Lords Sitting of 13 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

THE CIVIL SERVICE: MANPOWER REDUCTION
Viscount HANWORTH: 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 consider as an alternative to arbitrary cuts in Civil Service manpower a simplifying of the systems of taxation and of social welfare benefits which require ever greater numbers of staff to administer them.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I have sympathy with the assumptions which lie behind the noble Viscount's Question. Arbitrary cuts—particularly across-the-board reductions without reference to priorities—are not the answer. The Civil Service must be adequately staffed to meet the demands made on it. I believe that the right approach is to keep the administrative cost of government under continuous review, and in particular to search out possibilities for the simplification and improvement of systems and procedures. The four Departments—Inland Revenue, Department of Health and Social Security, Department of Employment, Customs and Excise—directly concerned with the administration of taxation and social welfare benefits keep under review both the structure and the systems of operation with economy and efficiency very much in mind. Major reviews are mounted from time to time in which the Civil Service Department participates.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that there are 50 or so different types of cash benefit for the disabled,
1690
and is this a satisfactory situation? Secondly, can he confirm that the take-up of special benefits is something less than 50 per cent.?
Lord PEART: My Lords, we are certainly aware of the complexity of the system of benefits for the disabled, and of the difficulties which this may cause to some of them. The Government's strategy, though, has been to provide benefits for the most severely handicapped, and for those who have an inability to work, to walk or to look after themselves. I think that a simpler system would involve very substantial additional expenditure or produce rougher justice. But we are looking at this matter and, naturally, if we can simplify the system action will be taken. On the second question about the appallingly poor take-up of benefits, the take-up of benefits generally is in the range of 75 to 80 per cent.
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that, in the case of Governments of both Parties, the obsession with trying to do exactly the right thing in individual cases results in a complication of administration, which inevitably means an immense increase in Civil Service obligations which is quite out of proportion to any real improvement that results from it? I ask this question from no Party point of view, because I consider that my own Party is equally reprehensible in this matter.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said. On the other hand, I am now responsible for the Civil Service and am anxious that we simplfy matters and ease the administrative burden. That must be our aim. We have achieved success in this, and have even had a reduction in manpower of about 12,000 over the last two years.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that employees claiming sickness benefit always have to wait for certainly three weeks, and often six weeks, and that, if they do not have a kind employer, that can cause hardship? Is the noble Lord further aware that I believe a lot of difficulty is

1691
caused by the fact that there are inexperienced staff dealing with these matters, some of whom have very little knowledge of English?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I know that there is sometimes a problem, but I would not say that the staff are inexperienced. They are very good staff. But if we wanted to have further surveillance that would mean more manpower, and I thought that the Party opposite was for reducing the numbers of civil servants and expenditure.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord make a small beginning by dispensing with outside political advisers who now figure on the Civil Service List, but make no contribution to the national good?
Lord PEART: That is another matter, my Lords. But the noble Lord knows that there are political advisers even under a Conservative Administration.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there has been any recent joint investigation by the Departments to which he referred in his original Answer today into the possibility of introducing a tax credit scheme?
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is another matter. It is one which we shall note, but we have made no decision on that at all.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House can give us any idea of the ratio of manpower and wages to the amount of benefits dispensed, because it is a very large sum of money. If the noble Lord does not have the information with him, will he perhaps be able to obtain it?
Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords. I will see whether I can get a figure. I do not have one now, but I will certainly go into this.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, has my noble friend paid any attention to the size of the staff of the Inland Revenue Department, and can he perhaps cut down some of the staff in that Department? Their letters seem to come far too promptly.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that the Inland Revenue is a very efficient Department. I had the honour and privilege of being their guest at a conference a year ago, and had discussions with them. I think that we are well served by the people in that Department.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us are concerned that the least well-off in the community are the least articulate? Any cuts in the service would hit them hard, and some of us would condemn it.
Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords. I believe that there is quite a lot in what my noble friend has said.

STONEHENGE: WORKING PARTY REPORT
3.17 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the working party concerning Stonehenge is likely to report.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the working party, which is considering problems likely to arise at the monument in the longer term, is expected to report in the autumn.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether any meeting has been held since last January? If not, may I ask her whether the working party will be able to report in time? The local inhabitants are getting very worried about this monument. It was granted to the nation under a deed of gift, on condition that it should be open to the general public. I am wondering whether this matter will be able to be reported upon when the noble Baroness brings the report to the House, and whether we shall have an opportunity to debate it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is getting confused

1693
between the terms of reference of the working party and the immediate events at Stonehenge now. I set up the working party over a year ago to look at the long-term effects of visitors on the monument. The intention is to look 15 or 20 years ahead and to consider the facilities to be provided in the long term for visitors and traffic and parking arrangements. One of the reasons it has been so difficult to arrange meetings is because a great number of people from the county council, the local council, the tourist board and the National Trust are involved, and it is extremely difficult to get them together. However, a draft report is now being prepared. A meeting should take place in September, when the report should be put to the working party. The other matters to which the noble Baroness has referred are day-to-day administrative matters which are not the concern of this working party.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I live even nearer to Stonehenge than the noble Baroness who asked the Question. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that when 10,000 people visit a beauty spot it is no longer a beauty spot. What can the local people do about it?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is the problem. That is why we have had to make different arrangements, to prevent people from going right in among the stones. However, there is also an experimental arrangement, which I believe is working very well, whereby people can walk around the monument and at two points come very close to the stones. That is what is happening now. I believe that there is some confusion between the present arrangements and the work of the working party, which is concerned purely with long term arrangements.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the main working party at Stonehenge completed their job fairly satisfactorily about 2,500 years ago?

BELIZE: NEGOTIATIONS WITH GUATEMALA
3.17 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the recent speech of the new President of Guatemala concerning Belize, whether arrangements will be made to find a solution in regard to the future of that country, and whether the Government of Belize will be invited to be represented at any conference that may be arranged between Her Majesty's Government and that of Guatemala.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, it is hoped that an early start can be made to our negotiations with the new Guatemalan Administration. The Belize Government and Opposition will be represented at all our negotiations with the Guatemalans. Any settlement would have to prove acceptable to the people of Belize.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very sincerely for that reply; it is the best I have had regarding Belize for many a long day. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will not do away with any land? The Guatemalans have a very adequate road down to Belize port, which they can use at present. May I ask the Minister whether he will look into the affairs of this colony? When I was there some years ago, I found that a mental hospital was in very bad condition. I have been tackling the Government about it ever since and have tried to get them to improve it. I have just received a letter from the Minister of State in which he says that the hospital has now collapsed. Fortunately, no patients were injured; they have been moved to the new youth centre. Can the Minister say when the new accommodation will be built?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as we have said, we exclude no possibilities which might lead to a peaceful settlement. We have made it clear that to achieve this aim we are prepared to give aid to assist economic development—and, indeed, social development, as mentioned by the noble Baroness—in both Belize and Guatemala.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, despite plans for economic and social assistance after the granting of independence to Belize, the Government are doing all that they can now to ensure that the economic and social development of the country is pursued? There seems to be an idea that the Government are very keen to get rid of their dependencies in order to give economic aid afterwards. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that such aid is being given now and that it will continue to be given during the negotiations.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, certainly, my Lords. I take full note of what the noble Baroness has said. Anxious as we are to advance Belize on a firm and secure basis to independence, and anxious as we are in doing so to assist and aid them, as well as Guatemala, in the post-independence period, we should certainly not slacken our efforts to build up the country as best we can in the phase leading up to independence.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether we shall be represented diplomatically in Guatemala?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, certainly, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister said that the people of Belize would be consulted. May I ask the Minister if it has yet been decided whether this shall be by vote of the Assembly or by referendum?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the intention is that when there is a proposal for agreement, first, it should be acceptable to the people of Belize as well as to the people of Guatemala; and the people of Belize will be consulted by referendum.

THREE-DAY WEEK
3.20 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 intend to adopt the three-day week.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: No, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer. But does he recall that the three-day week was largely inevitable because of confrontation by the Government led by Mr. Heath with a section of the trade union movement? Now that Mr. Heath—against whom I am far from imputing sinister motives, but who is inclined to be rather inflexible and has fixed ideas—has made peace with Mrs. Thatcher, he might in co-operation with her seek to introduce legislation of a similar kind if there should be an electoral misfortune in the country, and I should like to know whether we have any safe-guards against a disaster of that kind?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, far from trying to assist this recently arranged love affair, I would say that the only safeguard we have is to make sure that that lot do not get back again.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, on a somewhat more serious note, will the noble Lord agree that, since all past experience has shown that when there are reductions in the length of the normal working week overtime is not reduced, it accordingly follows that if inflation, productivity and, in the long run, employment prospects are not to get even worse, trade unions should be prepared to accept corresponding reductions in hourly rates of pay?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, this is a very complicated subject, as the noble Lord knows only too well from his great experience. It is a subject which we are carefully studying. A cut in working hours which really created new jobs would be worth considering, and of course the wage question would have to be taken into account. We must have regard to the effect on costs, otherwise more jobs might be lost than created. Reductions in overtime from the present high level might be a first priority.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, recently it has been alleged that with a three-day

1697
week we can produce as much as in a full working week, and even more. So can my noble friend explain why the Conservative Government did not continue with the operation?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, conceivably there were other reasons why they did not do so. Immediately following the three-day week and the problems we had, the Government of that day ran away and left us with a legacy of inflation of 15 per cent., rapidly rising, and the biggest trade deficit left by any Government to another.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does not the answer lie in the fact that the Labour Party came into Government, brought back the five-day week, and still produced as little as had been produced in the three-day week?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am sorry to have to cross swords with the noble Baroness, but, comparing like with like, the total output as measured by real gross domestic product today is higher than it was in the first quarter of 1974 by about 5 per cent.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that a three-day week in agriculture would be absolutely farcical because one would have to have double staff and double housing? Livestock has to be looked after daily, apart from the vagaries of the weather. With due respect to the noble Lord, I think it is a most silly question.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Viscount. It might be that the farmer's wife who works a seven-day week without trade union recognition would probably have to fill in the other days for him.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, is it not true that we are so desperately short of skilled labour in almost every industry in the country that we could not possibly afford to have people working only three days a week?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the problem of shortage of skilled
1698
labour is with us, and we are doing our best to train skilled labour. We accept that there is a shortage and we must get more skilled labour into industry in order to increase our output.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is it the intention of the Government to introduce a three-day week in this House?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I cannot take account of the hopeful desires of my noble friend, who apparently requires a rest. That position rests with other channels and with my immediate chief, who is sitting too close to me for comfort.

