Lords Sitting of 6 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Erroll—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his mother.

TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS: PLO STATUS
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the further steps which have been taken by them and other civilised nations to deal with terrorism and hijacking and in particular whether there has been any advance in refusing aid to nations training or harbouring terrorists and hijackers and whether they will ensure that the PLO and other terrorist bodies will not be given observer status at the ICAO.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, as I told my noble friend on 6th June, the Government are co-operating with like-minded States against all forms of terrorism and hijacking. Aid has not been refused to any countries on the grounds my noble friend mentions. In response to the last part of my noble friend's Question, it is of course for the Member States of the ICAO to decide who should be given observer status. At their last meeting they decided by 74 votes in favour, 3 against and 33 abstentions to allow PLO participation as observers.
Lord JANNER: But, my Lords, may I say that I appreciate such steps as are being taken in respect of the terrorism which is being spread through that vicious organisation, the PLO? The PLO not only has within its own ranks some of the most terrible arrangements for training
1162
people to commit these acts but is also co-operating with other such groups—and, incidentally, one understands that even terrorists against Britain are involved. But does my noble friend not realise that it is absurd to attempt to stop terrorism throughout the world if these vicious gangsters are being accepted as observers at, of all places, the organisations which exist for the suppression of hijacking, thus giving them support at a time when they are being trained and actually utilised against air traffic in so many different ways? Will he please see to it that that position is remedied?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will indeed examine with great care everything that my noble friend has said. I am in general agreement with him, as he knows. As to the position of the ICAO, there is an argument that it may be more expeditious to have contact in this way with certain elements than not to be in any kind of contact with them. However, the Government share with my noble friend a true concern about the situation, and, with our friends and partners in the Nine and outside the Nine, are currently engaged in pressing forward with practical steps to strengthen the defences against terrorism and hijacking.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, without wishing to concern myself with any particular terrorist organisation, may I ask the Minister whether he recognises that it would seem that Government action against hijacking is not proving effective because there are so many exceptions in particular areas, and whether the Government would consider giving some encouragement and support to the airline pilots to take action on their own, which would certainly be most effective?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am of course aware of certain suggestions by the Airline Pilots' Association. I think we have all looked at this and have agreed that it is very important to consider the implications of some of the more drastic solutions proposed by some members of that Association. However, we are in close touch with them, and are continuously canvassing new possibilities. On the first part of the question—which, if I may say so, was most apposite—

1163
we are, above all, pressing all countries to adhere to the three major conventions. The noble Lord is quite right: there are gaps in membership of those adhering to The Hague, Tokyo and Montreal Conventions, and as a very first step this country is pressing very hard indeed to get a full 100 per cent. membership of those conventions.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, would my noble friend appreciate one point? It is absurd to have members of a criminal organisation, the PLO, as observers at the ICAO, which is attempting to stop the killing of people irrespective of who they are or of their nationality. By having these observers there, they will be able to counteract any action which is taken. In view of the fact that British views are still respected, and very highly respected in certain circles, is it not important that we should not have abstained but voted against the introduction of such people as observers?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as my noble friend implied in his second supplementary, we were not among those who voted for this. As a general principle, we are opposed to the membership of such organisations, even in an observer capacity. However, we have to weigh very carefully what the results of continued and possibly abrasive opposition against a very large majority on a specialised body like this, and indeed in the UN, could be. On balance, I think this country has acted sensibly; and we will continue to use whatever opportunity there is in those bodies to fight terrorism and hijacking. I repeat that there is an argument for being in contact with certain of these organisations, not the whole membership of which is devoted irredeemably to direct action.

RHODESIA: OIL SUPPLIES —BINGHAM INQUIRY
3.8 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the report of the Bingham Inquiry
1164
into oil supplies to Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) will be published.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would refer my noble friend to the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place on 28th June, in the course of which he said that he would make a statement on all aspects of the inquiry when he had received and studied Mr. Bingham's report.
Lord BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, but I was asking when the report is likely to be available. In view of the fact that it is recognised that oil supplies to Rhodesia kept the illegal Government alive, is it not urgent that charges against British companies, that they knowingly organised oil supplies through their subsidiaries in South Africa and withheld information from the British Commonwealth Minister, should be adjudicated upon without delay? Is it fair to Shell and BP that these widely published charges should hang over their heads without a decision?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as to the date of the publication of the report, that is not a matter on which I—or, indeed, Her Majesty's Government—can decide. Mr. Bingham has been asked to undertake a far-ranging and complex inquiry and to decide the date of report as he sees fit. But I can anticipate with noble Lords that the report may well be presented to Ministers soon. Secondly, it would be wrong for me to anticipate the contents of the report (which obviously must be recommendatory in many respects) by commenting on the part of my noble friend's remarks about sanctions busting. Thirdly, as to some recent statements and allegations in the public Press, I can only say that all the relevant material, including that to which he referred, has been made available to Mr. Bingham.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that several countries, particularly African countries, have broken sanctions for their own economic and social survival? Is this not also to be considered? Secondly, would the Minister not agree that the black Africans of Rhodesia, 6 million of them, should not be deprived of their

1165
own economic and social development because of sanctions which have been imposed arbitrarily by a body which obviously has had no concern for these particular individuals? Is the Minister further aware that we are being repeatedly told by black Africans—and, I repeat, black Africans—from Rhodesia, that the most beneficial thing that the United Kingdom could do would be to ask for the raising of sanctions, in order that we can hand over a country to the black Africans in an economic and viable condition?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I rather thought that the third part of the noble Baroness's supplementary questions contradicted the first. She seemed to me, in her first point, to be criticising some black African States for as she suggested, breaking sanctions; and, in her third point, to be urging the immediate raising of sanctions. As to the second part, I agree that black Africans, and indeed all Rhodesians, have suffered through sanctions and have been deprived of certain standards, and perhaps necessities, but none more by sanctions than by the continued repressive social policy of the internal régime.
Lord HALE: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the two detailed articles in the Observer which appeared recently and which contained very specific, grave and disturbing allegations (including the very honoured names) should have at least some repudiation or some answer at the earliest possible moment?—because the effect of those articles, if unrepudiated, is to some extent to undermine the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with all respect, I do not think it affects the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government. We are very sensitive to unfairness in comment on officials and Ministers who have, in everybody's experience, discharged their duties with integrity and intelligence, as has been the case. However, it would be wrong of me to go into this point much further than that in view of the fact that all this material has itself been made available to Mr. Bingham. As we are shortly to be given the report on the inquiry, it is then, I think, that
1166
any final repudiation or explanation can most effectively be given.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating his reply to my supplementary question, may I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the evidence of Mr. George Jardim, who was the Portugese Minister for Industries under Salazar and who was instructed to maintain this trade with Rhodesia, has been given to the inquiry?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is what I hope I was conveying to the House: that the material which forms the basis of these articles—that is, of the book in question—has been made available to Mr. Bingham.

ANGLO-SOVIET TRADE
3.14 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much of the £950 million Anglo-Soviet exports agreement signed in 1975 after the visit to Moscow of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Callaghan has been drawn on and what interest do these credits bear.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the total value of contracts placed under this agreement to date is £440·6 million. It is not the practice to disclose interest rates publicly as such details are considered confidential to those who are commercially involved.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not disappointing that, despite special credit terms and after three and a half years, the balance of visible trade is such that we buy £780 million from Russia and, last year, Russia bought only £347 million from us, leaving an adverse balance of £400 million. In view of the huge overseas debts that we have round our necks, ought we not to look at whether this special arrangement should continue in its present form?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, all of us have been concerned at the

1167
consistent imbalance in our trade with Russia; but, on the other hand, the steps taken by this Government were an attempt to correct this imbalance and are acting with some success. The five-year period has another one and a half years to run and it is believed that certain major contracts may be landed during this period.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not ludicrous, and, indeed, unwise, to seek to ease the Soviet Union's economic situation while at the same time the Soviet Union is infiltrating into all parts of the world—which in the long run is bound to be detrimental to our interests?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we have a long tradition of trading in many areas with Russia for products which are essential to our own well-being. What we are trying to do is not to ease Russia's position but to ease our own.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, could the noble Lord give any indication of what is the average rate of interest which is being charged to Russia on this whole range of contracts?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. I said that I could not give that figure.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend say what is the trade imbalance between Britain and Japan? Does it exceed that with Russia?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question; but as a major trading nation we find that on some sides we have a plus and on others a minus.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to tell us what will be the total cost to the British taxpayer if the whole of this line of credit is taken up; in other words, to what extent will the British taxpayer be subsidising the economy of the Soviet Union? Secondly, what initiative are Her Majesty's Government taking vis-à-vis all advanced countries to agree on what credit terms should be offered to the Soviet Union and to other countries of Eastern Europe in order that we do not all cut each other's throats to no avail.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord has touched on the core of the matter. For some time there was what is known as an international consensus on credit terms relating to trade with Russia. However, France and Italy chose to ignore these matters and we ceased to be competitive. For this reason, at the ECGD meeting in May this year we agreed to match the credit terms of our competitors. As regards the first point, I do not see that there is any cost to the taxpayer of this country, because if we get the trade we therefore save other social costs which would otherwise be incurred.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, is it not a fact that the terms of this buyer credit to Russia are completely consistent with the terms customarily offered over many years to many other countries? Is it not a fact that other countries are in the habit of offering to Russia similar buyer credit to that to which the Question has referred? Is it not the fact that the continued attempts on the part of Members of the Opposition to make this particular buyer credit offer to Russia something very special are not at all sound, in that there is nothing very special about this credit?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for stating the position much more clearly than I did.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so good as to inform the House of the answer to the question that I put to him. If he wants the House to take into consideration that there are other elements which we should talk about, and think about as well, so well and good. Surely if this line of credit were taken up compared with existing interest rates over the period of time, it must be known what would be the cost to the taxpayers.
Several noble Lords: Answer!
Lord WIGG: Before the noble Lord replies, would he be good enough—
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, one at a time, please. The whole of this transaction is based upon ECGD guaranteed credits. The actual rate of interest

1169
was agreed in May this year, and it was agreed between Russia and ourselves—or the ECGD Department, which is a technical department of Government—to enable us to compete with our competitors for the Russian business. If we were not getting the business that we have got under this agreement with the Russians, and the business we hope to get, then our imbalance of payments with Russia would be much worse than it is.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend be good enough, when supplying the noble Lord, Lord Soames, with the answer, to complete the picture? The noble Lord, Lord Soames, asked what the charge would be to the British taxpayer if this deal goes through in its entirety. Will he also at the same time have an assessment made of the number of jobs that will be lost to British workers, and what it will cost the State in terms of unemployment pay, and see how far they are in balance?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is what I was trying to say. Since the beginning of 1977, we have supplied to the USSR cigarette making machinery, gas compressor pumps, high density polythene plant, two methanol plants and two tyre factories. Those are substantial products of our high technology industries.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to include in his reply, for the benefit of noble Lords opposite, a brief study of the law of comparative values, to see that there is an essential understanding of international trade?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that was a complex economic question. I do not feel competent to answer it.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, while respecting the Minister's remarks about the confidentiality of detailed interest rates, is the Minister prepared to assure the House that the money interest rate actually charged was such as to assure that the real interest rate was not negatived?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question by an economic expert which I am incompetent to answer.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while many of us are extremely keen to do business in Russia for work that is profitable to our country and which gives jobs, there is very little evidence—and I am speaking now with some knowledge over the past five or six years—that the Russians have done anything whatever to correct a long-standing balance of payments in their favour? When the former Prime Minister announced this, we hoped that the Russians had changed their tune. There is no real evidence from the figures that the Minister has given that this has happened.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I tried to say earlier, we are a trading nation approximately in balance to the world as a whole. In some areas we lose; in some areas we gain. This is the way that the world works. I am sorry that I cannot change the world rapidly by even the most favourable credit terms.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I feel that—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I want to say something.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that we have had a good "run" on this Question. I sense—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I do not think so.
Lord PEART: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will be courteous, I will say to her—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I have stood up about 10 times.
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PEART: Order, please! I shall be delighted to let the noble Baroness have a quick question. That will be the last one.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I wanted to ask the noble Lord whether the Russians could not make their contribution, which they obviously owe on their arrangements, by helping us in being fair regarding our merchant shipping?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that this is one of the factors taken into account during bilateral negotiations.
Lord BROWN: My Lords—
Lord PEART: My Lords, we have been on this Question a long time, and we have a lot of business in front of us. I hope that noble Lords will agree.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!

RHODESIA: ALL-PARTY CONFERENCE
3.25 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their purpose in coutinuing to seek a conference between the Rhodesian Administration and the external Communist-slanted personalities they appear to favour, when, from Press reports, all appear to have misgivings as to participation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it remains the Government's objective to work for a satisfactory settlement, and a ceasefire, through negotiation. Consultations with all the parties are continuing. We believe there is a fair prospect of bringing them together in round-table talks quite soon.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. But, alas, it gives no more information. Would he agree that there are two clear courses: either to support the de facto internal black administration or to support the external Communist-paid stooges who aimed at domination by force and violence? Therefore, is it not time—and time runs out; it was urged in this House last week that there should be a change in policy in a matter of days—that, since the first course does work, whereas the second has not brought a response to help in the first, Britain should cease to support an external policy or activity which aimed to bring disruption on territory for which Britain is responsible?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords much as I admire the noble Lord's speech on the question—which I have heard before—I must remain at variance with him. I do not think that it is a question of choosing between the two alternatives that he mentioned. Indeed, our best efforts must be to avoid the situation that we here or those in Africa have to choose between the two courses. We must seek to bring them together. There are elements in both parties, in Salisbury and outside, who are prepared to talk and work for a reasonable solution. That is what we are doing in partnership with our American friends and through the Graham-Low mission at the moment. As to his suggestion that the first of the two alternatives, by which I thought he meant the Salisbury alternative, does work, I suggest that the noble Lord refreshes his mind as to what some of the leaders of the internal régime have said very honestly about their misgivings about the way that system is not working.
I hope that I do not make a point in polemical fashion. I hope that we can look forward quite soon to a round table conference at which the Patriotic Front and the elements of the Salisbury régime will get together, possibly under our chairmanship, to discuss how best to effect a peaceful transition in Rhodesia to independence.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this: Would it not be more realistic and more constructive if noble Lords opposite stopped their obsessions about what they call "Communist-slanted personalities", and began to understand the massive hatred that has been built up in Africa since the beginning of the century against white people under the various systems of race discrimination and apartheid?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is of no help to take that attitude. Rhodesia is not the only part of the world where implacable hatreds, racial or sectional, have polarised an issue almost beyond solution. I think there is time in Rhodesia to avoid that situation and I think most people are working to that end.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister just one question: In the light of the appalling

1173
series of murders which Mr. Mugabe has both instigated and approved of, would he personally be prepared to sit down with Mr. Mugabe?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, indeed; and so, in his more generous and statesmanlike moments, would be my noble friend, I think. If the objective were to be peaceful transition for all peoples in Rhodesia to independence, I am sure that he and I would sit down with anybody who could contribute at that moment to that end.
As to the responsibility for the attrocities, views vary as to the originators and I do not think anything useful can be done bandying about words and accusations as to who is responsible for which. We must oppose them, whatever their origin and whatever their alleged idealogical justification, and the best way to do that is to substitute conference for conflict and to work as hard as we can for a round-table conference.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the last week the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole has appeared in the European Parliament as a guest there and has impressed every delegate with whom he spoke—and he spoke with many—to the effect that the solution has already been found to this deep and bloody disturbance in Rhodesia? Is the noble Lord aware that the only ones who appear to be standing in the way of this solution are in fact those outside Rhodesia?—that is to say, the terrorist leaders who appear to have the backing of our own country and of the United States. That is a most unfortunate situation, but that is the impression given to us in the European Parliament by the Reverend Sithole, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister can in fact contradict this impression.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with all respect to the Reverend Sithole, his views and interpretations are not shared by everybody; and this makes it all the more necessary that he, as a responsible and indeed highly able leader of a section of Rhodesian opinion, should, with others, come together in conference, express his views and proffer his suggestions.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend not consider that for this House to refer to African leaders, who have been fighting against a régime which is rebellious against the Crown and this Parliament, as "external Communist-slanted personalities", is most unhelpful in the tragic situation in Rhodesia? Would he not agree that it is rather like describing Winston Churchill as a Communist because of his alliance with Joseph Stalin? Is he further aware that those who have retained their friendship with the rebel régime would do better to persuade Ian Smith and that régime to come to a genuine national conference, as proposed by the British and American Governments, than to cast slurs on African leaders?
Several noble Lords: Next business!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think there is a desire for the next business.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Order! order!
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that I did stop another noble Lord whom I think probably should have preceded him if I had allowed him. I think we have had a good run on this Question.

INTERPRETATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WALES BILL
3.35 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Public bodies]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 62, line 15, leave out ("National Water Development") and insert ("Water").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another Amendment to take account of the change of name of the Welsh National Water Development Authority to the "Welsh Water Authority". I spoke to this yesterday, and I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I should simply like to say that I congratulated the Government on this matter yesterday, and I should like to do so again, just to get us off to a good start.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Countess of LOUDOUN The Countess of LOUDOUN moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 62, leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended that the British Waterways Board should be removed from the provisions of both the Scotland Bill and this Bill. We have done that with the Scotland Bill and I hope that your Lordships will support me this afternoon on this Amendment, which will delete the British Waterways Board from this Bill.
I am sorry I was unable to be here for the Committee stage on the 22nd June but I have read very carefully the reply made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he moved a similar Amendment which was later withdrawn. I still feel that the inland waterways should continue to be dealt with primarily on a Great Britain basis and that they can only suffer if the financial and legal obligations become divided. I beg to move.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, I have pleasure in seconding the noble Countess again on this Bill, as I did over the last one, in opposition to the fragmentation in any way at all of the British waterways system.
The canals in Wales, like those in Scotland, are not vast in number but they are perhaps even more important and even more beautiful than those in Scotland. There are just two which are actually in use at the present time: one in South Wales and one in North Wales. There is also one in Montgomeryshire which it is hoped to revive under the enthusiastic support of canal lovers, under
1176
the presidency and great encouragement of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. One also hopes to get the Montgomeryshire Canal into use for amenity purposes. So I have great pleasure indeed in seconding the Amendment.
However, I should like, if I may, to trespass upon your Lordships' time for just a few moments to say something else, and I should like to point out at once that I have given the noble Baroness notice that I would raise this subject, which I shall do very briefly. As it is something which your Lordships will have to consider very seriously indeed in the not too distant future, I think it right—if I may stretch the Rules of Order a little further than I would have been prepared to allow in a former office that I held in another place—to take this opportunity to say this. It is the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government that the waterways of this country are indeed to be fragmented and handed over to the control of the various waterways authorities. I must say that this is something which I most deeply regret.
I feel somewhat touched this afternoon, when I realise that it is only within the last two or three hours that we have heard the sad news of the death of Lord Marples, who set up the British Waterways Board in 1962. Under the wise chairmanship of Sir John Hawton, that Board did so much to bring this system to the splendid state which it is in today, where it provides such a wonderful amenity for so many thousands of people, which it did not do before. This is really due to the fact that it has been made an independent authority, and it operated with the utmost success until inflation set in.
It is then that the Government seemed to lose their heart and a restoration backlog of some £10 million four years ago now amounts to £60 million, simply because nothing has been done, the idea being to hand the baby over to the waterways authorities and let them foot the bill. The result will be that the whole system—a system which should run from end to end of the country—is fragmented and divided into many parts. But the idea behind the Amendment to this Bill, and to the Scotland Bill before it, is that the improvement is carried further than ever. I beg your Lordships (I shall not

1177
keep you a moment longer) to keep these thoughts in mind. I hope that, when the time comes, you will support those who believe that we have a fine waterways system, which ought to remain one system running from end to end of the country, and which should be supported as the great national park that it is, which occupies no room.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I should also like to support this Amendment. As has already been said, the House has voted to exclude the waterways from the Scotland Bill. In my opinion, there was no case for including them. But there is an even stronger case against including them in the Wales Bill, because, after all, the Welsh waterways are connected, which is not true in the case of Scotland. Even though they are at present, I think, connected with the English system at only one point, the canals wander in and out of the Border. Moreover, for those in the South of England it is perfectly easy to get access to Welsh canals. So unless we take the canals as a whole, particularly the ones down South which are interconnected, it will be a disaster for the future of an amenity which is growing in importance. In fact, I think that, if all goes well, in 10 years' time we may be wondering how to keep the traffic down.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not want to repeat all the arguments which were put forward when this same Amendment was tabled on Committee stage. Although its sponsors were, unfortunately, not able to be present at the time, I know that they have read Hansard. But it would be wrong of me not to say something, because I believe that this Amendment is an unreasonable one, and one which I hope the House will oppose. First, I should emphasise that inland waterways, whether viewed as transport or an amenity, are closely connected with other matters for which responsibility is to be devolved. So if this Amendment is carried, decisions on inland waterways would inevitably be taken in a less balanced way and with less knowledge of other matters needing to be taken into account. That cannot be good for inland waterways.
Secondly, I think that the Amendment is unreasonable in that it closes off our
1178
future options. The Wales Bill does not devolve a single function in respect of the British Waterways Board. It merely provides for future devolution if the Assembly requests it, if the Secretary of State then brings forward an order under Clause 58 after consulting the British Waterways Board, and if both Houses of Parliament approve the order. Is it not over-hasty to say, even before the Assembly is set up, that it will be an unsuitable body to exercise inland waterways functions? Thirdly, if an order is made it will not in any way split the British Waterways Board. The British Waterways Board will remain a single body with a common pool of expertise.
Since our Committee stage debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, reminded us, the Government have published their response to the Report on the British Waterways Board by the House of Commons Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. That response says that the question of devolution is best decided in the context of the devolution Bills, and I am sure this is right. I But the report and our response leads me to make two observations. First, I find it remarkable that people who are critical of the Government's handling of the British Waterways Board in the past should wish the Government, rather than the Welsh Assembly, to be responsible for British waterways after devolution. That seems a very odd conclusion. Secondly, the Government's response reminds us, and we should not forget, that this is a matter on which we have, after consultation, already made important concessions. One of the results of these concessions is that no scheme for the devolution of responsibilities in respect of the British Waterways Board will go ahead unless your Lordships' House has, by Affirmative Resolution, approved the order.
I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that we should wait till we have a Welsh Assembly and see what, if any, scheme is put forward for devolution. There will be an opportunity then for debate and for a decision. But to remove the British Waterways Board from the Bill now would be to foreclose that possibility. We consider that that is neither reasonable nor wise, and I hope that the House will reject this Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as noble Lords opposite will know, there is on this side no official line about this Amendment, and therefore what the noble Baroness said is certainly of great interest. Perhaps I have phrased that badly, because it implies that when there is an official line we do not listen, but I can assure the noble Baroness that we do. But if she will take the opportunity and reply to a small point of clarification, as I now understand the situation there is no scheme under active consideration. Therefore, the rather important geographical point, of canals which cross and recross the Border, is presumably a consideration which we cannot look at at this stage. This is something about which the Assembly would have to make a proposal, that proposal would be embodied in a scheme, that scheme would be embodied in an order, that order would be laid before the two Houses, and at that stage Parliament could decide whether or not it was a sensible idea. I see the noble Baroness nodding her head. That will not be apparent to those reading the record, and I invite her to answer.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as well as nodding my head at the noble Lord, I am happy to confirm that that is the case.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and I do not intend to press this Amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Countryside Commission for Wales]:
3.49 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 26, line 20, leave out subsection (13).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, which ought to have been taken as a drafting Amendment at an earlier stage. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Water]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 84:
1180
Page 26, line 32, leave out ("National Water Development") and insert ("Water").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 when speaking to Amendment No. 75 last evening. They are purely consequential and drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 26, line 41, leave out ("National Water Development") and insert ("Water").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
("(4) For the purposes of section 9 above, any power conferred on a Minister of the Crown by sections 7(3), 23, 68 to 78, 84 to 87 and 94 of and Schedule 2 to the Land Drainage Act 1976 shall be deemed—

