COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 17 November 1976)

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. On this Amendment it may be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 35, 37, 39, 41 to 52, 54 to 85 and 89. The point is a short one and I hope that that news will give some relief to noble Lords.
The purpose of this large group of Amendments is to make clear which Ministers are responsible for provisions concerning the compulsory acquisition of land belonging to statutory undertakers. They are all of a technical nature and there is no change of substance to the Bill. What they do is to substitute the more specific terms "appropriate Minister", "Secretary of State and appropriate Minister" or "relevant Minister" for the term "Secretary of State" as appropriate throughout the Bill, provide a definition of the terms "appropriate Minister "and relevant Minister" and make some necessary consequential Amendments.
I am told that it is thought that this was necessary in order to associate the affected and concerned departmental Minister with the relevant duty and operation. I confess that I found it a little surprising, as I had previously been addicted to the doctrine that in law there is only one office though the office may jointly he held by a number of departmental Ministers. But this is a piece of wisdom and desire which it is thought will clarify the position. Certainly, there is nothing sinister in it, but it involves a great deal of elaboration at this stage. Nevertheless, it is deemed to be necessary.

§ Baroness ELLES
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can 1383 clarify this matter. He said it was a small point although there were many Amendments, but it involves five Ministries—the Departments of Trade, Energy, Industry, the Environment and that of the Secretary of State for Wales, apart from the many Boards and authorities that have been set up to look after this part of Wales. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can say whether this new drafting implies that there is an end of collective responsibility. I seem to remember in my earlier days that the fact that the term "Secretary of State" was used implied the authority of Government regardless of who actually wielded it and of which Ministry happened to wield that authority. Can the noble and learned Lord, who, with all his wisdom, is a particularly suitable person to ask in his capacity as Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, tell us whether it remains the policy and principle of the present Government that there is collective responsibility and that this is merely a drafting for convenience?

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. I hope that I was not flippant, and perhaps I did not put sufficiently seriously the point that is made, that it is thought necessary to distinguish the responsibility of particular Ministers towards statutory undertakers. They are listed in the Bill. It was the need to identify the particular Ministerial responsibility to the particular statutory undertaker which, it was thought, made necessary the categorisation of the Ministers in the way that I have indicated. It is true that there will be concern at the Departments of Industry, Trade and Energy and the Department of the Environment in this, and I hope that their concern will be to make a success of the work of the Board. That is how the matter stands.

§ Baroness ELLES
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. If any flippancy were required, I feel that it would be as regards this terrible word "undertaker". It is an appalling word. If only a better word could have been thought of. One can only feel for the poor people of Wales who are going to be smothered with all these boards and with the total bureaucracy that is to fall upon them.

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I share the dislike of the noble Baroness for the word "undertaker", but it has long been part of jargon and it is a little late to change it now. However, as I have said, the Amendments do not change the principle of collective responsibility. I have explained why the Amendments have been introduced.