DINNERS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I remind noble Lords that dinners are available this evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the Summer Recess so far as is necessary to give the Government power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATE IMMUNITY BILL [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS TO ONE OF THE COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill No. 100 as first printed or the Commons]
Original Commons Amendment:
Clause 23, page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Subject to subsection (3A) below, Parts I and II of this Act do not apply to proceedings in respect of matters that occurred before the date of the coming into force of this Act and, in particular, sections 3, 4 and 9 do not apply in the case of any transaction, contract or arbitration agreement entered into before that date.
(3A) Sections 2 and 12 above apply to any proceedings instituted after the coming into force of this Act.'
Lords Amendment:
In subsection (3), line 4, leave out 3, 4 and 9 do not apply in the case of any' and insert '2(2), 3, 4 and 9 do not apply in the case of any written agreement'.
The Commons agree to this Amendment to their Amendment and propose the following Amendment thereto:
Line 2, leave out from '2(2)' to the end of line 3 and insert 'and 13(3) do not apply to any prior agreement, and sections 3, 4 and 9 do not apply to any'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment. This Amendment relates to Amendments that were moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, with a view to ensuring that none of the provisions of this Bill should have retro-spective effect. It is consequential on the previous Lords Amendment to include a reference to Section 2(2) in Clause 23(3), which provides what transitional impact the Act is to have on contracts, and the effect of this Amendment is to add Section 13(3) to the list. Clause 13(3) covers another class of prior agreement covering submission to execution, which had been overlooked. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to express our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. We have, of course, no objection to this Amendment.
1700
I regard it purely as a consequential Amendment to the Amendments that we have already debated through the many stages of this Bill. I hope now that we have the Bill right, and that it will serve a useful purpose in the commercial transactions of individuals and foreign States. I beg to support the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for her considerable assistance on this highly technical Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WALES BILL
3.29 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 16 [Subject committees]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 5, at end insert—
("Provided that no committee shall be appointed with functions not relating to matters with respect to which the powers of the Assembly are exercisable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if I may say so, this is really a final probing Amendment, and I will state straight away that we have no wish to press this Amendment unless something untoward comes up in an explanation from the noble and learned Lord or whoever answers on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
The Amendment has been tabled again because the Amendment introduced by the Government on the Report stage of the Bill modified and widened the power of the Assembly in its statutory rights to set up committees by the words, "the area of government". Obviously, as my noble friend Lord Elton pointed out at the time, this can also be interpreted very widely and covers a much broader field of activity than the original wording of the Bill, which restricted the rights of the Assembly to set up committees within the terms of certain clauses in the Bill.
The point of our Amendment, which we did not pursue at the time—and I should like to make this perfectly clear—was of

1701
course to ensure that the Welsh Assembly should be precluded from appointing a committee which might cover matters relating to functions and powers which have not been devolved to the Welsh Assembly. I wanted to take the opportunity of making it quite clear that it is perfectly understandable that any committee set up will discuss any matters which it wishes to discuss; the fact that the committee is not called the European committee, or whatever it is, will not preclude it from discussing matters brought to its attention. All we want to ensure is that particular committees are not set up to deal with functions and powers which are outside the devolved matters for the Welsh Assembly.
I particularly wanted to emphasise this matter because of a statement made by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Enoch Powell in another place in a debate on a similar Amendment during the recent stages of the Scotland Bill. He suggested that the fact that the Assembly—he was then talking about the Scottish Assembly—had the right to set up committees which covered areas of government which were devolved precluded by silence the right to set up other committees. The Minister who replied, Mr. Millan (in col. 836 of the Official Report for 7th July), did of course say that Mr. Powell's interpretation was wrong and the fact that there was no specific right for the Assembly to set up committees covering matters which were not devolved did not actually exclude that.
I wondered whether I could have a statement from the Government saying that this is the correct interpretation also in respect of the Welsh Assembly. We are, of course, not satisfied if this is the right interpretation, but nevertheless I think it is right that this matter should he clarified before the Bill leaves this House. One of the reasons why I do not think it right that we should vote on this particular Amendment is that a similar Amendment was voted on in another place in relation to the Scotland Bill, and was defeated. But I would be grateful for an interpretation from the Government on this particular matter. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having made it quite clear that in
1702
moving the Amendment she is not seeking to restrict discussion and debate in the Assembly and its committees to the functions that are to he devolved. Clearly, that would be not possible, nor indeed desirable. At an earlier stage the noble Baroness feared that without an Amendment of this kind there would be "an absolute proliferation of committees" involving great expense. I suggest that it is unreasonable to indicate or to forecast that the Assembly will rush into the appointment of a vast array of committees regardless of expense. Its Members will be those who have been brought up politically in Wales, and the Welsh are, if I may say so, politically mature people. It is very unlikely that they would proliferate a large number of committees just for the fun of it or in the hope of extending the functions which are attributed to them in the Bill. It surely must be left to the Assembly itself to decide, for example, whether it wants separate committees for the countryside, for ancient monuments, and for historical buildings and tourism, or whether one committee might effectively deal with all those functions in those three areas together.
In exercising its functions the Assembly and its committees will be bound to be concerned with developments and proposals on functions which the Assembly is not to exercise. Proposals for legislation at Westminster are a clear example. An Assembly committee on housing will need to consider the Government's proposals for new housing legislation which might well affect the Assembly's responsibility. If this Amendment were accepted, the effect might well be that such a committee's terms of reference could not extend to consideration of that kind of matter, although I think it is implied in what the noble Baroness said at the beginning of her speech that in practice the committee should be free to discuss policy in relation to such a matter and to consider those proposals.
I think that it would be wrong explicitly to prohibit the Assembly from appointing a committee, even though it might seek to do so, to consider, for example, the problems of school-leavers in Wales, the level and effect of unemployment, and matters of that kind. I think it would be wrong to restrict this democratic Assembly in its power to appoint committees to

1703
consider those matters. Accordingly, I submit that this provision really is impracticable and an unreasonable limitation on the workings of a democratic Assembly.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I hope that what he has said will act as a guideline to the Welsh Assembly when setting up its committees, and that it will confine the committees established and appointed to the matters which have been devolved to them. The functions of this new body should be made clear to the people of Wales; it should be clear what actions of government they are in fact performing. They already have three other levels of government. It must be made quite clear what are the functions of the Welsh Assembly. Probably one of the ways in which that will be understood by the Welsh people will be by the committees set up and the work done by the committees.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope I have not misled the noble Baroness into thinking that it will not be possible for the Assembly to bring into being committees to consider non-devolved matters, without, of course, having any power or function in regard to them. I think I made that clear earlier.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that addendum, if I may call it that, because it does fill out even more what the words "areas of government" really mean; they are obviously very widely drawn. Nevertheless, I think we have gone into this matter far enough. I am sure the Welsh Assembly, if it is set up, will be a reasonable body and will conduct itself in a reasonable manner. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Interpretation]:
3.38 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5:
Page 32, line 2, leave out from ("to") to end of line 3 and insert ("carry on any")
Page 32, line 7, after ("Office") insert (", the British Railways Board")
Page 32, line 7, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert ("but subject to subsection (4) below")
Page 32, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 26 and insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that any persons specified in the order shall be treated as being, or as ceasing to be, excepted statutory undertakers for the purposes of this Act or for such of those purposes as may be so specified; and a statutory instrument made under this subsection").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if we take Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 together because all of them concern the definition of "excepted statutory undertakers" in Clause 76. As we explained during Report stage, we wish to get the definition in Clause 76 as precise as possible, but at the end of the day we still need the flexibility of an order-making provision to add or subtract from the definition. The Amendments we now propose are similar to those which we tabled on Report stage but then withdrew to allow an opportunity for general debate. I hope they now show a slight improvement.
The Amendments have four purposes. First, they exclude from the definition bodies which are empowered to "construct" or "work" but not to "carry on" the various undertakings listed in subsection (1). Secondly, the Amendments recast the definition so that the British Railways Board is now included by name rather than by general reference to railway and light railway undertakers. This means that if, for example, a passenger transport executive were to run a light railway in Wales they would not thereby become an excepted statutory undertaker. Thirdly, the Amendments enable the Secretary of State by order to subtract from the definition as well as to add to it. We explained on Report stage why we thought this flexibility was needed, and I think that that explanation was accepted.
Fourthly, we have tried to take some account of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as to presentation. As I understand it, he thought it odd that an order-making power should be inserted in the sentence which defines excepted statutory undertakers. Our previous Amendment would have compounded that oddity.

1705
But our new Amendment separates the order-making power from the definition in subsection (1) and places it at what we hope the noble Lord will consider a more respectable distance in subsection (4). I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, who would suppose that three short words could contain so much meaning! It is a fascinating occupation on this Bench to anticipate, if one can, which alter ego of the noble and learned Lord will emanate from the Front Bench. I noticed a certain hesitation in his own choice also, but I felicitate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on her choice and seize this opportunity—although it is being ahead of the game, but I fear that on the appropriate day the opportunity will not present itself to me and I am anxious to show the goodwill that exists between the Front Benches—to congratulate the noble Baroness on her birthday, which I understand will be tomorrow. From her expression I see that she perhaps did not wish to be reminded of it, in which case I apologise. However, I assure her that the days of that apprehension are not yet appropriate!
The noble Baroness has kindly returned to a matter with which we had difficulty during the Report stage and has grouped Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 together. It is worth mentioning in passing, without rancour but for note for future occasions, that I cannot recall throughout our discussions on this Bill having had notice of any proposed groupings of Amendments, which I have always had as regards other Bills. Moreover, in Committee, when I drew this matter to the attention of the Government Front Bench, I was told that in future we would be given notice. This particular grouping is a very obvious one. I have no complaint, and we have had no difficulty, but to be given notice is a useful practice which should continue.
We then come to the clarification of definition and the inclusion of the power to subtract from the list of definitions, as well as the power to make additions to the list, of those bodies which qualify as excepted statutory undertakings. I have no quarrel with that, and I think that I made my wry comments on the elasticity of this provision, which is phenomenal, at an earlier stage. I notice that the noble Baroness
1706
has made, or her advisers have made, a courteous, but minimal, move towards distancing the power from the clause. I think that it is unusual, and perhaps in drafting terms inelegant, to have a power inserted in a clause which calls itself a clause for definition. It is, in fact, a clause for another purpose, and it seems to me that there might usefully be added a little note in the margin where the clause and its purpose are named. However, that, of course, is not the subject of debate here because it is only an annotation as regards the Bill and not the Bill itself. I hope that what I have said is noted. We have no objection to the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness and to support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said. No doubt the noble Baroness will be thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for what may be considered to be some kind of birthday present—tomorrow at least, according to the usual channels, there will not be so many probing Amendments to keep her busy; she will have a free day. However, in seriousness, I should like to support what the noble Baroness said about Amendment No. 3 because that seems to me to be a helpful Amendment.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Existing statutory functions]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 41, column 2, leave out lines 33 to 35.
Page 41, line 37, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Education Act 1944 (c. 31)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this pair of Amendments are the fruit of a long exchange between the noble Lord and myself partly across the Floor of the House, partly through the post and even, at one stage, on the telephone. It really comes down to the following. The entry referred to in Amendment No. 6 in lines 33 to 35 of column 2 on page 41, was apparently a necessary paver to an Amendment which we shall be discussing later as regards Schedule 11.
Very briefly, it was apparent to my untutored eye that if we provided a power