(a) so far as it is exercisable in relation to a drainage board for an internal drainage district which is within the area of the Welsh Water Authority and partly in Wales, to be a power exercisable as regards Wales; and

(b) so far as it is exercisable in relation to a drainage board for an internal drainage district which is within the area of the Severn-Trent Water Authority and partly in England, not to be a power exercisable as regards Wales.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with Ministerial powers in respect of internal drainage boards. The boundaries of internal drainage boards, like those of water authorities, do not follow the England/Wales border; and it is necessary for the Bill to make provisions for such boards similar to that which the Bill already makes for the water authorities themselves. There are at present two internal drainage boards whose districts straddle the border: the Lower Wye Board, whose district is in the Welsh Water Authority's area; and the Powisland Board, whose district is in the Severn-Trent Water Authority's area.
The solution proposed by our Amendment is that, firstly, all powers which can sensibly be exercised "as regards Wales" or "as regards England" should be divided between the Government and the Assembly on that basis. For example, if an internal drainage board compulsorily

1181
acquires land under Section 37 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 it will need the Assembly's approval if the land is in Wales or it will need the Government's approval if the land is in England. Secondly, all powers to set up or re-organise straddling internal drainage boards are to be reserved.
Thirdly, all other powers which cannot sensibly be split between England and Wales are to be exercised as follows: they are to rest with the Assembly if the internal drainage board is in the Welsh Water Authority's area, and with the Government if the internal drainage board is in the Severn-Trent Water Authority's area. For instance, powers in respect of finance and charging will be exercised by the Assembly in respect of the Lower Wye Board, and by the Government in respect of the Powisland Board.
We think this is a sensible and practical solution which will be administratively workable. It reflects the structural arrangements that have been proposed in the Bill for water authorities. We are still giving thought to the matter to ensure that we get this absolutely right. In particular, we are considering whether there might be an advantage in making straddler internal drainage boards subject to the provisions of Clause 58 by listing them in Part I of Schedule 7. If we did that it would enable an order to be made by the Secretary of State to provide further fine tuning. Again this would be to treat them in the same way as the water authorities. We are still considering this aspect of it and if necessary the Government would introduce additional Amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, we have been worried on this side of the House about the possible unevenness of administration, and quite a lot of time was spent in Committee on this. As a result of the two water authorities straddling the boundary we had the difficulty, as the noble Baroness has said, of the drainage board straddling the boundary. What the Government are doing will certainly go some way towards ironing out the administrative difficulties and is therefore to be welcomed.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I should like to echo in part what my noble friend has just said, and also to ask a question, the answer to which did not come over particularly clearly to me when the noble Baroness was speaking. The composition of the members of the boards has been a subject for debate both at the last stage and indeed in this one, and I think the noble Baroness said that the composition could only be altered by order by the Secretary of State and that this would never happen except on a recommendation of the Welsh Assembly. Is that correct?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, that is correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Water]:
3.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 63, line 23, leave out from ("2") to end of line 24 and insert ("3(1) to (8), 4, 23, 49(1)(b), 60(5), 62 and 94 and Schedule 1").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Part I of Schedule 8 lists powers of a general nature which are to be exercised by the Assembly in relation to the Welsh Water Authority and by the Government in relation to the Severn-Trent Water Authority. The Committee stage debates have led us to look again at this list, and this Amendment tidies up the list of powers under the Land Drainage Act 1976.
What the effect of it will be is that first of all it includes in the list all of the powers under Section 3 of the Act, not just those under subsection (3) of that section. Those are the powers relating to the members and proceedings of the regional land drainage committees. This is primarily consequential on the later Amendment to Schedule 11—No. 113, to which we shall come later—to restore the position of local authorities in relation to regional land drainage committees. Secondly, it will add to the list the related powers in Schedule 1 dealing with the procedure and membership of regional and local Land Drainage Committees. Thirdly, it adds Section 23, which concerns arrangements between drainage authorities

1183
and either conservancy or navigation authorities. This section was the subject of two earlier Government Amendments.
Fourthly, it corrects a printing error which resulted in the list referring to Section 63 rather than to Section 62. Section 62 relates to water charges option orders, which change the basis of charging for land drainage services. Although the Assembly will make such orders for the Welsh Water Authority, a later Amendment to Schedule 10—which is No. 92, which we are coming to—ensures that that order will, as at present, be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. This will protect the interests of the English part of the authority's area. Lastly, it adds to the list Section 94, which concerns compensation for loss of office. All the provisions in the revised list contain powers which can only sensibly be exercised over the water authority's area as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, the noble Baroness listed I think six effects of this Amendment—I kept fairly careful count—but she missed out a seventh, which was that the Government have finally cornered the hare which I started chasing at Committee and I am very grateful to her.
On Question, Amendment agreed.
3.58 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 65, line 5, at end insert—
("7A. Where it appears to a water authority whose area lies wholly or partly in England that circumstances exist which would enable the Secretary of State to intervene under paragraph 1 above, the water authority may make application to the Secretary of State requesting him to intervene under that paragraph.
7B. An application under paragraph 7A above shall be made by notice published in the London Gazette and not later than the date on which the notice is published the water authority shall give notice of the application to the Secretary of State and the Assembly.
7C. A notice under paragraph 7B above shall state the reason for requesting the Secretary of State's intervention.
7D. Where a water authority make application under paragraph 7A above then, as from the date of the notice under paragraph 7B above, any power referred to in paragraph 1(a) above which is the subject of the application shall be suspended until the Secretary of State shall have determined the application.
1184
7E. If upon considering an application under paragraph 7A above the Secretary of State decides not to intervene under paragraph 1 above, he shall publish his decision and his reason for it by notice in the London Gazette.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the matter of the giving by this Bill of powers and responsibilities over water to the Welsh Assembly. I believe that my noble friends and I agreed wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he said in Committee on 23rd June:
"I have always felt that both countries have an interest in an amicable arrangement about water, the source of which is in Wales and many of the users of which are in England".—[Official Report, cols. 1537–38.]
Nevertheless, when we came to the Committee stage we felt that the Government had not got these arrangements quite right on the Bill. Certainly neither of the two water authorities concerned were entirely happy. The Amendments which I then proposed, and also the Amendment proposed I think by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, were based upon a common apprehension, that under the provisions in the Bill by which each of the two water authorities would be responsible as to their operations—in England to the Secretary of State and in Wales to the Assembly—there was room for confusion and unevenness of administration.
My Amendments were also based upon the view that the powers in the Bill by which the Secretary of State may intervene in the event of actions by the Assembly that might not be in harmony with the national policy for water, were not wide enough in scope. The Government examined closely the case made out in respect of those 15 Amendments and I accept a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said in her carefully reasoned reply. Nevertheless, my noble friends and I are strongly of the opinion that in the Bill as it stands—and in regard to water it stands as it did before the Committee stage when I withdrew all the Amendments in my name for careful consideration of the Government's replies—the arrangements about water, the source of which is in Wales and the users of which are in England, are still not wholly satisfactory.
Amendment No. 88 takes fully into account the objections which the Government put forward in Committee. It does

1185
not, as my earlier Amendments sought to do, seek to widen the list of devolved matters which can be exercised only with the consent of the Minister. It does not seek to extend the "deemed" national provisions in Part I of Schedule 8. It does not seek to add to the class of Amendments set out in Parts III and IV, so as to widen the powers given by Schedule 8 to the Secretary of State to intervene. Finally, it does not provide any automatic power to a water authority to compel the Secretary of State to intervene in matters affecting national water policy when an authority and the Assembly are at odds. What it does is to leave the intervention powers in Schedule 8 precisely as they stand in the Bill, but it provides that a water authority whose area lies partly in England and partly in Wales may apply to the Secretary of State to intervene, but only under the conditions already set out in Schedule 8.
The Amendment provides that, if an application is made, it shall be published and notice given to the Secretary of State and to the Assembly, full reasons being given for the request. It provides that action shall not be taken by the Assembly which is the subject of the application until the Secretary of State has decided whether or not to intervene. If he does intervene, then the provisions in Schedule 8 will apply, but it leaves the Secretary of State perfectly entitled to refuse to intervene, although if he does refuse he must state publicly his reasons for so doing.
Although I believe that there is much in common as between the Government and ourselves in the matter of the handling of Welsh water by the Assembly, there remains a very real fear on the part of English consumers that, however amicable the arrangements with regard to water supply are at present, the introduction of a totally new factor—the powers given in the Bill to the Welsh Assembly—might lead to difficulties. The Government have told us that this apprehension is fully taken into account, but we are not wholly convinced that that is so. This is a modest proposal that would allow a water authority to remind the Secretary of State of his intervention powers in the interests of the national water policy; it would in no way compel him to intervene; it would allow time for him to consider
1186
the matter; all parties would be fully informed, including the public, both in Wales and in England. I very much hope that the Government will agree with this Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, during the Committee stage we considered an Amendment by the noble Lord under which a water authority would have been able to compel the Secretary of State to intervene in matters for which the Assembly was responsible. I believe I said at that time that the Government's reasons were that we felt they were constitutionally absurd and a recipe for conflict. However, this Amendment which we have before us today does not go quite so far. It enables the water authority to apply to the Secretary of State to intervene; but the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion and, if he declines, he must give a reason.
This Amendment is not open to quite the same criticism on constitutional grounds in so far as the Secretary of State is concerned, but it is no less objectionable in relation to the Assembly. It provides a formal means under which a nominated body, which the Bill makes responsible to the Assembly, can go over the head of the Assembly to appeal to the Secretary of State in matters arising between the authority and the Assembly.
A water authority will, of course, like any other body or individual, be able to make representations to the Secretary of State if it wishes him to intervene under Schedule 8. That does not require specific provision in the Bill. But to make specific provision we think is objectionable. First, because it will confuse the water authorities' accountability to the Assembly. Although they will be responsible to the Assembly for most of their activities in Wales, they will, under the terms of this Amendment, know that they can instead turn to the Secretary of State and make public their disagreement with the Assembly. This must inevitably derogate from the status and responsibility of the Assembly, and could lead to unnecessary strains in their relations with the water authorities.
The second reason why we find it objectionable is that, if the need for intervention under Schedule 8 arises, it is far better that the Government's initial

1187
approach should be one of informal consultation. The Secretary of State will not wish to intervene if he can instead persuade the Assembly to change its policy. But from the very outset the Amendment will bring the whole matter in a formal way before the public gaze—in fact part of the aim of the Amendment seems to be to require publicity. Formal procedure of this kind will inevitably increase the likelihood of conflict, and public postures will be adopted on all sides. It will certainly do nothing to resolve the difficulty which has led to the question of intervention arising.
I hope the noble Lord and the House will accept that, at this stage, it is better to let the procedures develop nationally and to allow for the possibility of informal contact rather than to impose, as this Amendment does, a rigid procedure which we fear has within it real seeds of conflict. I hope the noble Lord will have second thoughts about it.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I did not intervene before the noble Baroness in this debate because I wished to leave to my noble friend Lord Middleton the credit, which is considerable, which he deserves for the great amount of work and research going on between the various water authorities and the National Water Council to produce an Amendment which I honestly thought would be accepted with smiles. It is, I think, verging on the anodyne and not at all the catalyst of conflict that the noble Baroness has described it as being.
In the first place, it is not mandatory; it is permissive. There is nothing whatever within it to prevent the informal consultation which both she and I hope and expect will take place. It does not in any way incite an appeal; it merely states that a water authority—which may, after all, be the Welsh Water Authority just as well as it may be the Severn/Trent Water Authority—shall, impartially between the two, be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if it feels something has been done which is unfair by the Assembly or otherwise, between them, or otherwise, or between their Welsh and their English components. It is absolutely symmetrical in its application to the English and the Welsh. It cannot in any way therefore be provocative of a Welsh
1188
reaction. It is merely a means of providing a formal method of settling a disagreement which may not be susceptible of informal treatment. It allows the Secretary of State action which may become necessary. It may well lie dormant on the shelf for years; it may gather welcome dust, inch upon inch, upon it, but it would be foolish to think that it might never be required.
I think that my noble friend and my colleagues have leant over backwards in order to achieve an Amendment which cannot be regarded as politically contentious, nor can it be regarded as nationally contentious. Therefore, I cannot agree with the description given by the noble Baroness of this very carefully thought-out Amendment which I personally would recommend my friends to support.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I cannot see anything objectionable about it. If I may take the second point raised by the noble Baroness, about bringing the matter into the open, the Bill provides in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, an elaborate procedure whereby the whole thing can he published and brought into the open where the Minister does it, and perhaps, if I may dilate a little, I can explain why I think that just the same procedure should be followed when the Minister decides not to intervene.
I think I can hardly do better than to quote again from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he spoke, I think very wisely, in Committee
"I think it is right that we should from time to time remind ourselves as regards the question of water that where the source is in one country of the UK and a good deal of its use takes place in another, then arrangements must be made to safeguard the interests and the position in both countries".
It is quite clear from the reply given by the noble Baroness that the Government think that the Bill gives sufficient safeguards. We do not. I should like to give one example—and I think this is an important example—where the interests of England could be put in jeopardy by the Assembly. There are four reservoirs in the Elan Valley, built and paid for by the Birmingham Corporation. All four lie in the area of the Welsh Water Authority and in Wales,

1189
and they provide 85 million gallons a day by means of an aqueduct at Birmingham, which can be considered as entirely dependent on the supply.
When the water industry was reorganised under the Water Act 1973 ownership and control of the reservoirs was transferred to the Welsh Water Authority, and agreement has still not been reached between the Welsh Water Authority and the Severn-Trent Water Authority as to the terms of the formal bulk supply agreement for the maintenance of the supply for Birmingham. In a situation of this kind, where water authorities are unable to agree, the Water Act 1945 laid down in Section 12(5) what should happen, and this can now be found in Schedule 4 of the 1973 Water Act. This provides:
"Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient that one water authority should give to another a supply of water in bulk, and he is satisfied that the giving and taking of such a supply cannot be secured by agreement, he may by order require the respective authorities to give and to take such a supply for such period and on such terms and conditions as may be provided in the order".
Since the source of this very vital supply lies entirely in Wales and in the Welsh Water Authority's area, this power of the Secretary of State will, under the Bill, be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. So failing agreement by the two Authorities—one hopes they will agree, but it does not look as if they will on present form—the Assembly may lay down the terms under which a huge area at the very heart of industrial England gets its water.
During the passage of this Bill it has been suggested, both in your Lordships' House and outside it, that my noble friends have perhaps what might be called a feeling of modified rapture about the Assembly. I believe the suggestions are not well founded. I believe that in water supply, as in other matters, the Assembly will behave responsibly. Indeed, as we have been reminded many times in these debates about Welsh water, the Bill lays a duty upon the Assembly to promote a policy for water in Wales in harmony with the policy for water in England and Wales promoted by the Secretary of State and the Minister. We have to be realistic, just as the Government have been realistic.
1190
The Government have recognised that there is a possibility of action by the Assembly that is out of harmony with the national water policy, and a large part of the Bill is devoted to coping with just that sort of possibility. The Bill allows, though it does not compel, the Secretary of State to intervene. In a matter affecting national water policy so important as the terms of the provision of a bulk supply to the Midlands the Bill specifically provides in Part III of Schedule 8 that the Secretary of State can intervene, and the Government say this is sufficient safeguard.
The Government are well aware—otherwise they would not have written in Clause 61 and Schedule 8 and the water provisions in Schedule 11—that, however well the water supply arrangements as between England and Wales are working now, there is a background of feeling in Wales that Welsh interests have to some extent been ignored in the development of water resources in Wales for English consumers. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, put it more strongly; I think he told us in Committee that water in Wales has, in the past at least, been as inflammable as oil in Scotland. Is it not, therefore, within the bounds of possibility that there might be strong pressure by part, at least, of the Welsh electorate on the Assembly to export water for profit?
The whole point of devolution is to give expression to Welsh interests, and the Government are well aware that an Assembly answerable to the Welsh electorate may exercise their powers in a way different from the way in which they would have been exercised by the Minister. So in this delicate matter of water, where Welsh feelings are particularly strong, the Bill provides for intervention by the Secretary of State. He does not have to intervene. It is perfectly possible to envisage a situation where the Government may, for political reasons, consider it preferable not to exercise powers of intervention when the Assembly has taken a decision contrary to the interests of English consumers.
In view of the possibilities of discord—and I have given the example of the Elan reservoir and the supply for Birmingham—I believe that an additional safeguard is required. I would have preferred something stronger, but I

1191
believe that this procedure is wholly reasonable, and surely inoffensive to Wales. I am disappointed that the Government are not willing to co-operate and put this very modest Amendment into the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Amulree, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Porritt, L.

Balfour, of Inchrye, L.

Grey, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reigate, L.

Bessborough, E.

Rochester, L.

Byers, L.

Hampton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harcourt, V.

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandys, L.

Cockfield, L.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ironside, L.

Simon, V.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kimberley, E.

Soames, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Daventry, V.

Lovat, L.

Strathcarron, L.

de Clifford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Eccles, V.

Molson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monson, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ely, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Vivian, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Moyne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Exeter, M.

Newall, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Phillips, B.

Boston, of Faversham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rhodes, L.

Bowden, L.

Jacobson, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Caccia, L.

Kaldor, L.

Samuel, V.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sefton, of Garston, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Segal, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Listowel, E.

Shinwell, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Spens, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Stone, L.

Dowding, L.

