might be able to meet us, at least to a limited extent. Therefore, I should like to reserve the position until I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord before Third Reading, and in those terms I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to