1707
for the Secretary of State in Schedule 11 as an addition to a Bill which was devolved, and if we did not reserve that additional power in Schedule 2, then that, in itself, would become a power of the Welsh Assembly, and as the power was, in fact, the power for the Secretary of State to act in place of the Welsh Assembly, it would have been otiose.
However, it was explained that if on every occasion that this was necessary it was done, the length of the Bill would become inordinate, and if it were not done on any occasion the very uniformity of the omission of this entry in the Bill would be sufficient to make it clear to the courts that the reservation was intended, though not stated. I was anxious that the inclusion, on this solitary occasion, of a reservation should not invalidate that principle. I have been told that it is necessary to withdraw it because otherwise it would invalidate that principle. Therefore, Amendment No. 6 removes the unnecessary paving stone which might otherwise trip up the people walking across it.
Amendment No. 7 which is adjacent to Amendment No. 6 is, as your Lordships will see, a perfectly straightforward drafting Amendment. I am taking out the first reference to the 1944 Act in Schedule 2 and the subsequent references are to "that Act". The specific reference has to be inserted at the second point and, as it is being excised at the first, I beg to move.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I have nothing to add to the very clear explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I am happy to accept both Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 44, line 29, column 2, at end insert—
("The powers under section 29")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and other noble Lords argued that we should reserve
1708
certain powers in Section 29 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, which deals with agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees. The Government's belief is that it is a matter of balance whether the powers in Section 29 are regarded as being of an agricultural or housing nature. However, if they are to be regarded as agricultural, our view is that all the powers in Section 29, and not just those in subsections (8) and (9)—as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on Report stage—should be reserved. There would be administrative awkwardness if the Government were to be responsible for directing the committees and regulating their procedure but not for other matters, such as the appointment of secretaries and the meeting of expenses.
During Report stage the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Government would table a more complete Amendment on Third Reading. This we have done, and I hope it is acceptable. It reserves all the powers under Section 29 of the 1976 Act so that the Assembly will now have no powers in respect of agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees. I beg to move.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, and the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who helped to guide me in bowling a slightly straighter ball than I dreamt I was bowling. The Government have been very good to accept the Amendment and I thank them very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 44, line 43, at end insert—

("The Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978 (c. 27) sections 1 and 2(2) to (4).

The functions under those sections so far as exercisable otherwise than in relation to advances to or loans by (the institutions specified in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the Schedule.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment devolves certain powers under the Home Purchase Assistance and

1709
Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978, which was very recently before this House. The Act provides special assistance for those saving to buy a home for the first time. The Act also increases the aggregate maximum amount of loans which may be guaranteed by the Housing Corporation under Section 10 of the Housing Act 1974.
The intention of the Amendment is that the Assembly should have for Wales the ministerial powers in the Act which deal with lending by certain bodies or groups of bodies in the public sector, including local authorities. All powers with respect to private sector lending are, however, to be reserved and will continue to be exercised by Ministers. These arrangements bring the new Act into line with the existing policy in the Wales Bill whereby the Assembly is to have wide powers in respect of housing, which is a subject primarily of concern to those people living in Wales, save for the important exclusion of the provision of finance by private financial institutions.
The ministerial powers to be devolved in relation to the public bodies in question include such matters as the power to prescribe price limits on property for which loans are sought and the minimum levels of savings to qualify. The Assembly will be responsible for making advances to lending bodies to pay for its part of the scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.51 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 10:
Schedule 2, page 47, line 9, column 2, at end insert—
("The functions under sections 29, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 so far as relating to terms and conditions of service, appeals, pensions, gratuities or allowances payable on retirement or death, or compensation for loss of office or employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this Amendment, we return to the problem of the remuneration of doctors, dentists, physicians and pharmacists. We discussed an Amendment very similar to this in Committee on Thursday, 15th June. At that time we were in some difficulty over the particular situation of remuneration of those concerned, and we return
1710
now to the same position, but with the Amendment altered to include the original drafting of the Bill when introduced on the first print of the Bill. In addition, there is the word "appeals". We believe that the addition of the word "appeals" to the Government's original drafting on the first print of the Bill will be satisfactory.
We have studied the reply made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, at column 565 of the Official Report of 15th June and he made particular reference to this point. He said this:
"The entries in Part II of Schedule 2 in the publication print of the Bill for the sections named in this Amendment were designed to fulfil this policy in relation to general medical practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. But it became apparent that these entries in Part VI did not fulfil the Government's intent. The phraseology concerned could, in certain contexts, carry a much wider meaning than matters affecting remuneration and it could be construed to incorporate functions unassociated with remuneration but which are intimately concerned with the day-to-day running of the Health Service ".
That is the heart of the dilemma because, unhappily, the remuneration of those concerned and the functions of management are very closely related. We believe it to be very nearly impossible to separate those two. We have come as close to it as we believe possible and have included "appeals" because, in view of the fact that there will be a number of situations which will arise in this context, we believe that this is very necessary. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, when we debated the Amendment to which the noble Lord referred in Committee, I made clear the Government's policy on this matter. There is no difference at all between the intentions behind this Amendment and those of the Government as to pay and related terms and conditions of service. We believe that they should remain the responsibility of the Government. We do, however, consider that some of the terms and conditions of service not related to pay should become the responsibility of the Assembly because their reservation could interfere with the Assembly's management of the Health Service in Wales. When the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, in a very strong speech on this subject, asked, "Why not

1711
leave it as it was?", that was the answer; for as it was it did move these subsidiary elements, which are an essential part of administration, from the devolved people. Otherwise, I think that we are in total agreement.
The Government scheme, which I described in Committee, enables the Secretary of State to distinguish between the various terms and conditions of service and to issue directions in respect of those where pay and related matters predominate. I do not wish to detail your Lordships by restating what I said earlier. It is enough to say that it placed control for determining what functions related to remuneration in the hands of the Secretary of State, which, of course, is also the wish of the movers of the Amendment. It also allowed for the Assembly to run the Health Service as a coherent whole in the areas not directly affecting pay. This is what the Amendment interferes with. It also provided flexibility for the future. The scheme covered by the Amendment before your Lordships could create administrative problems; for example, in there being no clear line of demarcation between the Assembly's responsibilities and those of the Secretary of State; these in turn could lead to legal uncertainties as to the effect of the entry. As I have said, "terms and conditions of service" is a phrase which goes very wide indeed.
I think that I have said enough to make it clear that I do not feel that we can accept this Amendment. We believe that it confuses the issue and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys will not find it necessary to press it.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is limiting his reply to the first part of this Amendment in so far as it relates to "terms and conditions of service"? The Amendment covers pensions, gratuities or allowances payable on retirement or death and certain other aspects of compensation. Does the noble Lord's answer cover all those aspects?—because as I understood him, he mentioned only the first part relating to terms and conditions of service.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we must not start a debate,
1712
but perhaps I might be allowed to answer this. The determination of what is relevant to the Secretary of State and what is relevant to the Assembly under the Bill as it stands is in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we return to a situation which is very largely unresolved because I think that the Government are as much in a dilemma as we are, though the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has repeated many of the arguments which he stated earlier. I think that he also added the arguments of his honourable friend Mr. Alec Jones at an earlier stage. It does not appear to me that this Amendment has the support of either the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, or the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, and I should find it very difficult to press the Amendment at this stage. As this is the final stage at which we shall have an opportunity to make Amendments to the Bill, I feel that it is for the benefit of your Lordships if I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.59 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 48, leave out lines 15 to 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has, I think, very wisely withdrawn his Amendment which dealt with the terms and conditions of service of medical practitioners, opticians, dentists and pharmacists. Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, the Government have sought to ensure that, when the Bill leaves this House for another place, it will do so in an internally consistent form. The purpose of the Amendment which I am now moving is to ensure that the terms and conditions of service of employed Health Service staff are brought into line with noble Lord's wishes in respect of medical practitioners, opticians, dentists and pharmacists. It is moved without predjuice to any action the Government may wish to take in another place. I beg to move.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, this Amendment does what was sought to be done at the Committee stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord was good

1713
enough to withdraw it for further consideration. Furthermore, he has been good enough to write a letter to me, and to others. It seems to me to go some way—indeed, a good way—but not quite far enough. The issue here must not be obscured; it is the issue that the level of consulatants, the requirements—clinical and other—for consultant status, and the mode of their employment, must not result in a lower standard of consultants in Wales as compared with the rest of this Island.
This is important to Wales and, although I am not going to elaborate the point, particularly to some areas of Wales, what is done here is to transfer from the Secretary of State to the Assembly, by means of regulation and otherwise, the responsibility of laying down the standards to be observed in the selection of consultatants, the procedure to be observed, and so on. This goes to the Assembly. Will the noble Lord give an assurance that this cannot, of itself, result in lower professional, clinical, or other requirements for the appointment of consultants in Wales than those which obtain today and those which obtain in the Island as a whole?
It is important to establish that, following the transfer of responsibility for the mode of appointment and the criteria to be applied to applicants, the transfer will still leave the Secretary of State, where necessary, in full authority over these items. I am a little puzzled because there was an associated Amendment at Committee stage which the noble Lord perhaps did not withdraw. I have not been able to find it in this complicated Bill. But if the noble Lord can give an assurance that this change, of itself, will not, and cannot, result in a different, lower level of standards for consultants, then it leaves me quite happy. This comparison between consultants and general practitioners, the common argument of the Amendment just withdrawn and the one that is now being moved, has left me a little puzzled. I should like, please, an assurance that there cannot as a result of this be a lowering of the requirements for consultant status and consultant and specialist appointments. That, no one here wants.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, replies,
1714
may I say that I hope he will be able to give what may be termed a very firm assurance in this particular regard, because we had a considerable debate on the particularly important matter of the maintenance of standards on 15th June. It is a matter which is regarded by the Government, the medical profession and all concerned as being of the first importance. At that particular time, we most strongly resisted the removal of these particular four lines, 15 to 19, on page 48. It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, would accept this Amendment by the Government subject to an assurance. If an assurance can be given in very firm terms, then so be it, but if we feel that the assurance is of a different character I must advise the noble Lord that we may have to resist the Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I seem to be being bullied into saying something I might not think right, and the noble Lord will have no effect of that kind. I have not the slightest difficulty in giving this assurance. The intention of the Government, as I expressed it the last time we debated it, is exactly the same as that that the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Sandys, have been speaking about. This Amendment, added to the absence of the noble Lord's Amendment, effects this, in the Government's opinion, effectively, and I give the fullest assurance that the result of passing this Bill in the present form will not involve any divagation of standards of the kind the noble Lord has feared.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the word "divagation" leaves me puzzled. It is not one which I think many of your Lordships have used in common parlance. Would the noble Lord accept a different word which perhaps he might be permitted, with the leave of the House, to add to his statement?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will accept any word which has the same meaning. It means" an induced difference".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 52, leave out lines 50 and 51 and insert—

(" The Commons Registration Act 1965 (c. 64) section 19.