Melchett, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garner, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Halsbury, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Schedule 9 [Intervention by Secretary of State in planning matters]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
4.24 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 66, line 11, at end insert ("section 97").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 89A, 89B, 89C and 89D together. These Amendments concern the present omission of listed buildings from Schedule 9 to the Bill, a Schedule which gives the Secretary of State power to intervene in certain planning matters which have been devolved to the Assembly. This matter was debated fully during the fifth day of the Committee stage of this Bill and also during the fifth day of the Report stage of the Scotland Bill. Therefore, I shall not take up the time of your Lordships in going into all the arguments that concern this very complex matter.
As the Bill is presently drafted, listed buildings are an area which is totally devolved and in which the Secretary of State does not have power to intervene. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, explained, the overriding powers of the Secretary of State do not, of course, safeguard the rights of parties to be heard in any kind of planning matter. That in itself we consider to be an important reason for including listed buildings in Schedule 9. Parties who are interested in preserving or protecting some particular monument or building which is of historical or traditional importance to the Welsh people should have the right to be heard.
By inserting the Amendments which I propose into Schedule 9 of the Bill the Secretary of State would be able to hold a public inquiry during which parties would be able to make representations and to give their reasons for certain action to be taken as regards listed buildings. By broadening the grounds of planning intervention by removing the words "concerning Wales" in Schedule 9 Part II paragraph 1(b), the Secretary of State would be enabled to intervene on grounds of national interest. After all, he has overall responsibility throughout the United Kingdom.
The particular point that should be made here—because at no stage in our discussions have I heard it made—is that the fact that the Welsh Assembly is being set up to devolve democratic processes to the Welsh people does not deny the right to Britain as a whole to take an interest in Welsh affairs, particularly in matters which involve a heritage which is of concern to the whole of Britain. The Welsh Assembly would not deny the right of the British as a whole to contribute to protecting the national heritage of Wales. My Amendments would enable the Secretary of State to do what the Welsh Assembly will not of itself be able to do; namely, to have access to the National Land Fund. When my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross raised this matter on the fifth day of the Report stage of the Scotland Bill, he pointed out that the Scottish Assembly would not have access to the National Land Fund, but that it is for the Secretary of State, who is enabled through his powers to use funds available, to protect the heritage of the United Kingdom. I read very carefully the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, but he was unable to answer that particular point. It was clear that before the Scotland Bill was amended it could be that the Scottish Assembly might wish to protect a particular building in Scotland but the funds might not be available and it would not have direct access itself to the National Land Fund and be able to take a decision which involved spending £X million or £X hundred thousand.
That was the guiding principle behind the Amendment of my noble friend and that is the reasoning behind my Amendments. I, personally, very much doubt that this will be a power that will be used very frequently, or indeed at all, within the space of say a year or two. But, I believe that in order to protect the Welsh people and to assist them to protect their national heritage, which they otherwise would not be able to do, these Amendments should be included in the Bill. I very much hope that on those grounds the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will find herself in the position of being able to accept the Amendments which I propose. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has explained, this group of Amendments

1195
represents an attempt to widen the scope of Schedule 9 so that the Secretary of State can use his intervention powers to secure the protection of individual buildings which are of special historic or architectural interest. Corresponding Amendments were certainly made to the Scotland Bill in your Lordships' House. At the time when the Scotland Bill went through the House, the Government advised against those Amendments to the Scotland Bill. I am afraid that I have to repeat that advice to the House today. It is not because the Government are unsympathetic to the interests which the noble Baroness seeks to protect, but because we consider that her Amendments are both unnecessary and ineffective as to their real purpose.
We think that the Amendments are unnecessary because we do not expect the Assembly to be neglectful of the heritage of historic buildings in Wales, or to take an excessively narrow Welsh view, as distinct from the British view, as to their value. But even if this faith were misplaced, Schedule 3 provides for the Secretary of State to exercise powers concurrently with the Assembly for the acquisition of historic buildings under Section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Retention of this power will ensure continuing access to the National Land Fund for the public acquisition of such buildings in Wales.
The noble Baroness also argued that the power of the Secretary of State to acquire a building might of itself not be adequate protection and that he ought to have the power to hold a local inquiry in connection with proposals affecting such a building. The Government accept that there is no specific power to hold a statutory inquiry in connection with a proposal to acquire under the 1953 Act. But the Secretary of State does not need specific power to hold a public hearing, and in a matter of this kind it seems to us unlikely that a statutory inquiry could, in practice, achieve anything which could not also be achieved by a less formal public hearing.
I have said that the Amendments would be ineffective. That is because the Schedule 9 intervention powers arc available only when there is a potential threat to a:
"matter concerning Wales with respect to which the Assembly has no power to act"
1196
—in other words, a matter such as defence or energy policy. In one of her Amendments the noble Baroness seeks to delete the words "concerning Wales". This would mean that, in theory at least, intervention powers would be available—not just in relation to listed buildings but generally—in defence of matters in respect of which the Assembly had no power to act, not because of their United Kingdom character, but simply because they did not concern Wales. The relevance of this extension is far from clear in relation to preservation of a listed building within Wales which must, by hypothesis, be a matter with respect to which the Assembly does have power to act. We all accept that the British heritage in Wales must include the Welsh heritage, and it is impossible within this general area to identify a matter with respect to which the Secretary of State, but not the Assembly, could act.
Therefore, as the Government see it, the position is that the addition of the various section references, which the noble Baroness wishes to insert, would be of no effect because the issues arising under them are not of a kind to provide a basis for the Secretary of State to intervene. We do not think that the omission of the words "concerning Wales" would remove the inhibitions. I must, therefore, ask the noble Baroness whether she would like to think about the matter further before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and of course it followed, regrettably, predictable lines somewhat similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when he replied to my noble friend. I quite accept that nobody expects the Welsh Assembly to be neglectful of its heritage. The fact is that it will not have the money. I do not think that the noble Baroness touched on the right of access or not of the Welsh Assembly to the National Land Fund. She may quite legitimately not have done so because this matter had, in fact, been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I said that the retention of the power ensures continuing access to the National Land Fund for the public acquisition of such buildings in Wales.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, that presumably refers to the exclusion of Section 7?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, yes.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, that, of course, does not enable the Welsh Assembly to have access to the National Land Fund, however conscientious it may be and however willing it may be to protect some ancient monument. For instance, let us take Conway Castle or some of the magnificent castles in Wales. I very much doubt whether they would be able to persuade their Members to spend several thousands of pounds in order to protect and save one of those historic buildings, which are of concern to the whole of Britain.
The Secretary of State would almost certainly have to draw from the National Land Fund in order to provide the necessary funds for protection, maintenance or whatever of this kind of building. But, on the other hand—and this is an important point —it is a kind of power that the Secretary of State would be very careful of using if it did, perhaps, in fact go contrary to the wishes of the Welsh people. By having the power to hold a public inquiry—as he would with
these Amendments—on an issue which had been debated by the Welsh Assembly, he would be able to have the views of interested parties, historical organisations, and so on; not only would he have the power to know their views, but the public in general would be able to know what was happening and the reasons for any particular decision on this kind of building.
Therefore, despite the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Baroness, I feel that I must follow both the advice and the example of my noble friend in relation to the Scotland Bill. If it is defective, it will no doubt take several years to find its way through legal processes. I am quite prepared to chance my arm that it will in fact, be a protection to the Welsh heritage as a whole. Therefor, I consider it a duty, on this side of the House anyway, to press these Amendments.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 89A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 83.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Porrit, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Reigate, L.

Barnby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Harcourt, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandys, L.

Clwyd, L.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Cockfield, L.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E,

Kimberley, E.

Soames, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Spens, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

De Freyne, L.

Middleton, L.

Tenby, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Teviot, L.

Derwent, L.

Monson, L.

Teynham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Morris, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ely, M.

Newall, L.

Vickers, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Vivian, L.

Exeter, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hampton, L.

Pannell, L.

Amherst, E.

Hanworth, V.

Pargiter, L.

Amulree, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brockway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochester, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacobson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Byers, L.

Jacques, L.

Samuel, V.

Caccia, L.

Janner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Segal, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sligo, M.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Simon, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B,

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Longford, E.

Stone, L.

Dowding, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCluskey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Melchett, L.

Whaddon, L.

Garner, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Norwich, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Grey, E.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 89B:
Page 66, line 12, leave out ("and 90") and insert ("90 and 96").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that this Amendment will be considered consequential on the other Amendment.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 89C:
Page 66, line 12, at end insert ("Schedule 11, Schedule 19,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 89D:
Page 66, line 24, leave out ("concerning Wales").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential.
Clause 66 [Complaints of maladministration]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 28, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—
("No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to bring into the Affirmative order purview of the House of Commons and the House of Lords matter relating to the Ombudsman. The inquiry that lies behind this Amendment is prompted by the observation that paragraph 2 of Appendix B on page 63 of Our Changing Democracy (Command 6348) says that Scottish and Welsh Assembly Commissioners will be appointed by Her Majesty, and goes on to say how they will deal with affairs.
It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will tell us that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, which is referred to in Clause 66(2), gives power for the appointment of officers of the Commissioner to discharge his functions. It may be simply that a new office of the Parliamentary Commissioner will be opened in Cardiff, and one in Scotland. I do not know whether that is the answer, but in case other noble Lords are, as I am, (and

1201
perhaps I should not be) not aware of what the plan is, this should be put on the record. It is worth noting that the Western Mail, a widely read and respected organ much interested in the affairs at present going forward in relation to Wales, had a leader on the subject on Friday, 30th June, saying:
"There is a neat irony in the revelation in the annual report of the Commission for Local Administration, or Ombudsman, that complaints to the Commission, most of which concern delay and tardiness on the part of local councils, themselves take an average of 11 months to investigate.".
It goes on a little later to say:
"The long delay between the making of the complaint and the appearance of a report must in many cases defeat the original point of the complaint, which is to get something done".
Plainly there will be more work for the Ombudsman's department, and it would give reassurance all round, particularly to the readers of the Western Mail, if the Government would declare how this increase in work is to be coped with in a way which will enable that department to catch up on the backlog which already exists. I beg to move.
4.48 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, so far as the actual language of this Amendment is concerned, the Government do not believe that the draft Order in Council made under this clause should be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. It is obviously a question of balance whenever one considers provisions of this sort, whether it is desirable to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure or the Negative procedure. We have considered the matter, and came to the conclusion that it is right to proceed in the way that appears on the face of the Bill.
The purpose of this clause, as the noble Lord indicated in what he said, is to enable machinery to be established for the investigation of complaints about administrative action taken by, or on behalf of, the Welsh Assembly. The clause is permissive. It says:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council …"
et cetera. But I can assure noble Lords that our intention is to make an order to come into effect as soon as the Welsh Assembly takes over responsibility for its devolved functions.
1202
The Order in Council made under Clause 66 will apply the provisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 with such exceptions and modifications as necessary. We are not of course, so far as this is concerned, making in any respect new law; we are simply applying existing law to the new Assembly, which we intend to do with the minimum of essential modifications.
For this reason we do not think it is necessary to take up Parliamentary time considering the draft order, but we do of course accept that some Parliamentary procedure is necessary. We think the Negative Resolution procedure is sufficient. The draft order will be subject to scrutiny in the normal way by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and if by chance the draft order went beyond the terms of the clause, the Joint Committee would deal with it.
As to our precise intentions regarding the Ombudsman—the noble Lord raised this matter—we decided on reflection that it was unnecessary to provide for a separate Ombudsman for the Assembly, and that decision was announced in a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council on 26th July last year and was repeated in your Lordships' House by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Accordingly, the clause provides for the extension of the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to cover action by or on behalf of the Assembly in place of the establishment of a new office for that purpose.
Obviously there may be some staff implications so far as the Parliamentary Commissioner is concerned—if he is taking on new responsibilities, that will have to be taken into account—but I cannot give a detailed account of what that will mean. As I have indicated, the Order in Council bringing this into effect will be laid before Parliament in the normal way and will be subject to debate in the normal way if noble Lords wish to raise any matters.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for those assurances, which I am sure will be welcomed in Wales. I hope the reforming influence which the new office of the Ombudsman may introduce into Wales will enable the

1203
existing organisation to catch up with what is plainly an unacceptably long tail-back of complaints already existing against local authority administration. I am obliged to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Determination of issues as to Assembly's powers]:
4.53 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 29, line 9, at end insert—
("(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Attorney General and any other person may institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings seeking a determination of any question whether the Assembly is in default in the fulfilment of any duty placed on it or transferred to it by this Act and seeking an order requiring the fulfilment of such duty, provided that no such proceedings shall be instituted by any person other than the Attorney General unless the person is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, here again is a matter we debated in Committee. It refers to the determination of issues as to the Assembly's powers; not only does it refer to the determination but how they are to be determined and what rights any individual would have where the Assembly has abused its powers. When we debated the matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, made (at col. 1515 onwards) what I thought was a rather sweeping statement when he said that the beginning and end of the matter was that the Assembly would be exercising functions on behalf of the Crown and that every constitutional and legal principle required us to accept that the Crown would act in accordance with the law once that was made clear.
However, we know perfectly well that agents and servants of the Crown who represent the Crown in relation to the individual do not act in accordance with the law, not by any reason of viciousness or ill-will towards people but possibly by neglect or by exceeding their powers in one way or another. As I said in Committee, quite recently we had three major examples of abuse of power by Ministers. Thus, this is not something we imagine will happen only to the Welsh Assembly;
1204
regrettably, it could happen to any Minister in the system of legislation and Executive powers we have in this country.
There is no doubt in my mind that one of the greatest obstacles to the implementation and recognition of democracy in this country, or indeed in any other, is the setting up of new bodies under legislation without providing the means to individuals to protect themselves from abuse by such a body. I firmly believe, as a student of administrative law, that whenever a bureaucratic body, whether elected or nominated, is established or set up by Act of Parliament it must be the duty of the legislator at the same time to provide protection for the individual whose rights may be abused by that particular body, not only to ensure protection but to ensure guarantees of protection through legal processes. My Amendment seeks to do precisely that.
We were assured in Committee in this House and when the topic was discussed in another place that the Government would be producing an Amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, but I think noble Lords will agree that it is unrealistic to believe that such a thing could happen during this Session of Parliament, which has only about a month to run. In any event, we have not yet seen such an Amendment introduced either in this House, or in another place, or even in draft. The Government may find my Amendment defective in the long term. Nevertheless, until they produce an Amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act—at which time they could amend this measure—I maintain that it is essential, if the Welsh Assembly is to be set up (and presumably it is the Government's intention in passing this Bill that such an Assembly should be set up) and it is our duty on these Benches at any rate, to see that the individual has the same right to use the processes available against the Welsh Assembly as he has against the Crown. The Assembly will, after all, be acting on behalf of the Crown.
Under my Amendment the Attorney-General, whose right to take a case to court is entirely discretionary, would know that an individual would also be able to go to the court for his rights to be protected, as under the Crown Proceedings

1205
Act, and that individual would be able to have not only the benefit of a declaration, which is all the Attorney-General can ask for, but a remedy in accordance with Section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may be helpful for me to remind the House of what the legal position of the Welsh Assembly will be, and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that it is certainly our intention to set it up; this is not just an idle academic exercise on which we have been embarking in recent days, if not weeks. The Assembly will, when it exercises its various statutory powers, be in exactly the same position as those Ministers of the Crown who are now exercising those powers. There will be nothing to prevent an individual who has an interest or an enforceable grievance from bringing proceedings against the Assembly whenever the Assembly's actions depart from the law.
The only reason why, in Clause 68, there is a provision for the Attorney-General to bring proceedings, even though both he and the Assembly act on behalf of the Crown, is that it was necessary to do that in respect of the Attorney-General suing the Assembly on behalf of the Crown, but no such provision is needed in the case of an individual. It is not a case of the Crown suing the Crown; in the individual's case, it would be the individual suing in respect of a loss suffered by himself or herself.
There is of course a substantial body of administrative law under which individuals, our citizens, have recognised rights. That body of law has grown very greatly indeed in the post-war period and there are abundant precedents set out in the authorities. In my view that body of law might indeed be damaged by an express provision in the Bill, because it might carry an implication that without the statutory provision in the Bill the individual would have no rights. But he does have rights—and those rights would remain to him. In so far as the Amendment seeks to confer rights on individuals, I submit that it is misconceived.
Then, on the matter of enforcement, the language of the Amendment is:
1206
"seeking an order requiring the fulfilment of such duty"
by the Assembly.
If the individual has been injured by the Assembly, he can sue in respect of a breach of duty owed to him and any illegal action affecting him carried out by the Assembly. But to require the Attorney-General to obtain an order against the Assembly is a difficult conception. An order of mandamus would be available but, in normal circumstances anyway, that would not be exercisable against the Crown. There could be room for seeking a declaration. That is the normal procedure that would need to be adopted. Then, normally, one would expect the Assembly or the Crown, whatever the authority might be, to comply. Therefore I venture, with respect, to think that this Amendment is misconceived and not necessary.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that very detailed reply. It ill behoves me to take issue with the noble and learned Lord. However, I should like to refer to column 1518 of the Official Report for the fifth day of the committee stage (22nd June 1978), where Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, when he referred to the Amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act, said:
"As my right honourable and learned friend said in another place, the Government propose to use the powers conferred by Clause 78(2) to make the necessary Amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to ensure that the present law on Crown proceedings applies to the Assembly.".
Therefore I would presume that the rights of the citizen under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 at the moment do not apply to the Welsh Assembly, if the noble Lord's wording is correct. He goes on to say:
"My right honourable and learned friend was asked to produce a draft of the proposed Amendments. I regret that we are not in a position to do that, it is a major undertaking which will take time".
I do not seek to take issue with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on what he said. However, I must take into consideration what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, which has encouraged me to put down my Amendment again. I feel that if the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the individual citizen does not need

1207
protection, well and good; never mind. But if my Amendment is in, he will have double protection. If and when the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 is amended under Clause 78(2), when the Bill comes into force, then so much the better. This part of this Bill could then be amended at the same time. However, to leave this gap in the situation would not be a proper way of proceeding.
The noble and learned Lord is quite right, the Attorney-General can only ask for a declaration. This is, of course, one of the points. An individual cannot obtain redress if the Attorney-General
presents his case on his behalf. All that the Attorney-General can obtain is a declaration. He cannot obtain an order for specific performance or have the particular default or omission, or whatever it might be, put right. In the circumstances, despite what the noble and learned Lord said, I ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Exeter, M.

Porritt, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reigate, L.

Barnby L.

Gainford, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Burton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Sandys, L.

Clithcroe, L.

Harcourt, V.

Savile, L.

Clwyd, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Henley, L.

Soames, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Spens, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kimberley, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

Molson, L.

Teviot, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monson, L.

Teynham, L.

De Freyne, L.

Morris, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Derwent, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Vickers, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Northchurch, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ely, M.

O'Hagan L.

Westbury, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Pender, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Amherst, E.

Gordon-Walker, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Amulree, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Meston, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Norwich, V.

Brockway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Caccia, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Collison, L.

Henderson, L.

Pannell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Pargiter, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Hughes, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacobson, L.

Phillips, B.

Douglas of Barlock, L.

Jacques, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dowding, L.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kaldor, L.

Rhodes, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Gardiner, L.

Listowel, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Garner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Samuel, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Stone, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Segal, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Simon, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Whaddon, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 10 [Powers of Assembly to make or confirm orders subject to special parliamentary procedure]:
5.13 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 68, line 50, at end insert—
("The Land Drainage All circumstances.")
Act 1976 (c. 70)
section 62
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns Section 62 of the Land Drainage Act 1976, which contains a ministerial power to alter by order the basis on which a water authority charges for drainage services. The power, in common with other powers relating to water authority charges, is to be devolved to the Assembly in respect of the whole Welsh Water Authority area. It will be reserved for the whole area of the Severn-Trent Water Authority.
This arrangement, which was provided for by an earlier Amendment (No. 86), is based on the proposition that charges must apply uniformly throughout a water authority area, and that the power under Section 62 cannot therefore be split between the English and the Welsh parts of an authority's area. However, it is necessary to protect the interests of the people in the English part of the Welsh Water Authority area, as they will not be represented in the Assembly. For this reason the Amendment provides that orders under Clause 62 will continue to be, as they are now, subject to special Parliamentary procedure. So the people affected by the order, whether they are in England or Wales, will have the right to petition Parliament and, ultimately, to be heard before a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is an important safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, the Government seem to have cornered yet another hare, and I see that there are
1210
several more to be cornered. Certainly from this side of the Chamber we congratulate them.
Clause 75 [Amendment of enactments]:
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 30, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I have tabled this Amendment again because when I raised the matter at Committee stage the Minister informed me that if I withdrew the Amendment he would explain the questions that I had asked. I had asked what were the meanings of the term "Minister of the Crown" and the words "necessary" and "expedient". As I have had no reply, I wonder whether the Minister in question yet has the answer as to the meanings of this term and these words. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment proposes to delete subsection (2) of Clause 75, which provides that:
"A Minister of the Crown may by order make such amendments in any Act passed before or in the same session as this Act and in any other enactment passed or made before the passing of this Act as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act.".
This provision is to be found in respect of any major reorganisation, and it has been used principally to avoid filling up Bills with too many detailed matters that can be dealt with by order. I should like to give an example of previous use of this kind of provision. During reorganisation of local government, water supplies, and the Health Service, provisions similar to that contained in Clause 75(2) were used. Furthermore, Section 39 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 empowered provision
"necessary or expedient in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, this Act …".
Thus "necessary" and "expedient" are fairly hallowed words, and are certainly

1211
frequently precedented words in this connection. They form a convenient omnibus. They mean the same to us today as they did to those who thought it right to include them in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. However, the words which follow them in the subsection are of most fundamental importance. The subsection concludes:
"as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act".
Therefore the amendment of enactments must be related directly to the Act, and be required in consequence of the Act. A court would quickly determine if that limiting provision had been exceeded.
The kind of use to which the power will be put was referred to to some extent in the Amendment which we have just agreed. It will be necessary in due course to have an order adapting the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, so that the citizen can take proceedings against the Welsh Assembly—that point was made by the noble Baroness in the last debate—in the same way as he can sue a Government Department. At the other end of the scale, numerous enactments contain references to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Some of these will need to be converted, in relation to Wales, to the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. Those are necessary matters which would flow from the enactment of this Bill. Furthermore, if there should be auch a use of Statutory Instruments as exceeds the power provided by the section, then, as the noble Marquess will know, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is pretty watchful to prevent abuse of this power.
What is meant by "Minister of the Crown"? On the Scotland Bill, we had several debates on that interesting subject. It is a term used because it is the widest term recognised in statute. Many Acts use the term without trying to define what "Minister of the Crown" means. It means, broadly, those members of the Party in office who hold political office in the Government—I cannot think of any wider or more satisfactory shot at definition than that—having, of course, been appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister. I really see no advantage in providing a definition. I think it is a well-known term. It may well be that at the end of the day it is
1212
rather like the elephant: easy to recognise but hard to define.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for that long answer. There is still one word about which I am not happy, and that is the word "expedient". Previously, the Minister had said that another word for it was "proper". I looked it up in the dictionary today, and in the Oxford Dictionary it says that it is a word which means,
"useful politically, as opposed to something just or right".
That seems to be a pretty vicious translation of it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I wholly repudiate that translation of the word "expedient". I had never thought of that which is expedient being contrary to that which is just and right. It is conceivable that there might be such an occasion, but I think it is rather unlikely. Perhaps I had better not speak for any noble Lord but myself, but surely an element of expediency plays its part in all our activities, and I hope it cannot be said that because of that they are all unjust and not right. I think the noble Marquess may be worrying excessively about this; but I see a distinguished academic about to get up, so perhaps he may find support from the Opposition Benches.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I merely interpose to say that we must of course place due reliance upon the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but was it not on one occasion expedient that one man should die for the people—or was it? How does that interpretation lie? I take it that in the law we should rely upon the noble and learned Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to continue with this fascinating discussion with respect to a man dying as we have today been celebrating the 500th anniversary of the execution of Sir Thomas More, but perhaps we had better get back to the Bill.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 30, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment follows on somewhat from the discussion which has gone before on the amendment of enactments and the power of a Minister of the Crown to do so. Here, again, we debated this matter on the sixth day of the Committee stage, and the comments are contained in columns 1535 and 1536 of the Official Report for that day. My real point in moving this Amendment is that, as the Bill stands at present, there is power to annul by Negative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament if Parliament should disagree with any modification or amendment which is made by a Minister of the Crown. Nobody doubts that, by and large, a Minister of the Crown, as the noble and learned Lord implied, uses his powers responsibly; but, of course, the words "necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act" could be interpreted very widely indeed. It is because of this possibility of a wide definition being applied to these words that I should like to propose that at least there should be an Affirmative Resolution to approve the amendment of such enactments.
After all, if there were really only minor matters to be amended, they could have been contained in Schedule 11, as many of them are. I quite see that there will be some consequential amendments to be made, as the noble and learned Lord mentioned and as I myself mentioned; for instance, to the Crown Proceedings Act. Nevertheless, I think there may be matters of great importance which will have to be amended when the Welsh Assembly is set up, and I think it is right that, since Parliament will be prevented from discussing matters which affect Wales, then at least where an enactment
1214
which has been passed by Parliament is to be amended on account of the setting up of the Welsh Assembly both Houses should have the opportunity to debate those Amendments if need be. Therefore, I beg to move my Amendment, which would mean that the powers of the Minister of the Crown would be subject to approval by Affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I ventured to indicate when we discussed Clause 75 on the previous Amendment that the order-making power is restricted. The order must be "necessary or expedient" in consequence of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I quite agree that there should be Parliamentary procedure, but we think that that which was done for the Scotland Bill—namely, the Negative Resolution procedure—is sufficient for this. I think the noble Baroness will find that in relation to the Scotland Bill your Lordships accepted the Negative Resolution procedure, and I should have thought that what was appropriate for Scotland would also be equally convenient and appropriate for Wales.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply, but, of course, there are two considerations. First of all, this matter was debated at the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, and I do not quite know why it was not raised at Report stage of the Scotland Bill, There may have been an omission—of that I am not certain—as to the putting down of an Amendment of this nature to the Scotland Bill. The other matter is that the powers and functions of the Scottish Assembly are not the same as those of the Welsh Assembly. After all, the Scottish Assembly will be making its own laws, and will be concerned with legislating for the Scots people; whereas the Welsh Assembly, of course, is not a legislative body, so United Kingdom Acts will have to be modified very much more in the case of the Welsh Assembly than they will in the case of the Scottish Assembly. For this reason, I think the scrutiny of enactments which relate to the Welsh Assembly should be enabled, by Affirmative Resolution, to come before your Lordships' House and, of course, another place.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 94) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Ely, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Auckland, L.