The power to make regulations for the purposes specified in paragraphs (e) and (g) of subsection (1).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in proposing the Government's Amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, since both concern the Commons Registration Act 1965. The Government's Amendment was originally tabled on Report stage, but was withdrawn following a misunderstanding as to its effect. I have subsequently written to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, seeking to clear up this misunderstanding and also to answer some points about which he is concerned. For the benefit of those who have not had copies, perhaps I could repeat the substance of my letter for the record.
The effect of the Government's Amendment is to devolve the regulation-making powers in Section 19 of the 1965 Act except so far as they relate to the Commons Commissioners and the Church Commissioners. Following an earlier Committee stage debate, we now agree that these two matters are not apt for devolution. The powers under Section 17 of the Act, which again concerns the Commons Commissioners, are already reserved in the Bill as it stands and will remain reserved under our Amendment. Column 1 of the Amendment only relates to Section 19 of the Act, so powers under all other sections are reserved. In practice, the only ministerial powers under the Act which are not now spent or irrelevant are those in Sections 17 and 19.
Concern was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, about the provision in Section 15 relating to the qialification of grazing rights on commons. As I said in my letter, this is the section which gives Parliament the power to determine the number of animals to which grazing rights apply, and because it is not a ministerial power it will not be devolved to the Assembly. Any doubt which might be in the noble Lord's mind as to this has, I hope, been entirely removed by our Amendment, which specifically limits the scope of devolution (in column 1) to the powers under Section 19.
The aspects of Section 19 which we propose to devolve relate, in broad terms,
1716
to the keeping of commons' registers by local authorities. The present regulations are in fact the same for England and for Wales. But subsection (4) already allows for the possibility of different regulations should circumstances require. It seems sensible to us that, should the need arise for different Welsh regulations, they should be made by the Assembly—which will be responsible for most other commons and local authority matters. I can hardly imagine that they will wish to make different regulations unless there is good cause. I might add—as again Lord Stanley has expressed concern on the matter—that the regulations cannot be used to redefine persons with an interest in common land.
I hope that what I have said will meet most of the noble Lord's concerns. We have tried to be flexible on the matter but we think his Amendment goes too far; its effect would be to reserve all aspects of Section 19 as well as Section 17, which would leave nothing devolved in the Act. I hope the Amendment will be acceptable and that, as a result of my explanation, the noble Lord will not press his at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her letter and for putting it on the record; it will clear up all the points I asked. I do not want to belabour the point, but the noble Baroness said in in effect that it seemed unlikely the Welsh Assembly would want to make different regulations but that it should have the opportunity to do so if it wished. I still believe the Welsh Assembly could do this under Section 19(4), so it would be tidier to reserve both sections. Once again I get the impression that the only reason for exluding Section 19 is as a sop to the Welsh Assembly, with no real meaning. I am sorry to be ungracious about this because I realise I have been given something. I suppose that because they gave me twice as much as I asked for on my last Amendment they are going to give me only half as much on this one. The Government move in a most mysterious way, but I thank the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
4.12 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 54, line 38, at end insert—

("The Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 (c.) section 1, section 2(4)(b) as applied by section 9, section 3(2) as applied by section 5(3), sections 7, 8, 9(6) and 12, and paragraph 2 of the Schedule.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is the first of four Amendments which take account of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. This Bill received its Third Reading in your Lordships' House on 10th July and I am advised it is in order for the Wales Bill to refer to it. Reference is already contained in the Scotland Bill. The Government's approach is to devolve outright to the Assembly powers under the Inner Urban Areas Bill which are primarily environmental in nature and to reserve outright powers which are primarily industrial or commercial. This Amendment devolves to the Assembly powers in respect of specification of designated districts, loans for site preparation, and loans and grants for improving amenities, the entering into arrangements with local authorities and the adoption of local plans.
The Amendment also devolves powers in respect of the specification of special areas and the approval of improvement areas. But as these powers have industrial and commercial as well as environmental implications, later Amendments to Schedules 3 and 4, Nos. 19 and 20, will provide the ministerial protection. When we come to it, Amendment No. 28 to Schedule 11 will deal with powers under Clause 2 of the Bill, which again in certain cases have industrial and commercial implications. Powers of a purely industrial nature, such as those in Clause 3 relating to common ownership and co-operative enterprises, are to be reserved. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the Act to which the Bill refers has achieved its final form only in the last 72 hours. Therefore the Amendments drawn up for this Bill to meet its arrival have been on the Order Paper only briefly. Though I suppose I should apologise for not knowing about
1718
them, I need not apologise greatly because this is one of the exigencies of Parliamentary life. I hope therefore the noble Baroness will make a full explanation of each of the references to the Act as she comes across them in her long list of Amendments so that those who are concerned with the Act and have to apply it through this Bill will have some sort of guide to which they can refer. I make this plea because the normal function of Opposition is to raise objections and difficulties and appear to be difficult in Committee, and later to draw out from the Government the explanations which they might otherwise not get. In this case the responsibility rests only and squarely on the noble Baroness, and I hope she manages the task with her customary efficiency.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was proposing to do just that for those reasons.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 55, column 2, leave out lines 20 to 26 and insert—

("The powers under section 111(2) so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor Amendment, the need for which was identified during Report stage. Section 111(2) of the Water Resources Act 1963 enables persons authorised by Ministers to enter upon land for the purposes of their functions. Section 112(4) concerns the settling of disputes relating to entry on the land of statutory water undertakers. At present the Bill devolves powers under these two provisions subject to an exclusion relating to the land of certain navigation authorities. The terms of the exclusion are inappropriate to the provisions to which they relate; they make little sense in the case of Section 111(2), and none at all in the case of Section 112(4). What is instead required is to ensure that Ministers as well as the Assembly are able to authorise entry on land after devolution for the purpose of carrying out the functions for which they are respectively responsible. That is what is achieved by the Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 58, line 6, column 2, at end insert—

("The power under section 160 so far as exercisable for the purposes of section 5 of the Transport Act 1978 (c.)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the first of two Amendments which take account of the Transport Bill. The other is Amendment No. 18. The Transport Bill has completed its Report stage in your Lordships' House, and I am advised that it is in order for the Wales Bill to refer to it. The Scotland Bill was similarly amended on Third Reading to deal with the Transport Bill. The changes made to the Transport Bill on its Report stage on Tuesday do not have any effect on the Government's Amendments to the Wales Bill. Most of the ministerial powers contained in the Transport Bill concern British Rail and the National Freight Corporation, and all these powers are to be reserved, as is already the case with similar powers in earlier legislation.
In these cases reservation can be achieved by silence. However, a technical problem is created by Clause 5 of the Transport Bill, which concerns community bus services. Subsection (5)(a) states that a driver must be a volunteer, and, if not the holder of a public service vehicle driver's licence, must fulfil such conditions as may be prescribed for drivers of community buses. It is wished to reserve this power of prescription in common with all matters concerning drivers' qualifications. But the actual power is technically not in Clause 5 of the Transport Bill but in Section 160 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which at present is partly devolved in the entry in Schedule 2. It is therefore necessary to reserve Section 160 of the 1960 Act so far as it relates to Clause 5 of the Transport Bill. That is achieved by the Amendment. No other ministerial powers are contained in the parts of the Bill dealing with bus licensing, and the only power in the whole Bill which is appropriate for devolution is in Clause 3. We shall be coming to this shortly with an Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, in language favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, this topic is both inspissated and obfuscatory. I am
1720
afraid I cannot fully grasp what it is that the noble Baroness is trying to do. There is some anxiety among those concerned with what will happen to community buses under the Transport Bill—which is still a Bill and not yet an Act—in that those who are driving community buses may not have the qualifications which she described. Therefore, I was not entirely certain, when I accepted on a provisional basis the Amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness the other day, that this power was being maintained for the United Kingdom as a whole, let alone for Wales. I hope she will accept that there is some uncertainty in the minds of the Association of District Councils as to whether this power is being retained at all in its comprehensive form, let alone as to how it will be affected by devolution. Would the noble Baroness repeat, slightly more slowly, what she just said?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it sounds complicated because we are dealing not only with the Transport Bill but also with the references in the Transport Bill to the Road Traffic Act. What we are saying is that what we have said in the Transport Bill is that a driver must be a volunteer and, if not, he must be the holder of a public service vehicle driving licence. He must fulfil such conditions as may be prescribed for drivers of community buses. What we want to do is to reserve the power of prescription in common with all matters concerning drivers' qualifications so that the same rights will be administered nationally and will not be devolved to the Assembly. The actual power to which we are referring is not directly in the Transport Bill but indirectly in the Transport Bill because of the cross-reference to the Road Traffic Act, but I can assure the noble Lord that we are intending to maintain the standards that we have.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am very grateful for that explanation, which means that it may well be necessary to put down a series of Amendments to the Transport Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 58, line 7, column 2, at beginning insert—

("The functions under sections 2, 3(2) and 4(2) so far as exercisable in relation to byelaws made by virtue of section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1978 (c. 8)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Report the Government brought forward Amendments to the Schedule 2 entry for the Civil Aviation Act 1971 to ensure that the Assembly would have no competence in respect of the control of aircraft noise. This Amendment before your Lordships is designed to achieve the same effect. The powers under Sections 2, 3(2) and 4(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1978 are concerned with the making of by-laws in respect of Department of Trade, local authority and private aerodromes. The ministerial powers in relation to these by-laws are devolved to the Assembly in Schedule 2. But the Civil Aviation Act 1978 amends the powers in Sections 2, 53(2) and 4(2) so that they include the power to make by-laws for controlling the operation of aircraft for the purpose of limiting or mitigating the effect of noise, vibration and atmospheric pollution caused by aircraft using the aerodromes. These powers are not to be devolved to the Assembly. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I have pursued this point throughout this Bill, and at a previous stage I inquired from the noble Baroness whether the Amendment brought forward by the Government at that time was restricted to pollution by noise, and she said it was. I now understand that the Assembly is to have powers to control other forms of pollution. I am not fully certain as to what is retained at the centre in the control of pollution by aircraft because, as we have discussed this in stages, I am afraid that I find it rather difficult to grasp the exact ambit which is now left to the Assembly and that which is left to the Department. Could the noble Baroness clarify that point?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, not in any great detail because my recollection is the same as that of the noble Lord; we have gone over this matter in stages and one does not see it as a coherent whole at any one point of time. What we are doing with this Amendment is to include the powers to make by-laws for
1722
controlling the operation of the aircraft for the purpose of limiting or mitigating the effect of noise, vibration and the atmospheric pollution caused by aircraft and we are not devolving those powers to the Assembly. I think that was what the noble Lord was after in his earlier Amendments. He did not want those powers devolved to the Assembly; he wanted them to be kept on national standards.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 58, line 47, column 1, at end insert—

("The Transport Act 1978 (c.) section (5)(b).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the second of the two Amendments dealing with the Transport Bill.
The only power to be devolved under this Bill is that in Clause 3. Subsection (5) enables the county councils to require information from public passenger undertakings when preparing or revising their public passenger transport plans. Subsection (5)(b) then provides that the Secretary of State may give directions as to the form and content of this information. This power of direction, since it is at the moment a ministerial power, is to be devolved to the Assembly as the Assembly will be responsible for most other matters relating to passenger transport planning. I beg to move.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should have thought that this was a function wholly suitable for the Assembly to carry out if the Transport Bill becomes an Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments conferring powers exercisable concurrently]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 62, line 36, at end insert—
("The Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 (c.) paragraph 2 of the Schedule.").
Schedule 4, page 63, line 29, at end insert—

("The Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 (c.) section 8.