Exeter, M.

Reigate, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Falkland, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gainford, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Soames, L.

Cockfield, L.

Harcourt, V.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Henley, L.

Spens, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Margadale, L.

Tenby, V.

Cross, V.

Middleton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Molson, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Daventry, V.

Monson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Denham, L.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Newall, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ebbisham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Westbury, L.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Elton, L.

Porritt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Pannell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Boothby, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rochester, L.

Caccia, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

Samuel, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Janner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shinwell, L.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Diamond, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Dowding, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCluskey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Morris of Borth-Gest, L.

Wells-Pestell. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Whaddon, L.

Garner, L.

Norwich, V.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 76 [Interpretation]:
5.37 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN had given Notice of her intention to move Amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 97:
Page 31, line 12, leave out from ("to") to end of line 13 and insert ("carry on any")
Their Lordships divided: contents, 84; Not-Contents, 70.
Page 31, line 16, after ("power") insert (", other than such authorities, bodies or undertakers as the Secretary of State may by order specify")
Page 31, line 17, after ("Office") insert (", the British Railways Board").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government have tabled three Amendments, Nos. 95, 96 and 97. We are, however, placed in a slight difficulty because the noble Lord, Lord Elton,

1217
yesterday tabled two Amendments dealing with this same matter. The effect of his Amendments is to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to add to the excepted statutory undertakers defined as such in the Bill. This is at odds with part of the purpose of the Government's Amendments which is to enable the Secretary of State also to subtract from the bodies as defined in the Bill. I do not think that it would make for orderly discussion if I were to move the Government's Amendments now. They appear on the Marshalled List ahead of Lord Elton's Amendments, and would in effect pre-empt his Amendments. We also have the additional problem this afternoon that the removal of the British Waterways Board from Schedule 7 also has implications for the definition of "excepted statutory undertakers".
I do not intend to move these three Amendments. I shall take the opportunity afforded by Lord Elton's Amendments to explain our general reasoning on this matter and, if I can, persuade the noble Lord not to press his Amendments. This would give us an opportunity to look at our own Amendments again before Third Reading. I hope that your Lordships' House will agree that this is the most orderly way to proceed.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 31, leave out lines 18 to 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is pleasurable to be bowed through a door with such courtesy and charm by the noble Baroness. When we have finished our exchanges, I shall follow her example. None the less, I think it worthwhile explaining the purpose of this Amendment. It is two-fold. Clause 76 is the interpretation clause and a clause which when one goes through a Bill one does not customarily read with great attention unless one is faced with the difficulty of my noble friend Lord Tweeddale for one expects the clause to contain merely what one would expect it to contain.
When reading through this clause, however, one finds that the Secretary of State is given very considerable powers. I have not before met an interpretation clause which gives powers of any sort to anybody. If I may explain, when we
1218
come to the phrase "excepted statutory undertakers" we find a very considerable definition. Before we start reading it, we recall that this phrase is used frequently in the Bill to determine that a body which would, if it was not an excepted statutory undertaking, be dealt with in one way, is to be dealt with in another. So this is a definition of some importance.
We find under this phrase first of all the condition which an undertaking or undertaker has to satisfy to be an excepted statutory undertaker. I will not read it out at length, but it deals with railways, lighthouses, harbours, piers, quarries and the like. That seems fair enough. Then there is another group which consists at the moment of the Post Office and the National Coal Board, and may shortly consist of the British Railways Board as well if the Marshalled List is to be believed. All that is plain sailing. Then one comes to the words that I have moved to delete from the Bill in the first of the two Amendments to which I speak, Amendment No. 97A and Amendment No. 97B, and these are:
"and for such purposes as the Secretary of State may by order specify, includes such other authority, body or undertakers as he may so specify";
At that stage we have a list therefore of definitions which includes:
"persons authorised by any enactment to construct, work or carry on any railway … the Post Office and the National Coal Board;".
At the end of that it says anybody else who the Secretary of State thinks fit to add to the list for reasons which he will have to adduce at the time.
My alarm was added to, on seeing the Amendments which the noble Baroness has just courteously withdrawn, by her Amendment which sought to give the Secretary of State not only the power to add to the list but also the power to remove bodies from the list. One began to wonder what on earth was the point of having a list anyway, because it was quite clear that an excepted statutory undertaker was whatever the Secretary of State wished it to mean and nothing else.
I do not wish to wax excited or oratorical about this matter; I honestly seek explanation. I am not sure whether it is good drafting practice to put this power in this part of the Bill. I am equally not sure whether, under the circumstances, it could

1219
go anywhere else. It is a considerable power. It needs to be justified and, in the light of what the noble Baroness has said, I will listen to her reply with great interest.
My second Amendment, No. 97B, sought to delete from the Bill subsection (4) of the interpretation clause because that subsection, very prudently in the light of what I said, imposes upon the Secretary of State the need to get the authority of Parliament to extend or diminish the list, which greatly reassures those who are anxious about the powers. What we need now is an explanation of why these powers are so wide and how they would be used. I beg to move.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, these words:
"and for such purposes as the Secretary of State may by order specify,…"
remind me of Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland", who declared that whenever he used a word it meant exactly what he intended it to mean and nothing else. These are very dubious words indeed. They can be twisted around to mean almost anything. I support this Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it might be helpful to your Lordships if I explain our general approach to the definition of excepted statutory undertakers. The definition of excepted statutory undertakers is an important one. Schedule 2 of the Bill transfers a whole range of powers, for instance in planning and highways, to the Assembly which might impinge on statutory undertakers (for example, an electricity or gas board). It is necessary to ensure that where these powers affect statutory undertakers for whom responsibility is generally reserved the undertakers are able to continue to look to their sponsor Minister for statutory protections which they presently enjoy. Thus their ability to carry out their statutory functions will not be prejudiced.
The approach of the Bill is to bring these "reserved" statutory undertakers within a single broad definition, and then to build in protections throughout the Bill by reference to this definition. So in clause 76(1) we call these bodies "excepted statutory undertakers"—not a very elegant phrase—and in Schedules 2, 4 and 10 and elsewhere we provide that powers
1220
in respect of such undertakers are to be reserved, or subject to consent, or subject to special Parliamentary procedure. Powers in respect of other statutory undertakers—for example, the water authorities—will be devolved.
The definition of excepted statutory undertakers in Clause 76(1) is necessarily complex. I agree with the noble Lord, the more you look at it, the more complex it becomes. In some cases it is possible to name a body as being such an undertaker. This is what we do for the Post Office and the National Coal Board. Our Amendments would also have done the same for the British Railways Board. We are able to do this for these bodies because we know that all aspects of their work come within the reserved sphere.
But in other cases our task is more complex. There are certain activities authorised by statute which clearly come within the reserved sphere and for which ministerial protections should continue to apply. But some of these activities are carried out by a miscellany of bodies. For example, all bodies authorised to carry out dock undertakings should continue to have ministerial protections. But such bodies range from British Rail—a body for which responsibility is reserved in all contexts—to local authorities—for which responsibility is devolved in most other contexts. Our approach is therefore to ensure that a local authority is an excepted statutory undertaker when, and only when, it is carrying out an activity for which the protections afforded to such undertakers by the Bill are appropriate. The definition at present does not fully achieve this, and that is part of the reason why we tabled our three Amendments.
The definition in Clause 76(1) must be as precise as possible, and our Amendment would have added greater precision. But our conclusion is that it would be wrong to rely on the definition in Clause 76(1) entirely without some flexibility for the Secretary of State to add or subtract by Statutory Instrument. I dare say that if an entirely new body is set up by statute which clearly should be an excepted statutory undertaker that could be dealt with in the primary legislation setting it up. But our problem is more complex. New statutory undertakers can be established for quite specific and sometimes temporary purposes under

1221
local enactments. The functions of statutory undertakers can be extended and modified by ministerial order—for instance, under Section 233 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
The Government believe that it is essential to have an element of flexibility in Clause 76(1) to deal with this. The clause already enables bodies to be added to the definition by Statutory Instrument, and our Amendment would have complemented this by a power to subtract from the definition. I hope your Lordships agree that this is a power which is reasonable and necessary. We would otherwise need primary legislation in each case.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the ministerial power in Clause 76(1) is not one amenable to abuse. It is essentially a consequential power. A body would not be listed by order as an excepted statutory undertaker unless substantive powers in respect of the body were also reserved. To do so would only cause administrative chaos and split ministerial responsibility.
Perhaps in the light of this explanation the noble Lord, Lord Elton, might withdraw his Amendments. This will enable the Government to look at our own Amendments again and to return to the subject on Third Reading, having taken full consideration of the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as to the need for the powers. I do not doubt that I shall be convinced by the powerful arguments of the noble Baroness when I have read them in tomorrow's Hansard. As to the proper place for them to be placed in the Bill, I suspect that it would be more elegant and consistent with normal practice if the powers were placed in another clause, and that this was referred to in the definitions clause which would contain the principal list, if there still is to be one. As to the question of whether I will withdraw my Amendment, after such a courteous and generous request of course the answer is, Yes. I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97B not moved.]
Schedule 12 [Referendum]:
5.50 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 84, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph 1A below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have covered this ground at the Committee stage, briefly but thoroughly, and I do not think we shall wish to spend too much time on it now that we have an Amendment in substantive form on the Marshalled List, particularly as we are following the precedent set in the Scotland Bill. The only argument that I can see against the Government's accepting this Amendment would be that it is superfluous if the Scotland Bill is enacted, because the Scotland Bill carries a similar provision—and the provision in the Amendment is that if the two Bills are passed at the same time or in the same Session the day on which the referendum is to be held on each question under each Bill shall be the same. If that provision is in the Scotland Bill, I think that the noble and learned Lord might argue that it is superfluous. On the other hand, it would be very much going ahead with "one leg and one peg" if it was not to be in the two.
The argument for holding the referendums on the same day seems to us to be an important and a simple one. It would not be proper that the result of one referendum should influence the result of another because the decision taken by each part of the country should be taken on its merits, as they appear at the time. There should be no question of seeking to advance one result or the other by placing the question before the people of Wales before it is placed in front of the Scottish people, or vice versa. That is a choice we do not think ought to be open to a Government of our colour any more than to a Government of the colour favoured by the noble and learned Lord. I hope I have said enough to get him to agree with me, and I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this matter has been previously discussed. My information is that the Amendment to the Scotland Bill to the same effect was in fact withdrawn by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson. In any event, this needs to be looked at again

1223
on its merits and, in my submission, the position taken by the Government on this matter, as was indicated in our previous discussions, has made it clear that they have the firm intention to hold both referendums on the same day but that a certain flexibility has to be allowed in case of unforeseen circumstances. Certainly there are no circumstances I can foresee at the moment which would prevent that intention of the Government from being carried out, but in a world of mortals and mortal events strange things can occur, not only in the world at large but apparently in another place. Therefore, one has to prepare for these unforeseen contingencies by reasonable precautions. In view of the assurance I have given, your Lordships may think it would be preferable not to have a statutory requirement for the referendums to be held on the same day in case some remote possibility might make that course wholly impracticable, and therefore it is not desirable that this should be imposed as a statutory obligation.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has skilfully and charmingly disarmed what I advanced as my principal argument, on which I congratulate him and for which I apologise, in that I was under the impression that the Scotland Bill was other than it apparently is. In the light of that and in the light of the noble and learned Lord's assurances, if he will accept that I might have to return to this on Third Reading, I think it might be best if I asked leave to withdraw this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I certainly give that assurance: I merely read out what I am told, with regard to the state of play only, as to the withdrawal by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, of his Amendment from the Bill. I apprehend that what I am advised is accurate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 84, line 4, after ("day") insert ("within six weeks of the next publication of the register of parliamentary electors but").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns a point—I think a very valid one—which was brought up
1224
on clause stand part during the Committee stage. At that stage it was Clause 81 and it is now, of course, translated into Clause 78. The point at issue was, and still is, that the result of the referendum will be open to argument if it is not based on an up-to-date electoral roll. The terms of the Amendment specify that the referendum should be held within six weeks of the publication of an electoral roll. When I moved this point on Committee stage I was invited actually to put a date to it so that the matter could be debated more fully. I think it would be wrong to put a specific date—for example, the date of 1st March was mentioned—but I think that the period during which the referendum should be held ought to depend, as I have said, on an up-to-date electoral roll. I beg to move.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to intervene. I think the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, could never have fought a Parliamentary election because, had he done so, he would have realised that six weeks is far too short a time if you are going to have any kind of organisation. I would suggest that if he is going to put a fixed time to this, it should at least be somewhat longer.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, the intended effect here is to make sure that the referendum takes place within six weeks after 16th February, when the next register of electors is introduced. The Government fully understand the noble Lord's reasons for putting down the Amendment but they cannot accept it, because it would introduce a statutory constraint on the date for the referendum which in certain circumstances could prove impossible to meet.
It will not have escaped the attention of your Lordships that a General Election is due to be held some time between now and October 1979. That date is, of course, not known, and it would be unsatisfactory to include statutory provision for the date of the referendum, as this Amendment suggests, bearing in mind that the Bill already contains in Clause 79 a provision that the referendum cannot take place within three months of the next General Election. I am not

1225
saying that the two provisions would conflict but conceivably they could do so, and it would be unsatisfactory to create a situation of this kind in the Bill.
It is not the position that the 40 per cent. threshold requirement relates to the total number of names on the register. If I might invite your Lordships' attention to its terms, subsection (2) of Clause 78 says:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted 'Yes' …"
this formulation, as was made clear in the other place by the movers of that provision, would enable the Secretary of State to make some allowance for, for example, the numbers of those whose names are on the register but who have since died and of those who have not yet attained the age of 18 years. This calculation would no doubt be less difficult on the basis of a new register, but, for the reasons I have explained, the Amendment is unnecessary and indeed, potentially at least, it is in conflict with a provision which is already contained in the Bill.
The actual terms of the Amendment proposed appear to allow the referendum to be held within six weeks either side of the introduction of the next register, which I am sure is not the noble Lord's intention; and so I trust he will not press the Amendment. I think it is accepted practice that Parliamentary and constitutional decisions of this kind cannot wait on a new register; that every register begins to get out of date from the moment it is drawn up, and it would be a very arbitrary arrangement to postpone these fundamental issues to wait for one. It may well happen that the referendum will in fact take place at just about the right time. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has left the Chamber. I agree that I have never fought a General Election, but I have two understandings on this matter. One is that a snap election can be held, and very frequently is, in which case the period of notice is between three and four weeks. So I do not think that her argument on this occasion carries very much weight. The second is that the Government have persistently assured
1226
us that the referendum bears very little, if any, relation to a General Election issue. It stands of falls on its own merits.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if I may interrupt, this does not mean that all arguments which can be used about elections cannot be used about referenda.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was going on to say that I agree with him that this Amendment has been very badly drafted in a hurry, and can indeed mean, as he suggests, that the referendum could be held either side of the publication of the electoral register. But as to what he said about the upset that may, or may not, be caused by a General Election, I think that there are two points here. One is that I could very sensibly invite the Government not to hold an election which would, or could, prejudice the referendum, and I have no doubt that this is one of the ideas in the mind of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister. There is no doubt that I shall have to consider this matter a great deal further, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
6.3 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 84, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 28 and insert ("No sum shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund whether by Order in Council under this Schedule or otherwise for the purposes of the referendum, save that an Order in Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down as a gesture of dissatisfaction with the reply that we received at Committee stage, on both this Bill and the Scotland Bill, to our request that there should be no question of the resources of the Government being used to secure one result or the other in the referendum campaign. We have read the reports of the debates very carefully, and, although quite substantial things were said, none of them amounted to an undertaking that the resources of the Government, who are in favour of devolution, who have said that they would put

1227
devolution in their Manifesto and who therefore regard it, perhaps properly, as an item of their Party's programme, could not be used to pursue the Party's policy.
We have covered this ground before. What we are talking about is the use of the printing presses, the use of the Civil Service and the use of official cars. All the engines of persuasion which lie at the hand of the Government, because it is the Government, and which are out of reach of those who disagree with the Government, because they are not in it, could be used to secure a very considerable change of opinion in an area where the floating vote, if such there be in this context, was crucial.
It is contrary to all the principles of British democracy that elections should be fought by Governments. We see it happen abroad. They are fought in this country by Parties who have held government and who aspire to government, but the machinery of government is not used. The Ministry of Information and so on does not produce the documentation, which it produces in the national interest, in order to persuade the nation to follow one policy or another when that policy is at issue.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is armed with replies to a series of detailed attacks, but it is the broad principle that counts. I have, to my great comfort, to hand on this occasion a document called Lords Amendments to the Scotland Bill. In it, I am happy to see precisely the words that appear on our list of Amendments. Therefore, in this case we are hand in hand with the Scotland Bill. It would, I think, be manifestly inelegant, if not absurd, not to keep in step with it. My Lords, I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in his last observation the noble Lord said that it would be absurd not to keep in line with what is in the Scotland Bill, but if, as is my submission, the Scotland Bill's provision is absurd, I venture to think that it would be absurd to keep in line with absurdity. However, these are perhaps merely words. On the substance of the matter, this Amendment was debated on the Scotland Bill, and not only was the devastating speech that was made on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, showing the unconstitutionality, the impracticability and
1228
the imprecision of the language of the Amendment, not answered, but, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for whom I have the greatest respect, he did not seek to answer the questions asked by my noble friend.
It was made clear in that debate that the Government have no proposals to provide public funds for campaigning organisations in the referendum, and the Government itself has no plans to issue any pamphlet or leaflet explaining the provisions of the devolution legislation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Shinwell was rather surprised that the Government went as far as they did in their self-imposed restraint. So that, so far as engines of persuasion, at any rate, are concerned—that eloquent phrase of the noble Lord which, I thought, became a little mixed up with motor-cars in his fluent analysis—there is no intention to use those Government publication agencies for that kind of purpose. We think that the Press and other media will cover the referendum campaigns very thoroughly, and we see no reason to suppose that the voters of Wales or Scotland will be in doubt as to what they are being asked to vote about.
Therefore, the real question that we come down to is the fairly narrow one of whether any Minister speaking in favour of devolution should have the normal facilities available to Ministers engaged in furthering and explaining Government policy—because this clearly is fundamental Government policy. Indeed, devolution has been so stated on many occasions in this Parliament. It would not, I submit, be reasonable to treat expounding Government policy on this matter in this way, just as it would be unreasonable to limit expounding Government policy on any other matter. This apparent attempt to prescribe the matter to a totality of that kind is, I submit, an absurdity, apart from being unconstitutional. I am tempted to repeat again the questions put by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, but perhaps that is not necessary. Perhaps I need only remind the Opposition Front Bench that his speech was devastating and unanswered, and I hope therefore that this absurdity will not be pressed.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it is certainly a device that saves time to quote a speech made on another Bill, to refer to a speech

1229
made upon another Bill at another time in defence of an argument without advancing that argument. I respect the noble and learned Lord's motives in this. Since we are dealing in terms of generalities therefore, I suppose the proper observation about the doubtless excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, is that it failed to persuade your Lordships on the occasion when it was delivered. The noble Lord may think it an absurdity that we should seek to alleviate the anxieties of those who feel that the Government could be in a position to exercise an advantage which they ought not to exercise. If they have no plans to do so, the provision that we propose cannot be offensive: if they have plans to do so, it is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, I should like to ask a question of him if your Lordships' House would bear with me for a moment. Without repeating any of the other arguments that were advanced on another occasion on another Bill, the Scotland Bill, would the noble Lord—since I am sure he is eager as we all are that revising legislation should be meaningful—tell us at what point of time and in what circumstances Ministers should not be allowed to use their ministerial resources in speaking on questions that might relate to the referendum. This is a genuine request for some interpretation of the words, "for the purposes of the referendum" in that context.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, by leave of the House—since I have already spoken twice—the Government have the means
of producing literature, not simply explanatory memoranda but other pieces of material which are of considerable use in conducting a campaign. They can be used in two ways: you can either have something which is quite overt, something which goes through every letterbox, which is pasted by fly posters on telegraph poles—and I have no doubt that that will not be done; but there are other and subtle ways in which material produced by the Government can he persuasive. There is material which is of general application, statements which are circulated by means of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. There are the resources of transport which can conduct people to distant places at no expense whereas those who wish to confront them have to get their finance out of their own pockets by some association to which sums are subscribed.
If one is accustomed to travelling in an official car to go to make speeches, it is important that this should not be done on this occasion. All we are asking for is fair play and that request was made and accepted by your Lordships in a similar debate which has been frequently alluded to. Doubtless in that debate powerful speeches were made, compelling arguments were adduced, and the result was that your Lordships put that requirement in the Scotland Bill. I have already moved this Amendment so it is not necessary for me to move it again. Your Lordships are all telling me that you are anxious to get on, so let us get on and divide.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 100) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 60.

O'Hagan, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Soames, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Somers, L.

Vickers, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Spens, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Sandford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Sandys, L.

Tenby, V.

Westbury, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Caccia, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rhodes, L.

Collison, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacques, L.

Samuel, V.

Cudlipp, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Diamond, L.

Listowel, E.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCluskey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Melchett, L.

Whaddon, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Hale, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 11 [Amendments of Enactments]:
6.22 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 70, line 25, at end insert—
("4A. After section 62 of that Act there shall be inserted—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall issue such directions to the Welsh Assembly as seem to him necessary to secure that the total number of teachers being trained, or being trained in a particular subject, in Wales shall be in conformity with the needs of England and Wales as a whole." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were discussing this Bill at the Committee stage we went in some detail into the matter of education, and we made one principal alteration to the Bill about a right of appeal. There was another matter on which we expressed considerable concern and I then tabled an Amendment to reserve to the Secretary of State the function of Section 62 of the 1944 Act of providing for the supply and training of teachers.
The noble Lord and many of his noble friends took exception to that because it
1232
was reserving from the Welsh Assembly what I think they saw as the fountainhead of education, the supply of teachers who guide the young in their studies and their entry into the world. We have been made acutely aware of the sensitivity of the Welsh people, and particularly the proponents of this Bill, to anything which may appear to be a retention of power by central Government or one of its agencies which might otherwise be exercised by the Assembly. Therefore, I was exercised to find a means of achieving what I thought was the essential intention of my Amendment without exciting those susceptibilities. The principle which I am trying to reserve is this: it is the unitary nature—the wholeness—of the supply and training of teachers in the United Kingdom. When it comes down to it this is made up of only two elements: one is the standard to which the teachers are trained, and the other is the number of teachers who are trained to that standard.
In the face of such a barrage of nationalist criticism from the other side I was prepared to concede (and that was the second concession, was it not?) that the matter of standards was something which could properly be left to the Welsh Assembly, and that in the long term—though perhaps the term would he a little longer than some of us would like—any deviation from

1233
the proper standard by the Assembly would be corrected by the employability or otherwise, the success in career or otherwise, of the teachers whom they sought to be trained.
But that leaves one final matter which I do not think it is proper to leave in the hands of one section of our community; that is, what is the proper number of teachers to be trained? At the Committee stage the noble Lord gave us an account of how the process of achieving the optimum number was carried out, and that account in sum appeared to be that there was a market force; that local authorities tried to fill the places, and if the places could not be filled under the requirements of admissions then the number of places was reduced.
But that seems not to be a fair description of what happens, because after the discussions have taken place between the authorities and the Department a directive can be—and is—sent out in the form of a circular by the Secretary of State, giving an allocation. I am sure the noble Lord will tell me if I am wrong, but I strongly suspect that I am right in this. Therefore it is a function of central Government at present to establish what is the proper number of teachers to be supplied from each region, and indeed by each authority, in the country.
If that is a proper function of central Government, then if the Bill is not amended we are breaking up that function and putting it into two hands, and those two authorities—the Department on the one hand and the Assembly on the other—may have a different view about two things. One is the number of teachers who should be trained and supplied to England and Wales as a whole, and the other is the number of teachers who should be trained and supplied from Wales as a whole.
It seems to me that the first of those at least must be a matter for England and Wales. We have already some time ago devolved this matter of decision to the Scots, and the result of that I regret to say—although I make no criticism of the standards of the training and the provision in Scotland—has been that there is very little traffic in teachers across the Border. That may be a bad thing or it may be a good thing, but it is a result of
1234
the separation of the provision and training of teachers in Scotland from the provision and training of teachers in England and Wales.
Wales is a good deal smaller than Scotland, and whereas Scotland may be seen as a self-supporting unit, I suspect that Wales is not. Indeed there are those who say that the number of teachers trained in Wales exceeds the Welsh requirement at present, and that may not be a matter for objection. But the point is that if there is an over-supply in Wales then that must be reflected in a reduction of supply in England or else an increase in teacher unemployment, and this again must he a matter for those parts of the United Kingdom, that is to say England and Wales, who together have this problem to deal with.
I hope that I am persuading your Lordships that this is not a Draconian power. I have given away, as it were, the idea of the reservation of the whole of teacher training, which was an attractive one for many in the academic world. I have given away, as it were, also the question of the application of a uniform set of standards. The noble Lord was kind enough to send me an explanatory and useful letter about the functions of the CNAA, for which I thank him and by which I am reassured because that aspect—and it is an important one; indeed it is a definitive one—of the establishment of standards is carried out by a chartered body. But what I think we should not give away without very serious reflection is the principle that the actual target total number of teachers to be trained should be arrived at by one authority, one person, one body, it matters not very much which, but in one place at one time for England and Wales together. I think this will be for the benefit not only of the English but of the Welsh, and as the Welsh community is smaller and as the Welsh academic community, therefore, is smaller, it is, therefore, less elastic; if the shoe is going to pinch, it will pinch there first. Therefore, it must be principally in the interests of the Welsh that their teacher-training programme shall be in tune with that which is decided in England.
This can be done in only one or two ways. One is to have some sort of bargaining session between the English

1235
and Welsh authorities, and the other is to say that both countries shall be subject to the one authority. I do hope that nobody is yet again going to raise the cry of trusting the Welsh, because this has got nothing whatever to do with trusting the Welsh. It is simply a question of seeing that two separate bodies, one of them large and one of them small, one with a large requirement for teachers and one with a lesser requirement, both of them with problems of supply and sometimes over-supply, both of them anxious to maintain standards which will enable, for instance, early retirement of teachers who have become burned out, as they say in the trade, and bringing in new teachers trained in new methods, shall be guided by the one authority and act in harmony. I cannot see that this is a derogation of anything the Welsh might wish to have. I cannot see that it is insulting to them any more than it is to the English that there should be one body to deal with both.
I am always apprehensive before the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, stands up, because despite his courtesy it is very rarely that he gives away anything. It would be nice to think he might give away something on this. I think it is a matter of importance. It ought not to be a matter of either rancour or animosity or indeed fierce argument. It seems to me a common-sense solution to a perfectly simple problem, arid to elevate it into the sphere of nationalist politics would be quite unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord can meet us on this. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I have to confess that I have had to complain a good many times of the derogation from the powers of the Welsh by noble Lords opposite moving Amendments, and this is not the most serious example. I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord has, as it were, taken an intermediate line rather than a complete line in taking away this decision from the Welsh Assembly. Secondly, I should like to say that one of the significant factors here, which I do not think the noble Lord made quite clear, is that there is an export to England of teachers trained in Wales. This need not always be so, but it has been so for a long time, and it is a good and important part of the Welsh teacher training world.
1236
We fully recognise, of course, the close relationship between England and Wales over the training of teachers, and it was in fact recognised in the White Paper, Cmnd. 6348, which first set out our detailed proposals for devolution. We are, however, satisfied that statutory provision on the lines of the Amendment is not necessary. We do not go so far as to say it is actually evil, but we think it is not necessary. The English interest in this area can perfectly well be safeguarded through the normal process of consultation between the Government and the Assembly, which must take place over the whole range of devolved subjects and not just teacher training. That process of consultation must inevitably be very close because of the Government's interest in university matters, particularly the consultation in the field of teacher training and higher education.
As the noble Lord will remember, university matters are reserved after devolution, because teachers move, and will continue to move, between Wales and England, and it is entirely desirable that they should. Moreover, the Secretary of State would not be well placed to assess the Welsh proportion of the total demand for teachers required in England and Wales without the full co-operation of the Assembly. The Assembly will be responsible for all education outside the university, and the demand for teachers in Wales as well as reflecting demographic trends will reflect the Assembly's priorities for education, as compared with other functions for which they will be responsible, and priorities within the educational budget itself. In the Government's view, close consultation and partnership with the Assembly are preferable to statutory direction in this area, and we believe that close consultation and partnership with the Assembly will exist and need no reinforcement.
One further point is worth making, I think. The report by my right honourable friend and colleague Gordon Oakes on the management of higher education, which is Cmnd. 7130, recognised that the Assembly would be responsible for teacher training in Wales, but made no recommendation for the Government to take statutory powers of direction in this field. So the implications of the report for Wales are still under consideration. On all

1237
these grounds, I think it would be a mistake to pass this Amendment. I repeat that I do not think it is something I want to resist as strongly as we have had to resist other efforts to remove power from the Assembly, but the best arrangement is proper, confident consultation throughout. We believe this is sufficient, and we hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, as I remember it, the children of Birmingham and the whole area around there could not have been taught without Welsh teachers. When the Christmas term ended there were three or four special trains from Birmingham back to Wales to take the teachers home. I am not quite sure on which side my noble friend is, because it appears to me that we now have a chance to alleviate the unemployment of teachers in England and not take quite so many from Wales. Would it not he better to leave the Welsh with their devolved powers to get on with it themselves, and for we ourselves to determine how many teachers we want in England? I am afraid I could not really vote for this Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I cannot confess to complete satisfaction with the exchanges to which we have just listened. I feel that there is a question here that needs to be looked into further. The noble Lord has not referred to the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers, which must play a crucial role in the consultations which he confidently asserts will take place, and I have no doubt they will. At the moment there are eight direct appointments by the Secretary of State and 24 representative members—that is, representative of interested bodies—making 32 in all. I believe I am right in saying it is rumoured that there will be changes in the composition of this body in the near future, and I would hope that this would reflect the changed responsibility for the supply of teachers in Wales if that is to come forward.
I think the noble Lord sought to convince me of two things. The first was that this was not as offensive, but it was none the less offensive. I really thought I had convinced him that it was not offensive at all. Secondly, he sought to convince
1238
me that it was superfluous. I, of course, have taught in a teacher training college as a lecturer, at a time when there was great anxiety about which would be the next one to be axed. It was a very tense time and a time at which one wished to know where authority rested for these decisions. Now the authority can rest in Westminster, Cardiff or somewhere between the two. I shall not detain your Lordships longer because I know your Lordships' plans for an early conclusion this evening and I am anxious to be of assistance. Therefore, in a rather pained tone, and not necessarily a final one, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure, however painfully, that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 73, line 27, at end insert—
("THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959
22A. In section 28(2) of the Mental Health Act 1959 after the words "Secretary of State" there shall he inserted the words or the Welsh Assembly ".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during our discussions on Schedule 2 your Lordships accepted the Government's Amendment to the entry for the Mental Health Act 1959. This Amendment caters for one provision in that Act which cannot be dealt with by a simple listing in Schedule 2. Section 28(2) (as amended) contains a ministerial power of approval of a practitioner who can make recommendations about applications for admission to hospital. In the Government's view, a practitioner approved by the Assembly should he able to make recommendations in England, and a practitioner approved by a Minister recommendations in Wales.
The main purpose is that court hearings for patients held in Welsh hospitals are often held in England and vice versa. The Amendment makes it clear that an Assembly approved practitioner can give evidence in an English court, and vice versa, for example, in proceedings under Section 60. Otherwise there would be lack of flexibility. Simply listing Section 28(2) in column 1 of Schedule 2

1239
would not achieve this result. Consequently, an amendment to the 1959 Act is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, when we listened to the Government's Amendment yesterday to Schedule 2 your Lordships were persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to accept the Government Amendment at that stage, and in his speech both in Committee and subsequently yesterday on Report the noble Lord recognised the extreme difficulty of the devolution of this particular Act—namely, the Mental Health Act 1959. In many respects it is one of the most difficult ones which the advisers of the noble Lord have had to deal with in this regard, and although we would not resist this Amendment—indeed, at this stage we shall be glad to concede the point—it highlights the issue over the devolution of particularly difficult Acts of Parliament.
Of course, the 1959 Act was never drafted in its original form with regard to devolution. It contains a number of substantial provisions relating to all parts of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has explained, this Amendment will enable the procedures between England and Wales and vice versa to act satisfactorily.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SWANSEA Lord SWANSEA moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 73, line 27, at end insert—
("THE PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) ACT 1960)
22A. After paragraph 1(h) of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 there shall be inserted—
"(i) the Welsh Assembly" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend the Marquess of Tweeddale, is another approach to a point which was raised in Committee, when my noble friend Lord Elton moved an Amendment dealing both with the admission of the public to meetings and the publication of the proceedings of the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, did not like that Amendment and so it was withdrawn. This is another attempt to find a reasonable solution as regards the admission of the
1240
public. Its effect is to add the Welsh Assembly to the schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, so as to oblige the Assembly to admit the public to its meetings.
In that schedule a considerable number of different bodies are mentioned, the highest tier of which is local authorities. However, the Act was passed before there was any body superior to a local authority and before a body such as the Welsh or Scottish Assembly had been thought of. The Schedule to the Act also goes down to the tier of parish meetings, but that need not worry your Lordships unduly. It is certainly not my intention in any way to derograte the Welsh Assembly by classing it with parish meetings, education committees, regional hospital boards and the like. This is a genuine attempt to ensure that justice is seen to he done, and that all the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly will be open to the public, as they should be.
Perhaps the Welsh Assembly, if left to its own devices, might resolve of its own accord that the public should be admitted to its meetings. I hope that it will. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will not accuse us, as he has done, of trying to "nanny" the Assembly. The Bill lays down in certain areas what the Assembly should or should not do, and what it may include in its standing orders. I do not see that this Amendment can in any way be objectionable from that point of view. The Government have always said—and I well remember that during the Committee stage or perhaps an earlier stage of the Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said it very firmly—that they believe in open government. How more open can government be on the national level than by admitting the public to their meetings and ensuring that the Welsh Assembly does the same? I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think that it would help if the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in his reply could give me some information which I do not have at present. I should like to know whether the enactment to which the Amendment refers applies to the Greater London Council, and what is the population for which that council is responsible?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, we had a fairly extensive discussion

1241
of the principle underlying this Amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill. Although the present Amendment goes substantially less far than the one which we had then under discussion, I am afraid that it is not our view that it would in any way improve the Bill.
I certainly concede that the principle underlying the Amendment is relatively modest, and we understand and sympathise with the intentions behind it. However, I think that it is open to a number of objections, some of which I stated when we last discussed this matter in Committee. First, it would place the Welsh Assembly on precisely the same par as local authorities, and in exactly the same way; but the Assembly would not, of course, be a local authority. It would be a body representing the whole of Wales and carrying out the functions, not of local government, but of central Government. I suggest that we should hesitate to insert in the Bill anything which would be seen by the Welsh people as down-grading the status of the Assembly, particularly to the point of the illusion—I shall gladly give way if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, wishes to intervene. I thought that the noble Lord was about to explain why he disagreed with that particular point. In any event, it seems to me an extraordinary proposition that we have heard, as regards the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act applying to certain local authorities and also parish meetings, being discussed in the context of the Bill when we are talking about the delegation of certain functions from central Government to the Welsh Assembly. That is, after all, what this Bill is all about.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I thought that this would be an appropriate time for the noble Lord to reply to my question whether this also refers to the Greater London Council.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord is well aware, I certainly concede that the Greater London Council is affected by the existing statute. I am sure that the noble Lord is as aware of that as I am. It is a local authority; that is why it is covered by the Bill. However, it is also necessary to bear this point in mind. I speak with
1242
a certain amount of knowledge on this matter because, for a very substantial time, I was a working journalist, and I knew the degree of suspicion of the Press about certain practices by local authorities—some controlled by my own Party and some by the Party opposite—when the Press were, wholly unreasonably, excluded from meetings of local authorities. That is why 18 years ago this Bill was put on the Statute Book.
But I am bound to say that the situation today compared with that in 1960 is totally different. It is totally inconceivable in the present-day situation that any local authority would behave as some undoubtedly did in the years before 1960. But I repeat, we are not talking here about a local authority in any way; we are talking about the Welsh Assembly. Of course, it is our view that the meetings of the Assembly would, in normal circumstances, be fully open to the Press and public. It is a very remarkable thing to imagine that elected representatives of the people of Wales would wish to carry out their deliberations in secret. Members of the Assembly would have the greatest interest in obtaining the maximum degree of publicity for all their deliberations.
Undoubtedly, there will be some occasions on which they may well wish to meet in private; for example, when they are discussing the details of a contract, or perhaps certain circumstances relating to a particular individual. As I have indicated, it is certainly our expectation that the meetings of the Assembly would, in normal circumstances, be fully open to the Press and public.
However, I fear—and I say this despite what the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said a few moments ago—that we come back to the question whether we really trust the people who will be elected to this Assembly. Fundamentally, this Amendment is based on distrust about how the Members of the Welsh Assembly will behave. In our view they will behave reasonably. It is inconceivable that they will behave in the way in which some people undoubtedly behaved 20 or so years ago. Although I understand the motive that underlies this Amendment, I think that it is profoundly mistaken, and I very much hope that my noble friends will resist it in the Lobbies, because I

1243
am quite sure that that is where we shall find ourselves in a few moments.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should be grateful if he could answer a question. He has made a correlation between parish meetings and the Assembly; he has adduced a correlation from the words of my noble friend. Can he say whether there is a statutory provision for the proceedings of Parliament to be open to the public? Would not that be another correlation which could be forcefully made? Furthermore, is it not practical that the Assembly is much more akin to an arm of Parliament than to a local authority?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, offhand I cannot say what the basis is for the coverage of Parliament. It is an interesting question. My impression is—and I speak off-the-cuff—that when this was a matter of some difference of o opinion, particularly in another place, in the last century it was seen essentially as a matter of privilege. That is my general impression. Obviously, I speak subject to correction, but my general impression is that there was no statutory basis for the coverage of proceedings in this House and in another place. If I am in any way misleading the House, I shall, of course, let the noble Lord know. If I am right in that assumption, it justifies the position that I have taken on this Amendment.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to this discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will know perfectly well, surely the proceedings in another place are covered by Erskine May. That is a body of practice that has been built up over centuries and which is almost more binding than statute law. It is the practice and tradition of that House, through its historical origins, that have built up the rules which guide the behaviour of Members in that House and which lay down what can and cannot be allowed. Therefore, I do not think that that argument applies at all to the Welsh Assembly, which is a completely new body.
It is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Harris—who is usually very moderate
1244
and reasonable on these matters—considers that we are likening the Welsh Assembly to a parish council. That was the kind of implication that he was making: that we do not trust the Welsh Assembly to comprise reasonable people who will behave in a reasonable manner.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am afraid that the latter point is my view, but the point about parish council meetings was made by the noble Lord sitting behind the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood that; I shall certainly read Hansard tomorrow. I thought that the noble Lord tried to put into our mouths that we were trying to equate the Welsh Assembly with a parish council. If that is not so, I shall withdraw my remarks. However, I shall look at Hansard tomorrow. My noble friend, Lord Elton, to some extent—though not entirely—equated the Welsh Assembly with the Greater London Council, which covers about 9 million people as opposed to the 3 million people covered by the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, in size the Greater London Council affects very many more people, although its functions and powers may not be quite the same.
It is not a question of what would have happened 20 years or so ago: whether or not meetings would normally be held in public. It is to establish a principle. Any body which is set up by an Act of Parliament in certain circumstances, exercising certain powers and functions over the rights and duties of individuals and, affecting them personally, should allow itself to be open to scrutiny. I should have thought that if the Welsh Assembly is the body which the Government seem to think it will be, and which we, indeed, hope it will be, if it is set up, it will be a body of honourable and trusted men; it will not care whether it is in this Act, because in any case it will open its meetings to the public.
Therefore, I should have thought that it would be perfectly reasonable to expect them to come within the terms of this Act. It is only if we think that its Members will not be honourable and trusted that we might suspect that there might be reason for the Government not

1245
wishing to put it under the terms of this Act. Under Clause 17 of the Bill the leader of a committee will be given certain functions and powers on behalf of the Assembly. I should have thought that for his own protection, if not for anyone else's, it is essential that the decision he takes must be taken in public, and be known by the Press. That is something which the noble Lord, as a well-known journalist and as he himself said, should demand: the right of journalists to know what is happening in any public body, whether elected or nominated. I certainly support my noble friend in his Amendment. I must confess that I did not feel so strongly about it before, but having heard the debate I think that he has strong arguments in support of his Amendment.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was listening when I spoke earlier, but I specifically disclaimed any intention of detracting from the importance of the Welsh Assembly by seeking to include it in the Schedule to the Act,

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Ely, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Exeter, M.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barnby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Savile, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gainford, L.

Soames, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Somers, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harcourt, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Carrington, L.

Harvington, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Tweeddale, M. [Teller.]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Craigavon, V.

Middleton, L.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Denham, L.

Northchurch, B.

Westbury, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Young, B.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airdale, L.