All powers under the section.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it might be convenient to take together

1723
Amendment No. 19 and Amendment No. 20 to Schedule 4. Both concern powers under the Inner Urban Areas Bill which are devolved in Schedule 2. Special ministerial protections are required in Schedules 3 and 4 because in both cases the powers have industrial and commercial, as well as environmental, implications.
The first Amendment, No. 19, relates to the Schedule to the Inner Urban Areas Bill which enables a designated district authority to declare an area to be an improvement area. The Secretary of State has powers of veto and revocation under paragraph 2 of the Schedule. The Amendment to the Wales Bill makes these powers concurrent; that is, either the Secretary of State or the Assembly may prevent an area being declared an improvement area or require it to cease to be one. This reflects the fact that such areas qualify both for environmental grants and loans (in respect of which powers have been devolved) and for industrial and commercial grants (in respect of which powers are to he reserved).
The second Amendment relates to Clause 8 of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. This contains the power to specify an area as a special area to which the provisions for grants and loans under Clauses 9, 10 and 11 will apply. Some of these grants and loans are industrial and commercial in nature, and others concern devolved environmental and infrastructure matters. Accordingly, the devolution of the power to specify areas under Clause 8 is to be subject to ministerial consent. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, my earlier observations, of course, apply. I am very interested in the machinery by which we are doing this. I see that the Inner Urban Areas Bill has returned to the Commons amended. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether or not the series of Amendments she proposes—if there are others, or maybe there are only these two—will still be correctly drawn if the Amendments made in this place are accepted in another place. I do not wish to make a meal of this subject. I do not even know whether it is a precedent, and it would be interesting to know if it is a precedent, but one can see a situation developing, as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has just said, where the inclusion of an Amendment in one Bill
1724
going through Parliament may change the course of another Bill going through Parliament. With the Bill with which he is concerned. the Transport Bill, there is an opportunity for that to be done, but there is no such opportunity in this case. If very briefly the noble Baroness could clarify to us the processes which are expected to be gone through in either eventuality, I should be grateful.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I am reasonably confident that these Amendments are drafted in the right way whatever may be the fate of the Bill before it gets back to us. So far as precedent is concerned, it is an interesting point that the noble Lord raises. I do not know, but I should like to know and, if I find out, I will certainly write to the noble Lord to tell him what the precedents are for it, but I cannot tell him at this point of time; I do not know of any.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it is a dangerous precedent to create a precedent unknowingly.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 67, leave out lines 16 to 20.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is aimed at removing an impracticality from the Amendment to Schedule 8 which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, carried on Report stage, and we have written to the noble Lord explaining our reasons. The noble Lord's Amendment introduced a procedure whereby a water authority may apply to the Secretary of State for him to intervene under Schedule 8. I do not want to discuss the merits of this procedure, which was the subject of a very long debate at Report stage. But, on reflection, we consider that one particular aspect of it creates a potentially very serious practical difficulty. Our Amendment is aimed only at removing this difficulty, so that we can return a workable Bill to another place.
What is now paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 provides that, where a water authority has applied to the Secretary of State to intervene, the exercise by the Assembly

1725
of the power to which the application for intervention relates should be superseded. The difficulty is that during the period when the Secretary of State is considering whether to intervene, neither he nor the Assembly will be able to exercise the power concerned; and in some cases it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry to establish the facts before deciding whether to intervene. This could have serious repercussions where rapid action is required—for instance, if an order needs to be made under Section 2 of the Drought Act 1976—and it would also throw out the arrangements for statutory time limits which are contained in some of the provisions to which the intervention procedures apply. For this reason, I hope that your Lordships will accept the Government's Amendment. It will delete paragraph 11 of Schedule 8—which creates the difficulties I have outlined—but otherwise it will leave Lord Middleton's Amendment intact and it will return the Bill to another place in a workable condition. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has explained, what is now proposed appears to remove a chunk from the Amendment which the House agreed at Report stage. I believe that we were on common ground with the noble Baroness, but we hoped that where one of the water authorities which straddles the Welsh boundary was at variance with the Assembly over a matter concerning the national water policy, informal means could be found for resolving the matter. However, we felt very strongly that provision should be made in the Bill for a form of machinery; and that is what the earlier Amendment did. That being so, when the Amendment was being framed it was thought to be important that some provision should he made regarding what was to happen during the period when the Secretary of State was considering the application, so paragraph 11 was included. It provided that the powers to be exercised by the Assembly should be suspended, if for no other reason than that that might possibly serve to hasten the Secretary of State's consideration so that the matter could be resolved quickly.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who has written to me on this point,
1726
and I think I am persuaded that there are cases where there might well be a hiatus in government. I am a little surprised at the instance she quoted to me regarding the Drought Act, because this is a matter in which the water authority applies to the Secretary of State to take action where the general economy is in danger due to shortage of water, whereas, in this case, where a Welsh authority has exercised the powers, I very much doubt whether the Assembly would fail to act responsibly. We all think that the Assembly will act responsibly in all matters. I should have thought that here the intervention power would not be needed at all. We must accept that there might be occasions where government would be held up, hut the possibility is remote. I believe that the main effect of our Amendment is not gravely imparied, and so I advise my noble friends not to resist the present Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Amendments of Enactments]:
4.34 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 72, line 21, after ("(a)") insert ((Where the proposals under this section are made by a Welsh local education authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment relates to the substance of Schedule 11 as it was amended at an earlier stage. The original Amendment imported into Schedule 11 two new subsections to the Education Act 1944, they being subsections (4A) and (4B) of Section 13 of the Act. The Amendment, as Amendment No. 108D, was carried on a Division on 14th of June—that is to say, almost exactly a month ago. On the evening of 10th of this month—three days ago—I received a long and technical reasoned objection to the whole concept of this Amendment from the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, whom I assume will be replying today. Therefore, the time to meet these objections has been rather shorter than that which it took to prepare them.
I know that the noble Lord is still unhappy with the general principle of the Amendment as it may, or may not be,

1727
effective, but I shall leave it to him to say why, before in my reply, I say why I think his objections, if I have seized them correctly, are without force. However, there were a number of other objections which had force, and these are met in my Amendments Nos. 22 to 27. The first three of this set of Amendments (Nos. 22, 23, and 24) relate to page 72 of the Bill. They all relate to the new subsection (4A) of Section 13 of the Act of 1944, and I think it will be to the convenience of the House if I take them together.
The noble Lord's first objection was that the subsection as drafted went beyond the Long Title of the amending Bill, by reason of the fact that it applied to England as well as to Wales when it came to determining the proceedings of the Secretary of State. Although it did not alter the Secretary of State's power, it altered the proceedings, and, to be safe, I have met that by altering the wording at the beginning of subsection (4A). Therefore we propose to insert the words,
"Where the proposals under this section are made by a Welsh local education authority…".
That applies to the whole of the subsection, whereas, as drafted at present, the restriction to Wales does not occur until paragraph (c) of subsection (4A). Your Lordships will see that at paragraph (c) it is stated:
" where the functions of the Secretary of State under this section have been discharged by the Welsh Assembly …".
The force of that restriction is being removed from that part of the subsection to the beginning of the subsection. That therefore renders necessary as a consequential Amendment, Amendment No. 24, which removes the reference to Wales which presently appears at the place referred to in the Amendment.
The other Amendment in the group, No. 23, is a consequential drafting Amendment in order to keep the syntax correct when the reference has been removed from the middle to the beginning of the subsection. That was the objection; and that is how we have met it. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord would be happy to discuss all six Amendments to Schedule 11 together, or whether he wishes to take separately the first three to which he has spoken.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the substance is different. I propose that we deal with the principle that we have not mentioned but which the noble Lord has at the back of his mind, which applies to them all. I will reply to that in my wind-up to this debate. The next debate will be about a different matter, in relation to which the noble Lord put into my head an idea which I thought was a good one, and which I have embodied. I do not know whether the noble Lord's brief is so interlaced with the two matters that he cannot separate them. We shall have to see how he gets on. I want to preserve the oportunity to speak twice more, not once more.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I anticipate no problems with my brief. It is worth reminding noble Lords what the Amendment is ultimately about. We are talking about technical details. The Amendment itself is an attempt to give the Secretary of State power of approval over certain schemes—basically, the proposals by local education authorities to establish new schools, to cease to maintain schools, or to make significant changes in the character or size of premises at schools—and to give the Secretary of State an appeal on these points over and above the Assembly. The noble Lord and I have corresponded on the technical aspect, we have both taken advice, and I believe that we have reached a stage of polite disagreement.
When we discussed the original Amendments—that is, the ones which appeared as Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 today—we made it clear that the Government could not accept the policy behind them, and this is still the case. We see no point in devolving powers to the Assembly only to place the Secretary of State in the position of a kind of court of appeal to which people can turn if dissatisfied with the Assembly's decisions.
At the time the noble Lord moved his Amendment to Schedule 11, I said that it was not technically acceptable; and I think it is worth pointing out also that he is making a particular exception in this case in a field otherwise almost totally devolved. Although the Amendments before your Lordships go some way towards meeting my objections, I am afraid it is still the case that even if these Amendments are carried the entry for Sections 13(4A) and 13(4B) in Schedule 11

1729
will be defective. To achieve the desired effect we should have to start afresh; and I have written to the noble Lord about the points at issue. My letter is long and complicated, and I do not propose to read it into the record unless at a later stage somebody asks for it; but my advice is that I cannot accept these Amendments even as a tidying up of a general situation with which, in any case, I do not agree. So, in the circumstances, I am afraid I must resist them.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, one sympathises with the noble Lord's position, of course, though one cannot agree with it. Perhaps I may take from him part of the burden of explaining (which he has not explained) the technical objection, because I think this is what we are about to vote upon. The principal objection seems to be that there are duties and powers ancillary to the power to approve proposals, some of which may need a partial reservation where it is the Secretary of State who gives approval; and Section 13(6) of the 1944 Act is given as an example of this.
I should like to remind your Lordships of our earlier discussions on Clause 75 of this Bill. Clause 75, which to a layman is a sinister provision included in the Bill, says:
"The enactments mentioned in Schedule 11 to this Act"—
and this is one of them—
"shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule".
That is quite clear, but after that it says:
"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 that refers, of course, to this Bill, which we are now discussing, as well as many others—
"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".
When asked why this was so, we were told that there were many cases where there would need to be partial reservations which were too small and pernickety to be embodied in the Bill as an original Amendment at this stage. It seems to me that the noble Lord has in fact produced for us exactly such an example: that this Clause 75 is incorporated in the Bill to meet the objections which he has made to our scheme in this Amendment.
I think that the matter of the reservation of a power of appeal is an important one. It may be an isolated example, but I said at Second Reading, and repeated at Committee and Report stages, that one of our functions is to have important principles discussed in another place, and this was not. I am confident, and my advisers are confident—and they are well qualified—that the particular objection I have referred to is not without force, and I therefore ask your Lordships to repose your confidence in that advice and to accept this Amendment.
4.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Cockfield, L.