Diamond, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Henderson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hood, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L.

Jacques, L.

Caccia, L.

Glenamara, L.

Janner, L.

Collison, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Kaldor, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Hampton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

David, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

along with parish meetings, regional hospital boards and so on. I was at pains to point that out. Naturally, I am aware that the Welsh Assembly will not be a local authority; that point was defined quite clearly at an earlier stage of the Bill. The Act was framed long before any body superior to a local authority was thought of.
Now we are considering just such a body, the Welsh Assembly; and I cannot see anything unreasonable in including the Assembly within the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act. It would ensure that the government of Wales will remain open. Her Majesty's Government have said on many occasions that they themselves believe firmly in open government. I think now is the time to show that they really mean it.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 103) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 50.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Phillips, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McCluskey, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Samuel, V.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stedman, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 78, leave out lines 22 to 45.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 together as they are related. As I indicated at the time, we have been considering the effect of the Amendment passed during Committee stage to preserve the existing (non-statutory) rights of Welsh local authorities to appoint members of the Welsh Water Authority. That Amendment was carried against the Government's advice, and as on all such Amendments we must reserve our position as to its rejection in another place. But we must also ensure that we return a coherent Bill to another place, and it is for that reason that these two Amendments have been tabled.
The substance of the Amendments is in No. 104; No. 105 merely makes a consequential drafting change. Their effect is simply to leave the Water Act 1973 as it stands in respect of appointments to the Severn Trent Water Authority. The various amendments to that Act, which would have been effected by paragraphs 46–51 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, will now not be made. This means that the rights of Welsh local authorities to appoint members of the Authority will remain exactly as they are now.
It also means that the Wales Bill does not itself provide for any Assembly appointments to the Authority (as it prevously stood, the Assembly would have had three appointments). This is unreasonable as the Authority will be responsible to the Assembly for most of its activities in Wales. What we therefore propose is that when an order is made under Section 58 of the Bill in respect of the authority to provide for detailed arrangements after devolution, the order shall give the Assembly the power to appoint one member of the Authority. The order will
1248
provide for this appointee to be a member of the Welsh Water Authority, replacing the existing requirement for one of the Government's appointments to be a member of that authority.
The net result will be that, as at present, three members of the Severn Trent Water Authority will be from Wales. Of these three, local authorities in Wales will, as at present, have two appointments. But the Assembly will take over the Government's power to appoint a member who is a member of the Welsh Water Authority. We think that this proposal is consistent with the earlier Amendment which entrenched local authority appointments to the Welsh Water Authority. But, as I said at the outset, the proposal is without prejudice to the Government's position on the Bill when it returns from another place. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, yet again the Government have done a great chunk of my work for me and I am grateful to them. This seems to be the first time the subject has been brought up of a definite order being made as a result of the Bill, always assuming that it remains in its present shape when it reaches the Statute Book. I think I heard the noble Baroness say the Assembly would, by this order, be allowed to appoint one of its own Members who was also a member of the Welsh Water Authority.
Baroness STEDMAN: I said they would nominate one, my Lords.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I must have misunderstood the noble Baroness.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Assembly will make the nomination of one of the appointees who will be a member of the Welsh Water Authority.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: And who will be a Member of the Assembly?
Baroness STEDMAN: Not necessarily, my Lords; a member of the Welsh Water Authority.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for intervening, my Lords. It will be a sensible tidying-up order and the Assembly certainly should be able to make some appointments. The object of the original Amendment was not to preclude the Assembly from making any appointments but to make absolutely sure that the county councils retained their right of appointment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 79, line 1, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section 3 of that Act").
The noble Baroness said: This is consequential, my Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 106 and 107:
Page 79, line 42, leave out ("72") and insert ("72B").
Page 80, line 2, leave out ("and 9") and insert ("9 and 11").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 as they are all interrelated; all concern the entries in Schedule 11 for Part I of the Local Government Act 1974. Part I of that Act is the main statutory provision dealing with rate support grant and other grants to local authorities. The Government's approach is that the Assembly should become responsible for specific grants related to functions transferred to the Assembly in Schedule 2 to the Bill, and that the Government should remain responsible for other specific grants. The Assembly will become responsible for rate support grant because this cannot sensibly be split and because some 90 per cent. of local authority expenditure covered by the grant is in the devolved sphere. It will be bound by existing requirements to consult the local authority associations, and additionally will have to consult the Secretary of State as under Clause 57. The Amendments are all consistent with this policy but put right some omissions and errors.
Amendment No. 109 concerns the making of regulations under Section 5(2)
1250
of the 1974 Act for prescribing standards and general requirements in relation to local authority functions. The Bill already provides that the Assembly should make these regulations except in respect of the functions listed in Schedule 5 to the Bill, the reserved functions. However, it fails to provide that the appropriate Minister should continue to make the regulations in respect of Schedule 5 functions. The Amendment corrects this, and Amendment No. 110 in consequence restores to Section 10(2) of the 1974 Act the definition of who is the "appropriate" Minister in any particular case. Also, in consequence, Amendment No. 111 restores to Section 10(4) of the Act the requirement that regulations under Section 5(2), where made by a Minister, shall be subject to Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. Our attention was drawn to the need for these Amendments by a Committee stage Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He did not move his Amendment and it was in consequence not discussed, but we are nevertheless grateful to him for drawing our attention to the matter.
Amendment No. 112 adds two new paragraphs to Schedule 11. The first, paragraph 72A, concerns paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act, which provides for the making of orders to abolish specific grants to local authorities, in practice a power unlikely to be exercised. The Bill at present leaves various loose ends in relation to this power. The intention is that it should be devolved so far as it relates to those specific grants payable by the Assembly. The Amendment deals with this point and puts right the other omissions. Paragraph 72B provides that certain orders and regulations made by the Assembly under Part I of the 1974 Act must be made by plenary session. Most importantly, rate support grant orders under Section 3(1) must be made in plenary session. Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 are technical Amendments which pave the way for Amendment No. 112.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 80, line 6, after ("England") insert ("(but not the reference in paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 2).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, yesterday we discussed Government Amendment No. 10 which related to the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 and the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953. My noble friend Lord Donaldson said then that to give effect to our policy we would need a further Amendment to Schedule 11; this is that Amendment. It is related to cases where persons are educated by an education authority but who do not belong to any authority. Your Lordships may recall that my noble friend said the Government's policy was that, after devolution, the Welsh education authorities should pay for a person educated by a Welsh authority and the English authorities for a person educated by an English authority. Such payments are made by adjustments in the rate support grant under the terms of the Local Government Act 1974. This Amendment is designed to give effect to the Government's policy and to ensure that children from England who are educated in Wales are not treated as not belonging to the area of any authority and vice versa.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.17 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 109 to 112:
Page 80, line 22, leave out from ("5(2)") to end of line 26 and insert ("a reference to the Assembly shall be substituted for the reference to the appropriate Minister except in relation to functions relating to matters listed in Schedule 5 to this Act.").
Page 80, line 22, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Page 80, line 39, leave out ("be omitted") and insert ("not have effect in relation to regulations made by the Assembly")
Page 81, line 3, at end insert—
("72A. The powers conferred on the Secretary of State by paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 shall, in relation to grants payable by the Assembly, be exercisable by the Assembly; and sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph shall not have effect in relation to an order made by the Assembly.
72B. The Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of a power to make an order under section 3 or 4(1) or paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 or to make regulations under section 5(2) or 10(3).").
On Question, Amendments, agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 113:
1252
Page 82, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 83.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment, like Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, is moved as a consequential Amendment to the Committee stage Amendment dealing with local authority appointments to the Welsh Water Authority. That Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and he also had on the Order Paper at that time an Amendment dealing with local authority appointments to regional land drainage committees. However, he agreed not to press that Amendment on the understanding that the Government would come back to the matter on Report. That is what we are now doing.
The main effect of Lord Skelmersdale's Amendment was to restore the rights of Welsh local authorities to make appointments to regional land drainage committees. This, we accept, is consistent with his successful Amendment dealing with the Welsh Water Authority. But the Amendment also took away the Assembly's right to appoint one member of the Severn Trent Regional Land Drainage Committee. This seemed unreasonable because this committee will in general be responsible to the Assembly for its Welsh activities, and in this particular case the Assembly's right to appoint would not in practice have been at the expense of that of local authorities, as the formula for local authority appointments is such that no Welsh local authority currently qualifies or is likely ever to do so.
We have therefore been considering what is the best way of leaving the Assembly with an appointment to the Severn Trent Committee but at the same time reconciling this with the spirit of Lord Skelmersdale's Amendment. Our conclusion is that it is best, after all, to accept the terms of the noble Lord's Committee stage Amendment and to provide separately for the Assembly appointment to the Severn Trent Committee by means of a subsequent order under Clause 58. So we have tabled an Amendment which, in effect, repeats Lord Skelmersdale's original Amendment, which I see he has put down again so as to prompt us. Our Amendment also takes the opportunity to deal with a technical matter relating to the pensions of chairmen of regional and local land

1253
drainage committees in the Welsh Water Authority area. Powers in respect of these pensions are devolved in Schedule 2 as a result of Amendment No. 41 and the Schedule 11 entry is no longer necessary. This Amendment therefore deletes it.
I hope our Amendment will be accepted and that Lord Skelmersdale will agree that we have once again fulfilled our undertaking on this. Of course, I must add that we move it without predjudice to reconsidering the whole matter in another place.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, this goes to prove that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. I have managed to break several during the course of the exchanges. It was an oversight to withdraw from the Assembly the power of making an appointment to the regional land drainage boards. The noble Baroness, quite rightly, will correct that. I am grateful to her.
This is also the last of the whole series of Amendments, some of which have been prompted by me, and others of which have been promoted by others. I wonder whether the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite are not entering the field of blood sports. Not only have they chased my hares but they have also caught them. Now I think that they have finally killed them. I am grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]

CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
7.23 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 2 [Enforcement]:
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 22, line 20, at beginning insert ("if he has reasonable cause to suspect that relevant provisions have been contravened").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we could discuss this Amendment and Amendment No. 5 together, as the points involved in each are similar. One hesitates to raise again on Report a matter which was fairly fully discussed
1254
in Committee. However, I am emboldened to take this course by the concluding words of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in Committee last Friday afternoon, when the noble Lord concluded his speech with these words:
"The proposal put forward…merits a more careful consideration than it has so far received. Even if the noble Lord is not advised to press the Amendment now, he ought to come back to it at a later stage of the Bill".—[Official Report, 30/6/78; col. 575.]
Here we are discussing this matter again. I hope that we may perhaps take it a little more shortly on this occasion. I do not wish to weary the House with the full gamut of the arguments that I put forward earlier. However, I do have to go into the matter in a little detail to explain it properly to your Lordships.
This is an Amendment to Schedule 2, which is the enforcement Schedule. It amends paragraph 3(a), which appears to give the enforcement officer of a local authority power to go into any premises other than a dwelling to make a routine inspection, or what is frequently called "a spot check". I say that it appears to give him that power. I should like your Lordships to notice how this paragraph is contrasted with paragraph 3(c), which deals with the officer's powers to inspect the books of the business. Paragraph 3(c) begins with the words:
"if he has reasonable cause to suspect that relevant provisions have been contravened".
So we have this position. If the officer wants to inspect the books under paragraph 3(c) he must have reasonable cause to suspect that something is wrong. But if he wants to go into the warehouse of the trader not to inspect the books but to examine the goods, he apparently can do that under 3(a) without having any reasonable cause to suspect that all is not well.
Pausing there, this is a curiosity—is it not? Granted, the dishonest trader will probably hide the goods and cook the books. But we were told more than once that this is not a Bill the purpose of which is purely to catch and punish dishonest traders. This is a Bill that will also guide and warn honest traders. It is a curiosity that although the officer may only look at the books if he has grounds to suspect that something is wrong, he can inspect the goods without having those suspicions.
Would not your Lordships think that an officer, knowing that certain goods were unsafe goods, and wishing to find them and to warn honest traders about them, would have a good deal more luck if he were able to sit in a corner of the office of the trader and go through the stock books and look at the descriptions of the goods in the stock books? Would that not be a quicker operation, and probably more effective, than going into the warehouse and rummaging about among the goods themselves? However, if he wants to look at the books he may do so only if he has grounds for suspicion. Yet, apparently, under 3(a) he may go into the warehouse and inspect the goods on a purely spot check basis.
I say that paragraph 3(a) appears to give him these powers because of this question that immediately comes to anybody's mind: What happens if the trader does not let the officer into the warehouse? Not surprisingly the promoters of the Bill thought of that one. They provided for it in paragraph 5, which says that if the officer has been refused entry by the trader he may go before a justice of the peace and complain that entry has been refused to him; and then,
"If a justice of the peace on sworn information in writing—
(a) is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe…
(ii) that relevant provisions have been…contravened"
and so on, then, and only then, the justice may issue a warrant to admit the officer to the warehouse. But that can be done only if the magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.
When one considers paragraph 3(a) in the light of paragraph 5, one finds that the enforcement officer can enter the warehouse to do a spot check if the trader gives him permission to enter, but if the trader refuses him that permission, there is absolutely nothing that the enforcement officer can do about it if he wants to persist in his spot check. It is no use his going to the magistrate, because the magistrate will say, "I can give you a warrant only if you show me reasonable grounds for suspicion, and if you can't do that, I can't give you a warrant to go spot checking". So the enforcement officer is absolutely stuck. Paragraph 3(a) is an empty shell. It
1256
purports to give power of entry for spot checking which simply cannot be enforced under the rest of the Schedule.
One may ask, why does the Bill not give the magistrate the power to grant a warrant in a proper case where he thinks that the officer has been refused entry to make a routine spot check? It would be perfectly easy to write such a provision into the Schedule, and then paragraph 3(a) would make sense. Why is this not done? I can only hazard that the reason that it is not done is that the Promoters of the Bill strongly suspect that Parliament simply would not stand for it. I should not be surprised if, in the course of a series of consumer protection Bills, the ground has been tested in this respect, and it has been discovered that Parliament will not stand for magistrates being badgered with applications for warrants for enforcement officers to be able to go around spot checking when they have no reasonable grounds for suspecting that something is wrong in the premises.
I know that precedents for the Schedule can be quoted. Indeed, I know that the Schedule has been copied almost word for word from Section 162 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But this, far from seeming to be a satisfactory precedent, is, if anything, a ground for some suspicion. I can only hazard that when the promoters were putting the Bill together, upon reaching the question of enforcement they asked themselves, "What are we going to do about this? There is Section 162 of the Consumer Credit Act. That looks to be roughly about right. If we copy that in our Bill and someone then complains about it, we shall at least be able to say that it is precedented."
If that was the approach, all I can say is that it simply is not good enough. Enforcement provisions impinge upon the liberty of the subject. It is extremely unlikely that the enforcement provisions in one Act of Parliament, enacted for one particular purpose, will be satisfactory if they are identically reproduced in some other Bill, enacted for some other, quite different, purpose. I should have thought that the only proper approach was that in every case the minimum necessary enforcement provisions should be tailor-made for the particular Bill in question.

1257
Therefore, I suggest that although precedent may be a good guide in many fields, it may be an unreliable guide in the particular matter we are discussing.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who has great knowledge of consumer affairs, assured us that the enforcement departments of the local authorities are understaffed and overworked; and I am sure that she was right about that. Even if paragraph 3(a), which I seek to amend, gave an effective power to an enforcement officer to go spot checking—which it does not—I do not believe that the enforcement officers in the local authorities would either want, or need, any such power. I should have thought that spot checking is a very extravagant means of using manpower, by going around the warehouses of innocent traders on the off chance that officers may stumble upon some goods which would be found to be unsafe. I do not believe that the enforcement officers want any such power, or that Parliament would think it right that they should have any such power.
I am thankful to be able to think that under paragraph 3(a), defectively drafted as it is, enforcement officers do not have such power. The purpose of the Amendment is to insert at the beginning of paragraph 3(a) the words relating to "reasonable cause", so that the paragraph then makes sense. Thus, if the officer has to have reasonable cause to suspect, and he is turned away by the trader, he can then go and quote his reasonable cause to suspect to the magistrate and obtain a warrant. He will then be able to enter the warehouse. As the Schedule stands at present there is no way that the enforcement officer can enter the warehouse to make a spot check if the trader says, "Oh no, you're not coming in. You've got to go off to the magistrate to show reasonable cause". I beg to move.
7.38 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was hoping that I would not be called upon to take part in the debate, and your Lordships will understand my position when I declare my interest. I am the honorary president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, which is the
1258
professional body of the enforcement officers to whom the noble Lord has referred. I must say on their behalf that I have to disagree with most of the arguments, and certainly the conclusions, that the noble Lord has put forward. I do so from experience—the officers' experience, not mine.
I want to tell your Lordships that the noble Lord's suggestion that the Schedule is based on only one or two precedents is quite wrong. This is the kind of Schedule that appears in all the consumer protection legislation. It has an honourable history, and it is probably appropriate that we should celebrate it, as it were, this year, because the right of unrestricted entry on the part of enforcement officers first appeared in the major Weights and Measures Act which was passed in 1878. Ever since then enforcement officers have been enjoying the right of unrestricted entry for the purpose of carrying out their statutory duties. In a few moments I shall quarrel with the description "consumer protection legislation", but it will do for the present. Every piece of what we call consumer protection legislation which has followed from that enactment—in particular in recent years with, in 1961 the Consumer Protection Act, in 1963 the new Weights and Measures Act, in 1974 the Trade Descriptions Act, then the Fair Trading Act and all the other Acts that have come along during this period—has this Schedule in it.
If these Amendments are carried, the effect is going to be that the enforcement officers (as for the moment we must refer to them) will be able to go into any business premises for the purpose of carrying out all their statutory duties—dealing with the scales in a grocer's shop, making sure that goods are honestly labelled in a supermarket, dealing with fertilisers and feeding stuffs for cattle and dealing to a certain extent with public health—except for one thing.
If the noble Lord's Amendments are carried, they cannot go and look for dangerous goods; they cannot go and look for the goods against which this Bill has been devised to protect the public, the goods which will cause death and injury. The Bill lays down quite clearly how the specifications are going to be arrived at and what the legal descriptions

1259
of dangerous goods will be; but the noble Lord is going to put restrictions upon the enforcement officers, the trading standards officers, if they go searching for dangerous goods.
The noble Lord said that what he wants to stop—and I would agree with him in this—is the enforcement officers going off on "fishing expeditions". That was the phrase he used in his previous speech; it is now "spot checks" I would suggest that paragraph 3 has nothing to do with spot checks or fishing expeditions. What the trading standards officers are concerned about is this. When the notice of the sale of dangerous goods comes along, whatever they may be—it may be that decorative lamp which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to—their first concern is to get them off the market, to make sure that people do not buy them, to get them out of the stock rooms of traders, to trace the importer who brought them in and make sure he is not going to sell any more. Because most of these dangerous goods are in fact imported; most of them are not manufactured in this country, they are imported—and, as the noble Lord said, usually from the Far East. The primary job of your trading standards officer is not to go searching for evidence for a prosecution at that stage: his job is to get the things off the market, to stop people buying them; and for that job, which must be done quickly, he must have unrestricted access to the premises in which the goods may be found.
There are other aspects of the noble Lord's proposals which I am quite sure he has not considered. As I have said, under all these Acts of Parliament the trading standards officer has the right of free access to business premises. In which kind of shop are you going to find these dangerous goods? I would suggest that a possible source of supply to the customer is the general hardware store which sells everything from lawn mowers to tintacks, crockery, cutlery, seeds, garden implements and all the rest of it. I do not know—I am making a guess—but I should imagine that the public control of all the goods in a shop of that description would come under about five different Acts of Parliament. The trading standards officer has access to that shop. He can go in quite freely,
1260
produce his card and say, "I am going to test the scales on which you measure the tintacks", or whatever it may be. He produces his card, and he can go and watch for all the other things—except this one. Because if he then says to the shopkeeper, "I want to know whether you have been selling any of these dangerous goods", and gives a description—in this case, this decorative lamp, which is a very good example—at that moment he is committing an offence under this Bill if the noble Lord's Amendments are carried. He has no right to do it unless he has ground for suspecting that the shopkeeper—perhaps the noble Lord would wait one moment—has been selling these things and has them in stock. If he has no ground for suspecting that; if he is merely saying, "Have you sold any of these things? Have you any in stock? Give me the information", that is an offence if the noble Lord's Amendments are carried, surely.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, what offence is this? How is the noble Lord going to frame the charge for that offence? I have never heard of such a thing.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not worried about a charge. He is seeking information to get dangerous goods out of the hands of customers, which is a point which the noble Lord does not seem to understand. That is the purpose of the Bill. At some point there may be a prosecution when somebody has offended against the terms of the Bill, clearly laid down. But I am not sure that in those circumstances the shopkeeper will be prosecuted. What the noble Lord does not appear to understand is that these trading standards officers are far more concerned with giving advice, in being helpful to honest traders, than they are in prosecuting; and I think—
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I said so.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord did not say it in those terms, and he certainly would not say it in the terms that I am going to develop very briefly, because I do not want to go on too long. Only a month ago I attended a conference of