Exeter, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falkland, V.

Aldenham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrier, L.

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Fortescue, E.

Auckland, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Gainford, L.

Avon, E.

Croft, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Barnby, L.

Daventry, V.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

de Freyne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Berkeley, B.

Denham L.

Bessborough, E.

Derwent, L.

Hawke, L.

Bradford, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E.

Eccles, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carrington, L.

Elles, B.

Kemsley, V.

Cathcart, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Clancarty, E.

Elton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Leinster, D.

O'Hagan, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Porritt, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Mancroft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tenby, V.

Marley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Terrington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Redmayne, L.

Teviot, L.

Melville, V.

Reigate, L.

Teynham, L.

Middleton, L.

Romney, E.

Trenchard, V.

Monson, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Tweeddale, M.

Morris, L.

Sandys, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Vernon, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Sharples, B.

Vickers, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Skelmcrsdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Sligo, M.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Newall, L.

Soames, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Northchurch, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Young, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Annan, L.

Hale, L.

Rochester, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Samuel, V.

Banks, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Hutchinson of Luliington, L.

Shinwell, L.

Byers, L.

Jacobson, L.

Snow, L.

Caccia, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

David, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Whaddon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigg, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Willis, L.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.52 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 72, line 22, leave out ("the proposals made under this section") and insert ("them")
Page 72, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 27:
Schedule 11, page 72, line 30, after ("approval") insert ("or as the case may be that decision to withhold approval")
Schedule 11, page 72, line 33, leave out ("against that approval")
Schedule 11, page 72, line 44, leave out ("objections to the Secretary of State") and insert ("to the Secretary of State objections either to the approval or as the case may be to the decision to withhold approval referred to in a public notice made under subsection (4A) of this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are still looking at the same part of the Bill; that is to say, the Amendment. In the correspondence I had with the noble Lord on the subject of these Amendments, it was suggested to me that the situation had changed by reason of the introduction of what we are not allowed to call another tier of government but what is certainly another tier of decision, and that there was an extra dimension to the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, what we are discussing is an appeal from a decision of the Welsh authority to approve a scheme against which objections have been made. As it may also not approve a scheme and as that decision

1733
might be the subject of a grievance—and it might be the subject of a grievance by a local authority in this case—then it was suggested that this was a question which might also be brought into the purview of the Bill. I am always glad to take advice from noble Lords opposite. The occasions when it is possible to do so are rare and correspondingly valuable; but that I have sought to do—including both approval and refusal to approve. I do not think it necessary to spell out the way in which this is done unless the noble Lord opposite, with his screwdriver and pliers, will demonstrate that this also is defective. Then it may be necessary to do so. Otherwise, it suffices if I have said what is the intention. With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 en bloc.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, in view of the passing of Amendment No. 22 there is no purpose in opposing this Amendment or the next two. I am therefore happy to accept them.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am glad to note that the noble Lord is happier than he looks at accepting the Amendments.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 28:
Schedule 11, page 85, line 31, at end insert—
("THE INNCR URBAN AREAS ACT 1978
88.— (1) Section 2(4)(b) of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 shall have effect, in any case where—

(a) the loan is made by a designated district authority in Wales, and

(b) the Assembly is satisfied that it is not for the acquisition, construction or alteration of a building intended for use for industrial or commercial purposes,

as if the reference to the Secretary of State were a reference to the Assembly.
(2) Paragraphs 1(3)(b) and 3(3)(b) of the Schedule to that Act shall have effect, in relation to any area in Wales, as if the reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Assembly").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the last of the Amendments dealing with the Inner Urban Areas Bill. It may be appropriate to say that I have taken
1734
advice on the question which was raised earlier as to whether we were establishing a precedent in the way in which we were dealing with this question. I am advised that it is quite common towards the end of a Parliamentary Session for one Bill to contain textual references to another. Any difficulties created by amendment to one Bill can be accommodated by printing changes to the other Bill. It is clear what provisions are being referred to even if, occasionally, clause numbers may be changed. I can assure the noble Lord that we are not setting a precedent in the way in which we are dealing with the Inner Urban Areas Bill today.
The Amendment provides for the devolution of the power to vary interest rates under Clause 2(4)(b) of the Bill except in respect of loans for industrial or commercial purposes. Loans under Section 2 may be for the acquisition of land or for the carrying out of works. Secondly, it provides that maps of improvement areas should be sent by designated district authorities both to the Assembly and to the Secretary of State. This reflects the fact that such areas must be approved by both. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as this is the last series, I should thank the noble Baroness for her explanation which, as always, was an extremely concise and lucid one. Perhaps this is not the stage for compliments but this is a good example of what she has been doing and we are grateful.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
Page 85, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph 1A below")
Page 85, line 37, at end insert—
("1A If this Act and the Scotland Act 1978 are passed in the same session, the day mentioned in paragraph 1 above shall be the same day as that on which the referendum provided for in the Scotland Act 1978 shall be held").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, together with Amendment No. 30, seeks to secure that the referendum on the question of whether or not there is to be a Welsh Assembly shall be held on the same day as the referendum on the question of whether there is to be a Scottish Assembly. We have trodden this ground

1735
fairly thoroughly and the Government have given assurances in the Scotland Bill. They gave some assurances during the progress of this Bill at earlier stages that it was their honest and open intention to carry out the two referendums on the same day. Then they added, "Providing nothing untoward occurs". This is an elastic phrase. I should like to know what it conceals. I have spent some time trying to think what extraordinary event could occur which would make it appropriate to ask the question of the Scots on one day and inappropriate to ask the Welsh on the same day, unless the day itself had been chosen with malice aforethought. If it was a day of particular importance in one country which perhaps another chooses to observe as a universal holiday, that might be the case. But that cannot be what is anticipated for that would be to anticipate incompetence or else malice aforethought. So it cannot be that.
What we wish to know if we are not to press this Amendment is what it is that the noble and learned Lord feels might occur which would make it unfortunate if we were to press it. If the Government say it is their intention to do this—and it may be marginally discourteous (although that is not intended) to require them to do it after they have already said that such is their intention—what can be the objection? We shall listen to the reply with considerable interest. With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 en bloc.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is the case, as the noble Lord said, that we have traversed this ground on several occasions. The same Amendments were discussed during the Third Reading of the Scotland Bill. On that occasion, the paving Amendment was negatived without a Division and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, did not move his substantive Amendment. That, your Lordships may think, was a clear indication that so far as Scotland at any rate was concerned, it was decided that this proposed provision should not be made in the Scotland Bill. It is perhaps a little surprising therefore to see it sought to be introduced in the Wales Bill. Clearly, we cannot look at the two Bills in isolation. If we introduce a statutory provision that the Welsh referendum is to take place on the same day as the Scottish
1736
referendum, it follows by inexorable logic that the Scottish referendum is to take place on the same day as the Welsh referendum, about which, I venture to think there will be little disagreement even at this late hour on this sunny afternoon. We have decided not to make this statutory requirement in relation to the Scotland Bill and so it is surprising to see the Amendment on the Marshalled List once again.
I am asked why it is that we take the view that although it is the firm intention of the Government—which has been repeated more than once—that both referenda should be held on the same day, we still believe that a certain flexibility is necessary in case of unforeseen circumstances. I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about what future unforeseen events may prove to be which may make it impracticable to hold the two referenda on the same day. Your Lordships will remember the wise advice of Mark Twain: it is always dangerous to prophesy especially about future events. Your Lordships may think there is some wisdom in that observation. Strange things can happen and I think that, for the sake of flexibility, there should not be this statutory requirement. We have nothing up our sleeves about this matter; it is merely a prudence to avoid the unexpected making it impossible to achieve the holding of the referenda.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, as I spoke on the Scotland Bill, I am interested in what is in the Wales Bill. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give the same categorical assurance on the Wales Bill as he gave on the Scotland Bill, that in so far as it is humanly within the control of himself and his colleagues, it is the firm intention to have the referenda on Scotland and Wales on the same day? If he does that—in other words, to repeat the assurance now that he gave on the Scotland Bill—then perhaps noble Lords on the other side of the House might be satisfied.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought that I had given that assurance. If I failed to make it clear, I give my noble friend that absolute assurance as to what the intention is.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord and also the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. It is firmly on the record that this is the Government's intention and that they cannot conceive of what could occur to deter them from carrying out their intention. Their amazement will only be exceeded by ours if such an occurrence takes place. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 86, line 16, after ("officers") insert ("and any other expenses incurred exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of organising and administering the conduct of the referendum").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this relates to the expenses to be borne by Her Majesty's Government in one form or another during the conduct of the referendum campaign. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor flung at my head, as though it were a missile, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, on the Scotland Bill. I have since read that speech. It seems to me that, with one exception, it is an outcry not against the drafting or the effectiveness of the Amendment, as I had supposed from what was said last time, but against its results, which are intentional.
It is intentional that the Government should not publish a White Paper on the issue of the referendum because they have said already that they are not going to do so. It is the intention that the Secretary of State should not travel to Scotland for the specific purpose of addressing a public meeting at public expense—of course, he can travel otherwise. That is intentional. When is the beginning of the referendum? I think it has begun already. I do not think we need a beginning date for that.
However, the noble Lord was concerned as to the meaning of the restriction of the use of the resources of the Government. I personally think that what we already have on the Marshalled List and in the Bill is adequate. As I understood matters when I was a Parliamentary candidate—and I do not think that has changed—all the proper expenses of arranging an election campaign were to be met only by
1738
the returning officer. The provision of the ballot boxes, the ballot papers and hiring the schools, went through the hands of the returning officer. However, as there is obviously doubt among distinguished and noble Lords, I have taken advice and added what may be superfluous but is at least clarificatory in the form of words in Amendment No. 31. Those words are to add:
"and any other expenses incurred exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of organising and administering the conduct of the referendum".
If therefore there he some which do not properly pass through the hands of the returning officer, that is covered by this Amendment. If, on the other hand, there is doubt as to what is meant by the expenses that the returning officers normally bear, that is covered by this Amendment. This does not broach a new principle; it makes it crystal clear what it is that your Lordships have already decided upon. I hope the Government accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment appears to be intended to ensure that the official Opposition Amendment to paragraph 5 of Schedule 12 carried at Report stage has not inadvertently slammed the door on what they would regard as legitimate expenditure of public funds on the referendum. It does not have that effect because the original Amendment was misconceived and itself is not effective. As the noble Lord has explained, the Amendment which is now before us has the laudable motive of attempting to ensure that public funds can be spent on what noble Lords opposite would regard as legitimate purposes in the organisation of the referendum. This Amendment is wholly unnecessary. Expenditure on the organisation and conduct of the referendum will be ministerial expenses falling on a vote in the usual way as mentioned in Clause 71.
I ventured at Report stage in using what is somewhat severe language for me on this Bill—which has been conducted so agreeably through your Lordships' House—to describe this Amendment as "an absurdity". It was nevertheless, in spite of that view, carried by your Lordships. In my submission, this Amendment's attempt to refine and rescue an absurdity