1261
400 production line managers, some of whom came from members of the trade association of the noble Lord. That was a conference about how, with the help of trading standards officers, they are going to deal with metrication and the changeover from minimum weight to average weight. I do not want to go into these technical details, but this is the job of work they do. Prosecutions are expensive; they take time. The noble Lord, who I gather is a lawyer, will know that lawyers are expensive; and no public authority wants its trading standards officers to be spending a lot of time in the courts. In fact, the offences that are not prosecuted—real offences—greatly outnumber those which are prosecuted. So it is quite fallacious to suggest that all that these people are doing is going around on fishing expeditions. They do not go round on fishing expeditions; they do not go round spot checking in the way that the noble Lord described. They go round to make sure that the law is being carried out.
Quite obviously they cannot go to all the shops, all the warehouses, all the manufacturing plants, in the country; they have to be selective. This is where another aspect of it which I am quite sure the noble Lord has not considered comes into play. The vast majority of manufacturers and traders in this country are perfectly honest. They not only obey the law, but they are very glad to have rules laid down for them, because if we can force everybody to obey the rules that they accept, then you get fair competition; you have nobody breaking the rules. What the trading standards officer is doing is seeking the people who do not obey the rules. He does not go round harassing the manufacturers and the traders who he knows very well are obeying the rules. He will go into their business premises, in many cases being welcomed—he is invited in—to help them deal with their stock control, to make sure that the goods which are coming out of the factories are up to standard and do obey the rules. But the person he is chasing is the person who does not obey the rules—the shyster, the cheap importer of dangerous goods. That is the chap he is chasing; and, in order to get his information, he must go unrestricted into business premises to get it.
1262
I said that this had been going on for 100 years. If the noble Lord could have produced any evidence at all of this right of free entry being abused, if he could have brought any evidence from trade associations saying, "The trading standards officers, the enforcement officers, are harassing us; they are a nuisance to us; we want their activities stopped", I should have listened more patiently to the noble Lord. But there is no evidence. I can tell him that the vast majority of manufacturers in this country would give him no thanks for putting these Amendments on the Statute Book because the only people who will benefit from them are the shysters, the importers of cheap materials; because assuming these Amendments are accepted, and I hope they are not, they will now have what the noble Lord referred to on a previous occasion—instructions given them on how to prevent the trading standards officer from coming into their premises to find out whether the law is being broken. They are the only people who will benefit from the noble Lord's Amendments. I do not want to develop this any further, but I hope that he will have second thoughts about this and will withdraw his Amendments.
7.51 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Darling, very deeply because he has said all that I would have tried to say but he said it so much more excellently based on his real experience. Indeed, he has clarified for me several points which I hope he has also clarified for the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. As a result I shall say only half the things I was going to say. The only point that he did not stress, but which I would like to stress, is that we are dealing with a consumer safety Bill, we are dealing with measures basically to protect the average consumer of today from being harmed by goods which, for one reason or another, can harm or even, possibly, kill him. That is the main purpose behind it. Whereas perhaps in 1878 there was not all that amount of goods on the market which ordinary people could lay their hands on, now there is a vast range of goods. Happily, because of various protective measures taken over the last century, most of the bad articles are not made in this country; and they do not come only from the Far East but also from places like

1263
Italy, so one must be vigilant to protect the average consumer because he is confronted with gadgetry whose details, frankly, he does not have the expertise to know. That is why I, personally, think that this Bill, which is an improvement on its predecessor of 1961 and has learnt from the experience of that one, is important and worth promoting.
Turning to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for the reasons given so explicitly by the noble Lord, Lord Darling, it really seems to me that the emphasis of Lord Airedale's Amendment loses sight of the underlying need to protect the unwitting and not-very-well-informed consumer. He is dealing with a fundamental point. If he had been arguing about VAT inspectors who are only seeking money for the great Government, then I might have found myself going with him. Perhaps I should not have instanced VAT but instead the Inland Revenue; then I would be attacking the Government instead of my own Party. If we had been talking about somebody who is money-grabbing for the Government, I would be with him. But this is a narrow balance coupled with great experience as to what is possible and what is not possible, a narrow balance of trying to produce an Act of Parliament which is sufficiently safeguarding the consumers and safeguarding as much as is reasonable the people who supply them with goods.
In another place, this was gone into in great detail and many Amendments were included, the bulk of which safeguarded the supplier rather more than the consumer. We have had further Amendments in this House as a result of undertakings by the Government in another place which have furthered that aim in some respects. I am thinking particularly of the Amendments relating to the restraints on disclosure of information obtained in this process. Every effort has been made to get this in the right balance. All the experience available (which the noble Lord, Lord Darling, gave us in such detail) has been taken into account and therefore I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to accept the fact that if this Amendment were included it would be definitely to the detriment of the consumers' safety which the Bill is designed to promote.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I would submit that the effect of the Amendments would be to inhibit seriously the preventive role of the enforcement authority under the Bill. I think it would greatly erode its effectiveness. I say so for this reason. These—whatever they may be called—visits, routine checks (and I will not say "spot checks" for this is a term of abuse) are to be made by the enforcement officers; but they can only do so if they have reasonable cause to suspect that the relevant provisions have been contravened. If they have no such reasonable cause they cannot enter; they would not be entitled to enter the premises. As my noble friend Lord Darling has said, they go and they search. They may not have any idea before entering the shop if any offending material is there.
On two matters which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale: he invited your Lordships to consider the distinction between the provisions in paragraph 3(a), which do not provide for the requirement of reasonable cause to suspect, and 3(c). Paragraph 3(c) begins to operate only after the processes of entering under (a) and having a look round or examining under (b) have been carried out. Then, after inspection of the goods has shown that there is reasonable cause for suspecting a contravention of the requirements, it will enable the supplier of the goods to the trader to be discovered and other matters of that importance to be followed up. In addition, if the offence is suspected, inspection of the books at that point becomes right and necessary.
On the other point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made—suggesting by reason of the terms of paragraph 5 that the remedy is ineffective because the enforcement officer, not having any reasonable cause to suspect, could not provide the necessary information to the magistrate—the remedy for obstructing the enforcement officer is in paragraph 10 of Scheule 2:
"Any person who…wilfully obstructs an officer of an enforcement authority acting in pursuance of this Schedule…shall be guilty of an offence…".
The way of enabling the enforcement officer to do his job is provided for (as I understand it, at any rate) by that provision of the Bill. It is of some comfort

1265
to be reminded, as we have been, that a whole mass of similar provisions in the law to protect the health and safety of the public—and I will not list them—contain similar rights of entry. It is also reassuring to be informed (as I have been) that not only do the Local Authorities' Association want the powers of entry as they stand but the Consumers' Association consider them to be essential, and the CBI and trade associations have not objected to them in any way.
In the light of all those considerations, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—I will not call him a "village Hampden" but a noble Hampden—will feel, having ventilated this, that perhaps the public interest is best served in his not pressing the Amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I really am astonished about this. With the very greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has had a very busy day today, how can he say upon reading paragraph 3(a)—if I heard him aright—that the officer may enter the premises only if he has reasonable cause to suspect?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was saying that that was the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. Now I understand, my Lords. The next point, which I do not understand, is this. The noble and learned Lord says that sub-paragraph (c), the inspection of the books, arises only after there has been entry into the premises for the inspection of the goods. But this is not the case. The books will not be in the warehouse or in the shop where the goods are. The books will be in the office. Under sub-paragraph (c) it is quite clear that the officer, if he has reasonable grounds to suspect something, may demand to examine the books in the office without going anywhere near—
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, would he not agree—
Lord AIREDALE: I will just finish my sentence. My Lords, I was saying that,
1266
without going anywhere near the warehouse or, for that matter, the shop, he could go to the company's offices and inspect the books if he had reasonable cause to suspect all was not well.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Would the noble Lord not agree that very often the offices are in the warehouse?
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I daresay very often that is so. The point is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated that paragraph 3(c) does not operate until after the officer has entered the shop or warehouse. I am saying this may be totally untrue because the office, if it is a multiple store, may be miles away from the store. Do let us get the facts right.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt, until the enforcement officer thinks that there has been a contravention and then has reasonable cause to think that the books ought to be looked at in order to find the supplier and all the other sources, that stage is only reached after the initial discovery which is contemplated as a result of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), I should have thought.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, with great respect, the noble and learned Lord might think that, but I do not think that is what the Schedule says. We shall have an opportunity to look at this again. The point about this debate is that I do not think there is anything between us as to what we want to achieve. The burden of my argument on this Amendment is really it is almost a drafting Amendment. What I am saying is nothing to do with what we seek to achieve. I am saying that what the Bill seeks to achieve, it does not achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, said he would have listened to me more patiently if I had said something else. The noble Lord was very patient and listened to me without interruption, and that is more than I can say about his speech which I interrupted.
Neither the noble Lords, Lord Darling, and Lord Mottistone, nor the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt with the main burden of my argument. It is this: if the trader says to the officer "You are not coming into my warehouse",

1267
how does the officer get in? He is entirely without a remedy. All he can do is to go to the magistrate for a warrant. The magistrate will say: "If you are only making a routine visit, it is quite clear in sub-paragraph (5) that I have not got the authority to give you a warrant". The officer is absolutely stuck. That is a bad thing.
I shall try to explain this. There are two ways to resolve this ridiculous state of affairs. One is to give the magistrate the authority to issue the warrant if he thinks it is a proper case for a routine visit. The trouble about that is that the promoters do not seem to think that Parliament will stand for it, so that seems to be out. Next is to recognise that paragraph (3)(a) in its present form is ineffective because the officer is unable to act upon it on the refusal of the trader to let him in. I suggest by this Amendment that we make paragraph 3(a) make sense by making it say that it operates only if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, because that is the true position.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, taking him a long way back in his track, I think that he was in error in saying that in the event that the officer was refused entry, and he went to the magistrate, invariably the magistrate would refuse him a warrant. Surely the fact that he was refused entry might, under certain circumstances, be held to be a very good reason for getting the warrant. It depends on the circumstances. That surely is pushing the argument too far.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is a Report stage, too.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I was interrupted in the course of a speech I was making. I am now replying to that interruption and I hope that 1 am in order. If the officer asks for entry into the warehouse and the trader against whom he has no suspicion says, "No, you are not coming in unless you can get a warrant from the magistrate", if the magistrate is going to say that is ground for suspicion against the warehouse owner who merely refuses entry, I do not know what we are coming to.
The noble and learned Lord points out that there is a paragraph headed
1268
"Obstruction". Of course there is; but it is no coincidence that subparagraph (10) which deals with obstruction comes after subparagraph (5) which deals with the power of the magistrates to grant a warrant. The purpose of the paragraph is to deal with the situation that arises after the officer has his warrant and the trader still refuses admission to the premises. It is at that stage that the officer could say: "You are obstructing me in the exercise of my duties because even though I have a warrant, you will not admit me to the premises". Until that stage is reached, I do not believe that the obstruction paragraph comes into play.
If we were to divide on this matter it looks doubtful whether a quorum would be achieved. The matter would remain undecided, and we should have to come back to it at a later stage. So I had better not take that course. There is always a chance that before the next stage of the Bill we may be able to think about this and perhaps have discussions, and possibly come to some arrangement and shorten the proceedings on these Amendments when we get to Third Reading. That being so, the only proper course for me is to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1978 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1978
8.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 provides the legal basis for direct rule, and these temporary arrangements have to be renewed annually. It would be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss the renewal, for six months, of the emergency provisions which cover security in Northern Ireland.
This Government have no wish to prolong direct rule for one moment more

1269
than necessary. We want to return as much responsibility as we can to locally elected representatives of the Northern Ireland community, as soon as that can be achieved on a basis that would be acceptable to a majority of both parts of the community. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State suggested in his five-point plan presented to the Northern Ireland Parties at the end of last year, some principles on which we think that an acceptable interim system of government might be based. But, as he emphasised when speaking in the renewal debate in another place at the end of last week, that plan is not a detailed blueprint. It is a basis for discussion. Indeed, if the major political Parties in Northern Ireland wish to discuss proposals significantly different from the Secretary of State's illustrative five-point plan, then he is ready to join in such discussions, provided only that there seems a reasonable chance that those proposals will be capable of securing a wide degree of acceptance in both parts of the community.
Until power can be devolved to some form of local administration on such a basis, the Government will continue to accept their full range of responsibilities in Northern Ireland. We realise that direct rule is not a perfect form of government, but as long as it lasts we will do all we can to provide an Administration which is thorough, impartial, energetic but also sensitive and responsive to the needs and wishes of local people.
Noble Lords with personal experience in Northern Ireland will know of the severity of the many social and economic problems which it faces. There is no quick or easy way of dealing with them. Many are of very long-standing. But they are being tackled vigorously. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is at an appallingly high level. We are involved in an intensive drive to attract new industrial investment to Northern Ireland from overseas—particularly from the USA. Last August a new range of incentives, designed specially for Northern Ireland, was announced. Dupont, Goodyear and General Motors are among the American-owned companies which have decided on major investments at Londonderry, Craigavon and Belfast respectively.
1270
Where they have led, we hope others will follow. And the Government themselves are directly committed to the fight against unemployment through the industrial training, job creation and youth opportunities programmes.
Urban decay is another massive problem with social and economic repercussions. It affects many of our larger cities, and Belfast is no exception. The Government have made extra resources available, including, £130 million over the next five years, for the provision and improvement of housing in Belfast. I chair a planning team that is co-ordinating the drive on urban renewal, developing employment opportunities, the health and social services and educational and recreational facilities in the areas of greatest need in Belfast. I believe that significant progress is being made in tackling social and economic problems. But I would be the first to agree that much more needs to be done, and I can assure noble Lords that we are determined to continue our efforts.
As we have said before in debates in your Lordships' House, the various aspects of Northern Ireland's problems are interdependent, and what is achieved in one area of policy often has important implications in other areas. This is especially true of the level of violence—progress in this area is a vital part of our efforts to improve the quality of life for everyone in Northern Ireland. I believe that steady progress is being made—steady and unspectacular, but nevertheless progress. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to join me in paying tribute to all those concerned: the RUC, the Army, the UDR, and the people of Northern Ireland themselves.
I believe that the best assurance the Government can give the people of Northern Ireland is that their own determination is as great as theirs. However, despite the steady progress to which I have referred, the Government are satisfied that they cannot yet dispense with the emergency legislation, and I hope the House will, therefore, approve the first two orders before us tonight.
Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd May, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the interim extension order, to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred, continues the direct administration of Northern Ireland, and at the same time, in a sense, that order is a reminder that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. As your Lordships will know, guarantees have been given by successive British Governments that this will continue unless the people of Northern Ireland wish otherwise. But as part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has the right to look forward to having once again a measure of devolved government. It makes administrative sense, and without making any comment now on the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales which have been passing through your Lordships' House, clearly Northern Ireland has similar claims.
I know that the Secretary of State put forward the five-point plan to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred in his speech for devolved powers last November. I am aware of the difficulties in the way of further progress but if, as the days go by, the objective of a constitutional settlement is not going to continue ever more to recede over the horizon, surely the Government really ought to take a fresh look now at the powers and functions of local government in Northern Ireland, and to consider establishing some form of regional council which could lead on to the setting up of an Assembly with devolved powers.
In saying that, I intend no reflection whatsoever upon the work of Ministers in Northern Ireland. New industry—and the noble Lord has referred to several firms which have been attracted to the Province—is proof of the energy of the Northern Ireland Office, together with the attraction of Northern Ireland as being a place where there are good industrial relations and a good productivity record. But there really seems to be no progress whatsoever towards any sort of constitutional settlement; and I would ask the noble Lord this evening, if he would, to explain to us why a solution along the lines suggested by the Conservative Party for many months now, and which I repeated very briefly this evening, cannot at least be tried.
Despite that point which I am putting to the Government, of course I support
1272
both orders. The emergency powers continue to be necessary. But let there be no misunderstanding: Parliament renews the emergency powers with regret. By renewing every six months, we retain in Parliament the machinery for having constant reviews. Similarly, in a free country, we have machinery for anyone to bring their legitimate grievances to an independent inquiry. Therefore I find it very difficult to understand why the allegations which were made in the report by Amnesty International from anonymous people could not have been made personally by those people, either direct or thorough Amnesty International, to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
If I may say so, it would appear that the Government have taken the only reasonable course that was open to them by setting up an independent inquiry. May I express the hope, on the occasion of the passing of this order, that His Honour Judge Bennett and his colleagues will be able to bring that part of their inquiry dealing with interrogation procedures by the police to as swift a conclusion as possible. It is surely of the utmost importance that the charge of mistreatment should be answered, and answered very soon.
The noble Lord referred to the steady progress being made to reduce the level of violence, and we all owe a debt to the Army and the RUC for the successes which they have been achieving against terrorism. I should particularly like to welcome the further increase, which I know has been achieved, in the permanent element of the UDR—a move which, from this side of the House, my noble friends and I have been recommending and supporting for some time. But I have one question to put to the noble Lord. I understand that the backlog in terrorist cases awaiting trial has become considerable. I have been told of one estimate that some 80 murder cases and approximately 300 cases relating to scheduled offences are awaiting trial. Is this the case? If it is not the case, then I shall be the first to welcome the fact that it is not so. But if it is, is any action being taken to rectify the position?
I have paid tribute to the work of the security forces, but they need to know that terrorists are not going to find a safe haven outside Northern Ireland. It

1273
was to bring terrorists to justice on both sides of the Border that the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, and the corresponding legislation which was passed in the Republic, were enacted some two and a half years ago. May I ask how many cases have been brought before the courts in Northern Ireland and in the Republic as a result of these two pieces of legislation, and how many convictions have been secured? I believe that this form of co-operation is absolutely essential if the scourge of terrorism, which, after all, causes the orders which are being presented to the House today, is to be ended as soon as possible.
8.22 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for repeating the reasons behind these two orders. We support the Government when they say that emergency legislation cannot yet be dispensed with. We at Westminster must do all we can to help the people in the Province to help themselves, when the broad consent of both communities is at last obtainable, and we hope that that will be before long. I should like briefly to make two points. The first, following the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, concerns the accusation that torture has been practised in the interrogation of believed terrorists. Unfortunately, there is no doubt, on the other hand, that such agonisingly evil practices as knee-capping are carried out by the IRA. Torture is, in one respect, like bad driving—very few people will admit to it. Amnesty International has made what has proved to be a controversial accusation against the security forces. Nothing can justify the use of torture and the end must not be allowed to justify the means. We are glad that the Government have agreed to set up an inquiry, but we believe, with regret, that the very possible danger of reprisals may necessitate that its hearings should be in private.
The second point that I wish to make concerns the representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster. As was accepted by the Government in a Statement on 19th April, the Province, on a numerical basis, is entitled to at least four additional Members of Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when,
1274
since we spend many hours on Scotland and Wales—and I do not dispute the necessity—something will be done for Northern Ireland. I would remind the noble Lord that my Party suggested last year a temporary solution that could satisfactorily remedy a considerable injustice, long before the Commission will have had time to sort out the complications of redrawing boundaries. I should like to join other Members of your Lordships' House in paying tribute to the security forces, to whom we all owe a great deal. My Party accept the logic of these two orders. But if the Minister could comment on my last point about representation, I should be grateful.
8.25 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like, in the first instance to welcome both orders. What all noble Lords have been saying, including the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the future Government of Northern Ireland is very clearly underlined by the fact that tonight we have five orders concerning the Government of Northern Ireland which will all be dealt with in a matter of hours. There are many matters which I should certainly have liked to raise, but this House has been dealing in great detail with the Scotland and Wales Bills and I fully realise that I should lose the sympathy of the House if I raised more than a very few points tonight. Certainly noble Lord opposite will agree with me on that.
I should like to confine myself tonight almost totally to the question of the emergency provisions, except that I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State and his Ministers on their successes in attracting new industry. It has been a tremendous success, and I only hope that it is the beginning of a snowball which will take us back to the position we were in in 1968. I should like to pursue this matter on an appropriation order on 20th July, because, although the Minister has said how much the Government are doing—and I think they are very imaginative in a lot of the measures they are taking to combat unemployment—the prospects for unemployment in the year 1982 and onwards are truly horrific. I believe that we should he right to raise this matter on the appropriation order, and try to encourage the Government

1275
into more energetic and original methods of dealing with this most difficult problem, which can only aggravate the question of violence.
I should like to assure the Minister that I agree that things are better—and he knows that we all agree, because we can see it in Northern Ireland—and for that the Secretary of State and his right honourable friend Don Concannon deserve congratulations. Their robust stand in the defence and support of the Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been a tonic to Northern Ireland. Having congratulated them, I must, of course, say that it could not have been done without tremendous effort by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, as well as the support of the people of Northern Ireland.
I welcome very much the announcement on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. This is something which may appear to be unimportant, but the people of Northern Ireland require constant reassurance on the unity of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords have referred to the question of the Amnesty report and I should like to deal with that in a few minutes. The emergency provisions measure, which is before the House, rests on one principle which cannot be stated too often; that is, that when a free democratic society is faced with a terrorist threat, it is legitimate for its democratic Parliament to set aside some of the liberalities which affect personal liberty in order to suppress and wipe out the threat of terrorism.
While nobody would deny that proposition, I often think that we as a nation have not really accepted the implications that are carried with it. It is quite obvious—and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed this out—that we do not like continually giving these emergency powers. It is therefore an obligation on those who have these emergency powers to make sure that they are used humanely and prudently. It is also very necessary to make sure that we take only those powers which are strictly necessary for the job in hand. I believe that, judged by those standards, it is necessary that the Emergency Provisions Act should be supported tonight, and I also believe that
1276
the case for, and the handling of, that Act have been amply justified in the past.
So many confusing apparent facts come out of Northern Ireland, but one thing which sticks out a mile to me is that, in the conditions of brutal intimidation that exist in Northern Ireland, it will be impossible to find sufficient witnesses who will brave the intimidation and come forward and bear testimony to make sure that bombers and assassins can be convicted. If we in this country are not to succumb to bombers and assassins then we must either use the weapon of internment, a weapon which Parliament has decided we cannot use, or else, rightly or wrongly, we must depend heavily on the skilled interrogation of suspects in order to elicit from them confessions which the courts will accept as evidence to find them guilty. The very provision of powers for prolonged investigation puts us, a democratic society, at a disadvantage in the propaganda war. Every time in the past an efficient weapon against terrorism has been devised the propaganda machine, in the hands of those who support the IRA, has orchestrated a campaign against internment and they are making a further attempt today against police interrogation.
In this propaganda campaign nothing has aided the campaign of systematic defamation better than the recent Amnesty report on alleged police brutalities in Ulster. This is not the place to go into details and to make a critical analysis of that report. Indeed from reading the Hansard of another place we find that much has been said about it that was sensible and strong, especially by the Secretary of State and his colleague, and I shall confine myself to one or two observations. The first thing which must be clearly stated is that I cannot see how anyone can accept the assumption that a report from Amnesty can be regarded as a judicial pronouncement coming from a skilled and impartial body, and how that can be considered to be a prima facie case of brutality. Indeed, the American review Commentary stated that Amnesty was in many respects a propaganda body.
We in Northern Ireland are quite used to certain prelates, certain churchmen, such as Father Fall, who have continually done their very best to discredit the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but we are very sad