1739
is misconceived and unnecessary. However, if the noble Lord wishes to pile Pelion upon Ossa, I shall not stand in his way.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I have never really seen myself in that role. However, the noble and learned Lord has invited me to adopt it with such persuasive charm, in contrast to the unusually severe language which he used before, that I think I can fulfil that role to the satisfaction of the House.
5.10 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 87, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert—
("Mae'r Senedd wedi penderfynu ymgynghori ag etholwyr Cymru ynglyn a ddylid gweithredu Deddf Cymru 1978.

DO YOU WANT THE PROVISIONS OF THE WALES ACT 1978 TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT?

  A YDYCH AM I DDARPARIAETHAU DEDDF CYMRU 1978 GAEL EU GWEITHREDU?
  Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box Rhowch groes X yn y blwch cymwys

  YES

  YDWYF

  NO

  NAC YDWYF

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to what I regard as a rather cheerful Amendment. Many of your Lordships on the other side of the House have persisted in regarding my noble friends and I as being killjoys who were determined to destroy what they regarded (mistakenly, in my view) as the beautiful debutante on the stage of the Wales Bill. This is as good an opportunity as any to tell your Lordships that if in spite of our advice and in spite of the defects which we have tried to bring to public notice that exist in this Bill, the Welsh people feel that they want the sort of Welsh Assembly that eventually emerges from both Houses of Parliament, then good luck to them! It is their choice, it is their future and it is their government. All we can do is to seek to see that the alternative presented to them is the most agreeable that we can devise, that the choice is put to them
  1740
  fairly and that they can make the decision themselves.
  Therefore, if the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will forgive me, this is something of a birthday party for the Welsh if in fact they are going to take this opportunity. The Bill which is before us will be a milestone in Welsh history. I do not think that it will be, but it might be; and to have such a milestone upon which so much passionate feeling has been expended in defence, and indeed promotion, of the Welsh identity, of which almost the principal feature is the Welsh language—to have that enshrined in an Act of Parliament totally expressed in English seems to me an act of Anglo-Saxon insensitivity of the first order.
  I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is going to tell me that what I am suggesting to your Lordships is superfluous: he has already said so, and this is the disadvantage of speaking at Third Reading, after Report, after Committee, after Second Reading and indeed after many conversations concerning earlier legislation. But the fact is that, even if it is superflous, and the ballot paper eventually emerges with the Welsh tongue elegantly inscribed upon it, as I suggest to your Lordships it now is in our Amendment, I do not think that is in any way at all superfluous. I think this is a great occasion. For the most part, we have to play it down because we are trying to achieve through a Parliamentary process something that will improve the Wales Bill and the Welsh Assembly. But, on this occasion, let us enter into the spirit of the thing—and that is Welsh.
  I was greatly afeared—because, as I have told your Lordships before, I am not a Welsh speaker—that what I put on the Marshalled List might not be good Welsh, but your Lordships will recall' that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts at Report stage, said that it would be possible for us to get together with the Welsh Office. That has been done and in the process my advisers have been complimented on the work they did; but none the less their work has been improved upon and we gladly accept the assistance that has come our way. There was an inadvertent misprint which I noticed in the word ddarpariaethau yesterday and that has been put right. As I understand it, therefore, what we have here now is correct Welsh.
  I was also afeared that it might be thought inappropriate or a dangerous precedent to introduce into the Statute Book of England a language that was not English; but of course this is not the Statute Book of England but the Statute Book of the United Kingdom and the language we are now introducing is the language of, among others, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, who can protect us from any misconceptions of language. Moreover, I am advised by the Table that there is no force in such an objection. Therefore, I can only see a myopic and churlish reluctance to enter into the excitement of the beginning of a new phase of history as the only conceivable motive for rejecting this Amendment. If we do divide, it will give me the greatest pleasure, but I do not think we shall, because the noble and learned Lord must surely see the reason and the force of these arguments. I beg to move.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was so moved by the tremendous eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and his wish to make this gracious gesture to the Welsh language and the Welsh people that I thought he might have exerted himself to do it in Welsh and to read out the Welsh, as did his Royal Highness Prince Charles in Caernarvon a long time ago. However, I forgive him for not having reached that summit of excellence. The noble Lord has anticipated what I am about to say, which is that the ballot paper which will be used will, of course, be bilingual and the only question at issue between us is whether the Welsh language version should be inserted in the Bill or whether it should be produced under the existing authority of Section 2(1) of the Welsh Language Act. That empowers bilingual documents to be produced and is an Act, the use of which is familiar, frequent and well-known in Wales. There would be an anticipation that it would be used also on this occasion.
  If I might remind your Lordships who were the enthusiastic architects of the EEC referendum ballot paper, the Welsh language did not appear in the Statute so far as that was concerned, but the EEC referendum ballot paper was produced in a Welsh version under the authority of the Welsh Language Act of 1967. The matter
  1742
  was put in a nutshell by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell during a debate on the Committee stage when she said at column 1559 of the Official Report, on 23rd June:
  "If the Minister will put everything into this Bill which is nice but not necessary, it will be twice as long as it is already".
  That is a very profound and true observation. If I may say so, this has been a most agreeable final curtain to draw upon the Report stage of the Bill. I say to noble Lords in Welsh, Diolch yn fawr, but I venture to submit the Amendment is really unnecessary, charming though this discussion on the Amendment has been.
  Lord ELTON: My Lords, the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, —and the noble and learned Lord is always quoting arguments in aid from other stages—would have had force on Amendment No. 1 on the first day of Committee stage, but on the last Amendment of the last day of the last stage of this Bill, we are not in danger of doubling its length. We are only in danger of gilding what the noble and learned Lord sees as a lily and what I see as something else. It may be superfluous, but it is not ungracious.
  5.20 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. We have now reached the end of the odyssey of the passage of the Wales Bill through your Lordships' House, and it is my privilege to move that the Bill do now pass. The Bill has gone through the most searching and careful scrutiny in your Lordships' House, and we have had some very good debates. The respective teams, in strength on each side of the Chamber, have worked hard upon the Bill and applied themselves with great conscientiousness to what has often been a very technical matter.
  It is the case that the Government's proposals for Wales have certain novel features, and they contain differences from the proposals for Scotland of an intriguing character. But I believe that, as the process of consideration of the Bill has gone on, there has been increasing, if not complete, understanding of what the Government have had in mind in regard to the provisions of the Bill. In preparing it, the Government aimed at devising a scheme

  1743
  of devolution which would meet the particular needs, as we saw them, of the Welsh people.
  In Wales, there has been no widespread demand for a legislative Assembly, and the deep concern has been, first, that the activities of Ministers and of nominated bodies should be submitted to closer democratic scrutiny than the existing system allows; and, secondly, that it should be left to the people of Wales and their representatives to determine the priorities of development in the fields which concern the Welsh people alone. The scheme of executive devolution which the Government have put before your Lordships is specifically designed to meet those particular needs.
  There are, of course, those who say that the Government should have gone further, and others who argue that the scheme goes too far, which suggests to me that we have got it about right. We have sought to adopt a balanced but positive approach in the Bill, and we believe that our proposals, when they are implemented, will bring satisfaction and benefits to the people of Wales. No Bill achieves perfection, and a number of Amendments which have been put down have usefully drawn attention to certain imperfections which existed in the Bill, and the Government have readily accepted a number of constructive suggestions which have been made by noble Lords. Indeed, we have shown, I submit, a degree of flexibility in accepting some Amendments which, although not entirely to our taste, have given rise to deep feelings in the House which we have recognised.
  On the other hand, I am bound to say that certain other Amendments which the House has accepted have shown what we believe to be less than complete appreciation of the structure and the principles of the Bill, and have introduced elements of inconsistency, infelicity and, indeed, un-workability, which the Government, even in the most generous mood that I am now displaying, cannot readily accept. I do not want to go into detail at this stage, but the points that I have in mind will clearly call for careful consideration in another place. But, by and large, the structure of the Bill, although it has been dented in places, remains pretty well intact.
  1744
  The Government, as I have indicated, recognise and appreciate the conscientious, relatively calm and undogmatic way in which noble Lords have applied themselves to a constitutional exercise of great importance and no little complexity. It is, of course, in the minds of all of us that, before finality is reached, the people of Wales will have the last word and make their own pronouncement on our labours, and we shall await their verdict with keen anticipation.
  Finally, my Lords, may I stress once again that what has been uppermost in the Government's mind throughout their travails on this, and on the Scotland Bill, has been the need to preserve and, indeed, enhance the unity of the United Kingdom. The Government believe that measures of devolution arc not only necessary but inevitable, if that unity is to be preserved. We have sought to forestall the charge of too little and too late, and we have acted now for what we believe will be the future benefit of all our peoples. My Lords, beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  5.29 p.m.
  Lord ELTON: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has most eloquently put it, our work is nearly done. He referred to it as an odyssey. I must say that I consider it more an operation. We, after all, were thinking of this Bill, at the outset of its so far short career, as though it were Mrs. Worthington's daughter presented untimely for the stage, and we were doing our best by plastic surgery, though not, please notice—and the noble and learned Lord, by saying that the Bill is dented but largely intact, has conceded this point—by amputation.
  We have given in the process to the elected representatives of the people of the United Kingdom, and particularly to the elected representatives of the people of Wales, their first opportunity to discuss some 30 aspects, all discussion of which has so far been denied them by the arrangements made in another place. As examples, we have the relationship between the Assembly and the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land