1277
to see the speed and alacrity with which certain other church leaders of note, and notably the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, seem to have accepted this document as offering at least a prima facie case of brutality. In my view that is indefensible and what makes it the more indefensible is that those same prelates were absolutely silent when there appeared a much more damaging report, also from Amnesty, on the behaviour of the police in Southern Ireland. I cannot understand why we have two standards of judgment.
The Amnesty report must be judged on its merits and I do not believe many people realise that there were three men involved most of the time, and one man who had to be relieved because he was sick. They were there for eight days and people who live in Northern Ireland or Ministers who have had something to do with Northern Ireland will know that eight days is not long enough to absorb the atmosphere, to establish the credentials and appreciate the general problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The team made further mistakes. They examined not a random sample, a random selection of cases, but a pre-selected sample of 78, selected not by Amnesty, but by those people in Northern Ireland practised in discrediting the Royal Ulster Constabulary over the last 10 years. The complainants were subject to no kind of detailed cross-examination and their credentials could not conceivably have been investigated in depth. One has only to look at the time factor: eight days and 78 cases investigated. It is quite impossible that any detailed or satisfactory situation could have been arrived at to establish the true cause.
I will give your Lordships the facts. In only 13 of the 78 cases that were examined the investigators interviewed both complainant and saw a doctor's report. Of those who complained 39 offered no medical evidence of any kind, 26 were examined only by reference to medical reports unaccompanied by interviews. My Lords, how can that possibly be considered to be a detailed, fair, proper investigation into police brutality?
I do not feel that I am here to judge the motives of Amnesty. This is the only Amnesty report that I have ever read
1278
regarding conditions which I could look at in detail to judge its quality, and I am indeed very disappointed if this is typical. But, are they naive or are they totally full of malice? What matters to me is that this report is not worth the paper it is written on and it makes me wonder about the other reports which I have taken to be matters of great authority. Where does it leave one? What that report shows is one thing and one thing clearly, something that we already knew very well in Northern Ireland, which is that there are people in Ulster who have an interest in blackening the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has mentioned what I believe is the initial success of the Amnesty report; namely, to have an inquiry. This is another inquiry. We have had so many inquiries into the Royal Ulster Constabulary that, had it not been for very robust support by the Secretary of State, untold damage would have been done to the morale of a police force which is now recovering from some of the damage done to it by other reports.
Many people outside seem to forget that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has a very elaborate complaints procedure. Already remedies are open to complainants in the civil courts, and any case which the Director of Public Prosecutions judges to be a prima facie case of brutality can be brought through criminal procedure. But if, as a result of this inquiry, new safeguards can be devised for suspects which do not impair—and this is the important thing—the efficiency of police interrogation, nobody, least of all the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will object. What I am afraid of is that the Commission may feel obliged to make a recommendation. You cannot really appoint a Committee without having a recommendation of some sort. When the recommendations do come there are two very simple principles which we should observe. The first of them is that the real threat to human rights—and, after all, Amnesty International poses as the great guardian of civil rights—in Northern Ireland comes not from the State but from the terrorists. It is they who have created the state of affairs in which immaculate regard for civil rights is no longer possible. A balance must be struck, and has been struck, between the rights of innocent men and women and the rights of the

1279
terrorist suspects, most of whom, as their antecedents have shown, can no longer be regarded as innocent victims of fate.
The second principle is this. Interrogation, whether it he the interrogation of a terrorist suspect or indeed of a schoolboy suspected of theft, is a painful and unpleasant process. The notion that psychological pressure can be eliminated is quite unreasonable and hypocritical. It is also unreasonable and hypocritical to expect the police, when faced by physical assault from those whom they are interrogating—and that happens too often—to turn the other cheek. The real point which we in society have not met is about the nature of interrogation and the rules which should govern it; and it is time that they were honestly and realistically debated in public. What we have said to the police is, "This you cannot do". What we have never said is, "This you can do". What is absolutely certain in Northern Ireland is that, without the use of these emergency powers which we have before us tonight, the war—and it is a war—could not be won. The Secretary of State and his team have done a fine job in defence of what I believe to he the finest police force in the United Kingdom and I therefore support these measures.
8.40 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, much of what has been said by the three noble Lords who have spoken in the debate I would of course entirely agree with and endorse, and I should like to confine myself mainly to answering the particular questions which were raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me about the backlog of scheduled cases and the length of time which people were having to wait in custody before coming to trial. I can assure the noble Lord that this is a matter which I, as the Minister responsible for the court service in Northern Ireland, and my colleagues, are extremely concerned about and it is something which concerns all those who are involved in this—the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police, the Judiciary and the Lord Chief Justice in particular. We are taking a great deal of trouble to monitor the length of time that people spend in custody. The noble Lord asked me for some figures. In May 1977 the average
1280
time spent in custody by those persons going forward to trial for scheduled offences was just over 40 weeks; the figure for May of this year was much the same, but there is certainly some evidence of a growing backlog and therefore I would accept, as the noble Lord said, that there are grounds for concern.
More recently the other thing that we have been monitoring carefully is those who have had to wait for an unacceptably long period (as I would see it) before coming to trial—waiting for over a year. Out of a total of 1,340 people coming to trial in 1977, 72 had been in custody for more than 12 months and the corresponding figures for 1978 proportionately are much the same. This has not been growing as yet, but I am concerned that there are signs of a growing problem in the future. The reason for this delay is the considerable increase in the number of criminal cases coming before the courts in Northern Ireland in recent years, which has been greatly accentuated by the success the police have had in detecting and apprehending terrorist offenders, particularly for some offences going back a number of years.
I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that we are taking a number of steps not only to monitor this but to improve the position, and in particular to meet the problems which I see coming in the next few months. I can tell the noble Lord that the Lord Chief Justice is arranging for judges to be available to enable a sixth Diplock court to be held continuously from the beginning of the next legal term if sufficient work for such a court can be brought forward. This depends very much on things like the availability of defence lawyers. The Lord Chief Justice has already made provision for extra Supreme Court judges with a view to expediting the hearing of murder cases, and a number of other steps are being taken in the monitoring process which are engaged with every step in the process of bringing cases to court. So I can assure the noble Lord that this question is being very carefully watched.
All noble Lords who spoke said something about the Amnesty International report. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his welcome for the inquiry and to the noble Lord, Lord

1281
Belstead, for his recognition that this was the only response that the Government could have made. I certainly entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that we need to see the results of this as soon as possible. Of course the Government must take seriously, as does the Chief Constable, any allegations of maltreatment which are made against the RUC. I would say simply to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that it was the Chief Constable himself who suggested to the Government that an inquiry should be held. I hope that will give to the noble Viscount some indication of the likely effect on the morale of the RUC. It was clearly the Chief Constable's view that an inquiry should be held, and it was certainly accepted and endorsed by the Government. I hope that when the report of that inquiry is available we shall he able to have a discussion on what it shows, alongside the report of Amnesty International.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that I was not questioning the Government's decision at that point. I merely meant that it became necessary.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having made that clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me about the timetable for providing the extra seats in another place for Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord will remember, I repeated in this House a Statement about this which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in another place when the Government accepted the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference to increase the number of seats. My right honourable friend said then that the Government would introduce the legislation during this Session if there was time for it. That remains the position, although it is clearly not very likely that the legislation will be brought in this Session.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord that this is very unlikely to delay the work of the Boundary Commission which has a considerable job to do before the extra seats can be allocated. The Boundary Commission is free to start work and I
1282
think it is likely that it will already have started work on the job of drawing up the new boundaries. Whenever the next General Election comes, whether it is before or after Christmas, the Boundary Commission could not possibly complete its work in time for that. I have no doubt that at the end of another five years of Labour Government they will have completed their work and we shall see the extra seats which all are agreed are needed in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me about the upper tier of local government and the proposals which his colleagues in another place and he himself in this House have been making about this. It has certainly been suggested by a number of people that the way forward is to create an upper tier of local government. I think it is sometimes said in a way that suggests that this will be a simple matter and that the Government are merely holding back from an easy and uncontroversial reform which they could make if they had the will to, but I do not think that that is a valid analysis of the problem at all. The fact is that any new structure for the exercise of power in Northern Ireland, whether it is a new upper tier of local government, a regional council or councils—and I think the noble Lord will accept that that is the official statement of Conservative Party policy at the moment; council or councils, in the plural—any of these structures, interim devolution or full legislative devolution, must be capable of passing the test of acceptability which is one of the key points in the proposals of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which were put forward last year. That means that any new arrangements must be acceptable to a majority in both parts of the community. I do not believe that it is sensible simply to compare local government arrangements in England and Wales with those in Northern Ireland, or indeed to make a direct comparison with what the Government propose for Scotland and Wales.
We certainly recognise that the absence of locally elected representatives with responsibility for major local government services is highly undesirable. On that I am entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. That is why the Secretary of State has put forward his five-point

1283
proposals for a new authority which is designed for the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and which would bridge the gap between the existing district councils and Westminster. The responsibilities which the Secretary of State has in mind for this authority would not be restricted to those of a mainland local authority, but would follow the traditional lines of devolved governments in Northern Ireland. It would incorporate built-in safeguards for both the majority and minority communities and there would be opportunities for elected representatives of the minority community to be involved in decision taking.
As I said when introducing this order, that is not a hard and fast blueprint; it is simply put forward for the purposes of discussion. This is what we have always understood to be common ground between the major Parties at Westminster, and it is something which the Secretary of State remains willing to explore with the political Parties in Northern Ireland. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, the reason why there has not been progress on the political front while there has been, I think, a reasonable amount of progress on many other fronts—social, economic and security—is that we all agree that on the political front it is the political Parties in Northern Ireland which have to make the first move. It is not something which it is simply within the Government's power to make progress on.
Perhaps I could very briefly quickly answer a point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked about criminal jurisdiction Acts. The bringing of prosecutions under these Acts is a matter for the authorities in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. Three men have been charged extra-territorially in Northern Ireland with an offence committed in the Republic, but no case has so far arisen in which the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland have had sufficient evidence to pass to the authorities in the Republic to enable a trial to be mounted there. Thus, so far, no cases have been heard under the provisions of the Act in the Republic; but that is because we have not had sufficient evidence in any case.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be fair to say that the
1284
reason that happens is because these suspected criminals are living on the other side of the border, and our police cannot interview them to get the prima facie information in order to give it to the prosecuting authorities in the South? This is a chicken and egg situation.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is quite right; that is part of the difficulty in some cases. But I was going on to say that another point which is worth bearing in mind is that the legislation came into force on 1st June 1976. It does not apply to offences committed before that date. In our view, it is likely to become increasingly effective as time goes by, and more cases are investigated and people are able to be charged with offences committed after the Act came into force. The Government are certainly satisfied that the RUC and the Garda will co-operate, and are co-operating, closely to make full use of the legislation. There is no question of anybody being reluctant to make use of it if and when there are suitable cases.
I am very grateful for the support which all three noble Lords have given to these two orders. I will certainly pass on the kind words said about my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. I hope very much that it will not be necessary to continue to bring forward these orders to your Lordships' House; but it is a regrettable necessity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1974 (INTERIM PERIOD EXTENSION) ORDER 1978
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd May, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMPANIES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
8.53 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order follows the recommendations of a Northern Ireland Committee on Company Law which recommended that company law in Northern Ireland should be kept in line with the law in Great Britain, subject only to certain limited reservations.
This order, therefore, extends to Northern Ireland the company law provisions included in the Companies Acts of 1967 and 1976 and those parts of the Companies Act 1948 for which there were no corresponding provisions in the main Northern Ireland Companies Act of 1960. The order also re-enacts certain existing Northern Ireland company provisions, so that Northern Ireland company law can be consolidated in the Act of 1960 and in this order.
The order will provide the power to introduce the disclosure of the accounts of private companies by making these available for public inspection at the Companies Registry. This will of course, be in line with the provisions that have applied in England and Wales since 1967. The Government are aware of the concern felt by some involved in commerce and industry in Northern Ireland over disclosure of financial information. The Government have no wish to add to that concern, but we do believe that it is right to retain the provisions relating to publication in the order. However, we will defer a decision on implementation for private companies until disclosure of information about company accounts becomes a formal EEC requirement, or until it is felt that circumstances in Northern Ireland are right, which ever is the sooner. I believe that leaving the final decision on the timing of disclosure to be taken in the light of future circumstances is the most sensible approach.
My Lords, this new order will allow Northern Ireland to take on board the changes being brought about by our membership of the European Economic Community and the further developments
1286
in company law likely to take place in Great Britain. This revised body of company law will help lawyers, accountants and all those involved in business in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, because in future they will be dealing with what will virtually be a common code of company law. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
8.57 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the information he has given us on this particular order. This order sets out to remove some of the differences which have existed between company law in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. We have recently been changing some of the company laws in England and Wales, and it appeared to us all that some of the company laws in Northern Ireland would probably have to be brought up to England and Wales company standards, for simplicity's sake and for standardisation reasons. I believe this goes back to the Murray Report; I believe that is where it all stems from. I think, also, we must look at what is likely to happen; the new EEC requirements which we are still to receive will eventually have to be brought into force with this new companies order.
This order is, of course, of constitutional and of economic importance. The constitutional importance is because it brings the company law of Northern Ireland into virtual parity with that of Great Britain, and, economically, the provisions of this order should lead to a more efficient company structure in Northern Ireland. The argument that separate company laws should apply to Northern Ireland seems to me not to hold water; it seems to me that now is the time to bring them up to date with some of our own company laws, making it much easier for commerce and trade as a whole.
The noble Lord has very gallantly taken most of my notes in the latter part of his speech. I thought that one of the delicate areas with which we were dealing was the filing of accounts. It

1287
appeared to me that the accountants in Northern Ireland were very anxious that the Government should look again at this particular area. I am sure that we are all very grateful to the Government for refraining from going forward with this until they have looked into it further. There are in Northern Ireland some 10,000 companies on the register; of those companies at least 60 per cent. have capital of less than £20,000, and of those 93 per cent. have fewer than 50 employees. If the illegal organisations, as we call them, were to start looking into these accounts and starting trouble, then not only would it affect the companies but it would bring further unemployment to the province. I am glad to see that the noble Lord's Department are again looking at this. On behalf of my noble friends 1 welcome this order. I may say there are 137 pages of it and I have not read it all, and am not likely to. I am not likely to discuss it any further at this late hour, but from this side of the House we welcome it.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. We accept the good sense of this order which largely brings Northern Ireland company law into line with that in England and Wales. As has been said, the Murray Committee on Company Law, appointed by the Stormont Government in 1969, recommended in 1974 a general policy of parity with the English law. Therefore, there is no question of parity just for English satisfaction. On the other hand, and following the noble Viscount, Lord Long, I think that a case can be made out for the continuation of exempt private company status in the Province. I am very interested to hear the qualifying comments of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. We support the order.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House. However, this is a massive, very detailed order and in my view it should have been before the whole House because it is the type of order which the whole House would have dealt with most efficiently. We cannot begin to deal with it here, but there are some very important principles to be dealt with. I gave the noble Lord some previous warning of the type of matters
1288
that I wished to raise. It was unfortunate that in another place his colleague said that it had been suggested that the business community was 100 per cent. behind the order. My information is that that is not true and that the business community supports the Government very strongly in their determination not to enforce disclosure regulations at some date, but basically does not agree that the removal of that privilege of disclosure for private companies is right. It considers that the situation in Northern Ireland is such that the exempt private company should be maintained. I think that it would be unfortunate if that view should get about. I checked with the business community verbally this evening—that is, the CBI and the Chamber of Commerce—and it has not changed its view.
The situation in Northern Ireland is different for private companies, and small one-product private companies, from what it is in England. We trade in an area which is geographically limited by the sea. It is a small area and we cannot define the area of a private company—even a one-product private company—operating in Great Britain, as clearly as we can define it in Northern Ireland. We have companies operating from the South of Ireland which have virtually no disclosure requirements, or at least they can consolidate. We have companies operating from England which consolidate to such an extent that their accounts mean nothing as regards trading within Northern Ireland. From personal experience, I know of the case of a wholesaling firm which, if the company in Northern Ireland could have been forced to disclose, would have been taken over with the resultant loss of jobs.
There are certain businesses, for instance, insurance broking, which are privately-owned and which would be eminently easy for people to take over if their accounts had to be disclosed. Therefore, I should like to ask the Government whether they could go a little further and say that they will not force disclosure until after the EEC consolidation, and that they will not enforce it even with EEC consolidation if the security situation will not allow after that date. It is just possible that we might reach a stage six or 12 months before the EEC Regulations when the Government will say, "Right, we shall force disclosure". We would then have

1289
the EEC Regulations, and all the fashions appear to be running in favour of private companies. There would then be too many changes. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they would go that much further, or whether they would examine the matter to see if they could do so, and tell me how they will implement this. Will they bring it before the House as a further order or will it just be implemented?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, on that last point I shall have to take advice and maybe I could write to the noble Viscount and let him know.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, it is only that provision.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Viscount on the implementation of the disclosure provisions as they affect private companies. I do not think that I can go as far as the noble Viscount would like me to go. The Government's view is that many of the fears and worries which he has expressed are very much the same as those which were expressed before similar provisions were brought into effect in England and Wales, and the subsequent experience has proved them to be quite groundless. Nevertheless, as I made clear when introducing the order, we recognise the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, and we have therefore said that, while we shall take the power under this order, we shall not implement it until either the EEC requires us to do so—and in that case it will be an EEC requirement applying to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland as well—or until it is accepted that the conditions in Northern Ireland are such that it will not cause any problems if that should happen sooner. As an optimist, I very much hope that it will. I hope that that goes far enough, if not entirely, to satisfy the noble Viscount that, at least, the Government have thought very carefully about this matter and have taken fully into account the concern that has been expressed. I am grateful for the welcome that the massive number of other Articles in the order has received from noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
9.6 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a shorter order, and a miscellaneous order containing a variety of proposals. Its two main provisions are in Articles 10 and 11. Article 10 would enable education and library boards to acquire, compulsorily, land which is needed by maintained schools or by voluntary grammar schools. Boards already have power to vest land which they need for their own purposes and this Article simply applies the same arrangements to land that is needed for voluntary schools. A similar power already exists in England and Wales. Article 11 deals mainly with the recovery of grants which have been paid on school premises which cease to be used for school purposes. It removes certain deficiencies in the existing statutory powers, and in particular allows proper account to be taken of the effect of inflation.
The order also includes a number of minor amendments to the existing law on education. I shall not take up time by going into detail on all of these, but I should like to mention briefly just three. Article 3 provides for education and library boards, if they so wish, to appoint advisory committees which could include outside experts as well as board members. Article 5 revises and clarifies the development scheme procedure, which is the statutory mechanism for giving formal approval to proposals for new schools. That, in substance, largely re-enacts the existing provision, but in a simplified form. Article 6 deals with scholarships, and will give us a little more administrative flexibility, in particular in helping scholarships provision in Northern Ireland to stay in line with developments in England and Wales. The remaining Articles make mainly technical changes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene briefly. We on these Benches support this order, which we do not look upon as being controversial. May I ask the Minister whether he is prepared, at this late hour, briefly, to say whether he believes that a spread of comprehensive education in the Province is, first, desired by a sizeable majority there and, secondly, whether it will offer any encouragement towards integrated education for the two communities?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Lord may be interested to know that although there is certainly a difference of opinion on comprehensive education in Northern Ireland, two out of three of the bodies representing parents in Northern Ireland have come out in support of the abolition of selection. I hope that, as the Government's proposal for locally-planned comprehensive education and the insistence simply on the need to abolish selection at the age of 11 become more widely understood, an even greater number of people will support the moves that we are making. We have, of course, said that we wish to see this implemented in a way which will not raise any new barriers to integrated education and if possible, where, of course, there is a local wish for it, integrated education should be encouraged. I very much hope that that will happen.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PAYMENTS FOR DEBT (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
9.9 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Payments for Debt (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 11th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, fuel debts are now the largest and fastest growing element of the total public debt in Northern Ireland, and currently stand at £16 million. The Government's policy on this problem is to encourage those in debt to pay off their arrears on a voluntary basis. Voluntary arrangements will be the basis of debt recovery in the great majority of cases.
1292
Such measures are not, however, sufficient to bring the problem under control. There are areas in Northern Ireland where the threat of disconnection of supply is far less effective than in Great Britain, and to compensate for this the Government have had to consider other means of helping the fuel undertakings to deal with persistent debtors.
One approach, for those debtors who are in employment, is to make more effective use of the Enforcement of Judgments Office. This, however, does not help with debtors who are unemployed, and the Government have decided, with great reluctance, that the public fuel undertakings should, in appropriate cases, be able to make a direct claim on social security benefits. This procedure, known as benefit allocation, has been used for some years to deal with public rent and rates debts. The Government are well aware of the fact that poverty is often the cause of public debt. Deductions from social security benefits inevitably involve a degree of hardship, but to alleviate this as far as is possible there is an effective and increasingly used appeals procedure. This draft order simply provides that fuel debtors who become subject to deductions from benefit contribute towards the substantial administrative costs involved. The contribution will be the same as for deductions for rent or rates. This is regrettable but necessary legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Payments for Debt (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 11th May, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not think that it is entirely easy for the Government to decide to introduce this order. But I accept that it is necessary, and we on these Benches certainly support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
STATE IMMUNITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with one of the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendment agreed to; and with the other Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to with an Amendment; the said Amendment to be printed.