  1745
  Authority for Wales; and, indeed, the exclusion of Members of Parliament themselves from membership of the Assembly. That is a matter to which they will wish to pay close attention, and I hope that this opportunity is taken.
  We have also sought to alter the Bill in a number of important ways which we hope will he accepted by another place. In doing this, we have been guided throughout by a desire to protect the interests of the Welsh people and of the United Kingdom. May I give noble Lords instances of this. We have provided that only residents in Wales may rule over the population of Wales. We have provided that local government, whatever its defects, shall not immediately be torn up by the roots as a result of investigation by what most of us see as entirely the wrong body to do the job. We have provided that the executive committee, which will hold all the reins of power, shall not become a closed shop for the discussion of plans and the disposal of resources behind closed doors. We have provided that the proceedings of the Assembly shall be published abroad for all Welshmen to be able to read them, and that their meetings shall be held in public so that all Welshmen may be allowed to attend them. We have provided that the salaries of Assemblymen shall be determined by the Secretary of State with the agreement of Parliament rather than by themselves, in the hope that they will then escape from the penurious dilemma which besieges Members of another place year after year.
  It has been a hard and difficult task that we have undertaken in working on this Bill, and I wish that we might have had more help with it. In particular, I was a little surprised by the rapid diminution of contributions in debate by the Liberal Party. Once the temporary, cross-Floor alliance on proportional representation dissolved itself, the Liberal Party tabled only one Amendment throughout the proceedings on the Bill that I recall, on safety in sports grounds—not, I should have thought, the most important aspect of the Bill before us. During the Report stage, the Liberal Party spoke but twice, abstained twice and voted with us once; otherwise they followed mute behind the Government through the Division Lobbies. I should have thought
  1746
  that for a great Party—the noble Lord opposite is speaking in such a loud voice that I can hear him saying that he thinks this is a good thing to do. It may so appear to him, but for the Welsh to find that this great Party has no view and does not wish to influence the opinions of any other Member of the House except by following its Government leaders is a great abrogation of authority and leadership.
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is a very excellent leadership?
  Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord may be in doubt as to my answer, in which case let me tell him that it is not a very excellent leadership. What Her Majesty's Government propose to do is, after all, to place an extra level of government, or whatever you care to call it, upon the shoulders of the Welsh people—to interpose an extra round of negotiation between the electors of Wales and the financial resources of the United Kingdom, and in so doing to say that they are bringing them closer to the centre. In truth, they are pushing them, ever so politely and guilefully, a few miles further out into the Irish Sea, and all the time growing red in the face with the exertion of accusing us, the Tory Party, of insulting the Welsh people: "Don't you trust the Welsh people?" they keep asking us. Of course we trust the Welsh people, but we are an Opposition Party and we have been in opposition, perhaps, for too many years. The one thing that we have learned in opposition is that what you cannot trust is government—in any shape and in any place—and that includes a brand new government set up in Cardiff at great expense.
  It is against that threat that we seek to put the Welsh people on guard. That is what noble Lords opposite cannot abide to be told as they try to heave us over Saint David's Head—that it is we, and not they, who have the true interests of Wales at heart. We are prepared to suffer their endless accusations, in Parliament and in the Press, in the knowledge that if we do not stand up for the Welsh people nobody else will do so. Reference to the Division lists and to the list of speakers in these debates will produce significant silences and absences from Welsh noble

  1747
  Lords opposite who have expressed, by saying nothing, more clearly than I can in speech what they think about the future for Wales.
  We have spent nine days of Parliamentary time upon this Bill. I believe that it will turn out to be a nine day wonder—to be apprehended with astonishment, examined with curiosity and forgotten with relief. Perhaps the Welsh would describe that differently—perhaps like R. Williams Parry in his poem to the Fox, Y Llwynog. They will say that it is:
  "Megis Seren Wib" —
  like a shooting star, a sudden light, that as suddenly fails and can portend good fortune or ill. But let me and let my Party not be misunderstood as to this. If the Welsh freely decide in a referendum that they wish to take this new yoke upon their backs, if they freely decide that it is worth the price to be paid—that the extra 11,500 civil servants and the extra £12.5 million on the United Kingdom Exchequer are inevitable and additional burdens that they ought to carry—if that is their judgment, far be it from us to gainsay them. Once the Assembly is there, unwise as we think they would be to accept it, then the English people and the United Kingdom Parliament must do everything in their power to strengthen the bonds of friendship, patriotism and loyalty which have for so long united us.
  To the Welsh, this should come as no surprise. We are, after all, the Party that first appointed a Minister for Welsh Affairs; we are, after all, the Party who first appointed a full-time Minister of State for Wales; we are, after all, the Party who first introduced the Welsh Grand Committee in another place; and we are, after all, the Party who have transferred responsibility for primary and secondary education and the urban programme to the Secretary of State for Wales and away from Westminster. It is in this sort of way—by strengthening, in democratic terms, the Welsh Council—and perhaps by the creation of a Welsh Select Committee in another place, that Wales should be given a steadily clearer identity, with assistance.
  Finally, before the cries of noble Lords opposite become too blatantly Welsh for us to resist a reply, may I thank my noble friends not only for their tireless assistance
  1748
  in the Division Lobbies late at night but also for sitting through the gentler passages of my own delivery, which may well be described, although I hope they will not be, as the calm before the yawn. I trust that they will have the gratification that I have. I believe that thanks are due not only from me but eventually also from the Welsh people for what my noble friends have done in this House. With those thanks, there is no phrase with which to end a speech like this. I cannot do it in Welsh. However, it is not, "Goodbye" to the Wales Bill, because it will come back to us. It is, "Au revoir".
  5.39 p.m.
  Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I sat through that—I do not know how! It reminded me of when I was a boy at the Methodist chapel in Cardigan. At great moments, when the preacher had got the hwyl and the roof and the rafters were doing a swirl with the oratorical Welsh arpeggios, they would say:
  "Y mae duw yn agosai"—
  God is present. I thought that the destiny of mankind depended upon the magnificent work of the noble Lord, Lord Elton! I must pay a tribute to the noble Lord, It was absolutely magnificent, boyo!
  "A thymelwynt tachwedd yn siglo'r ty".
  The winds of November were shaking the roof of the Chamber.
  To cut out all the joking, may I pay a tribute to the hard work—sincere work, in many cases—which has been done by the Party opposite. In truth, the Bill has been improved. But let us respect the fact that there are not so many Welshmen on this side of the Chamber as there are Scotsmen and Anglo-Saxons on that side. Those of us who have worked upon the Bill have enjoyed listening to the speeches and will nobly, and without any political venom, pay tribute to the constructive Amendments put into the Bill by the Opposition.
  5.40 p.m.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I find myself in a position where such hwyl has been aroused by an Englishman on one side and a Welshman on the other side, and I am here to produce some little damping of that hwyl. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in that

  1749
  wonderful speech in which he was almost singing at the end, I felt like Harry Secombe who, when an Englishman spoke something like that—and especially a Conservative Englishman—said he thought that at last the Conservative landlords were marching towards Wales once again.
  One of the most significant things that I remember in this debate occurred when the question of Welsh history was raised and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was sitting on the Front Bench. When the distinguished Conservative Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned Welsh history, a glint came into th1e eyes of the noble and learned Lord. Of course, that glint indicated that he was not always quite so courteous and harmonious in his addresses outside the House as he has been in this House, and I thought that was the opportunity for the Welsh history to come forth, but the noble and learned Lord merely passed it by and said
  "If the noble Lord wishes to know something about Welsh history, I will help him".
  I may be biased in making these observations and appearing to be supporting the Liberal Party from the rather stupid and absurd attacks that have been made upon it by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I apologise for using such adjectives on this happy occasion. Like many Welshmen in this place, I may be prejudiced when listening to these arguments and to the Conservative Amendments. My grandfather was thrown out of his farm in Wales because the Conservative landlord found out that he had voted Liberal, but in fact that Conservative landlord did my grandfather and his family quite a lot of good. As a young farmer trying to tear a living out of the land of Carmarthenshire he moved by cart—we have a special type of cart in Wales called a gambo—and the family took their pathetic little belongings from this little farm and crossed the rivers into Cardiganshire. But like all Welshrnen, we never foster or remember grievances and my grandfather said," This Conservative landlord did me a good turn because the farm which I was able to get in Cardiganshire was far better land than I was messing about with in Carmarthenshire."
  Well, ladies and gentlemen—
  A noble Lord: The Election campaign has started!
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I suppose it was inevitable that I should address your Lordships in the way that no doubt I shall be addressing countless hundreds of people who will come to listen to the Liberal speakers who will be going round the Welsh countryside and even the English countryside; but nevertheless I apologise for referring to noble Lords in those terms, so rashly and indiscreetly.
  I should like to thank those noble Lords on both sides of this House (if I may be serious for a moment) who have helped to attach to this Bill the important concept of elections using a form of proportional representation. There was a large majority in favour of proportional representation, and I should like to make a special plea from your Lordships' House to those in the other place who will soon be considering your Lordships' Amendments to this Bill. I ask them to consider carefully the special position of Wales and the Welsh Assembly in relation to the proposals to introduce PR in the context of a Welsh Assembly.
  The Welsh Assembly is totally different from the proposed Assembly in Scotland and, of course, from the Parliament of Westminster. And it is essential to distinguish sharply the differences between the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. The Wales Bill can only deal with a limited number of Welsh domestic matters in a limited way. Indeed, if I may return to the words of one of the most eminent Welshmen of this century, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in the early stages of the debate on this Bill he said—and I quote his exact words—"This rather modest Bill …". If I may therefore presume to paraphrase, without distorting the meaning of other elegant passages in his speech, he pointed out that this Bill produced no major upheaval; there was no cause for alarm, suspicion or fear—or even for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I beg your Lordships' pardon—that was not included in the noble and learned Lord's speech. The Bill preserved the unity of the United Kingdom and ensured that special heed would in future be paid to the welfare of the people of Wales by the first elected Assembly Wales has ever had.
  My Lords, my speech has become somewhat confused as a result of the hwyl, but

  1751
  there is one merit that this Bill has above all others, in spite of its imperfections. It gives the people of Wales the greatest opportunity they have had for centuries of having an elected body to speak for them. Of course, there will be difficulties to be overcome in making a constitutional change of this kind, but it is far better for Wales that this Bill be passed than not to have a Bill at all. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, I should like to urge upon your Lordships that it is the elected representatives of the Welsh Assembly rather than the Ministers of the Crown at Westminster who best know the needs of the people of Wales in those domestic fields which this Bill covers. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
  5.47 p.m.
  Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, the occasion of the passing of this Bill is one on which in your Lordships' House, with all the civilities and the wit than can mark your Lordships' highly civilised debates, it is fitting to pause just for a moment to consider what we are doing and what we have done in the recent stages of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, complimented me very much by referring to something that I had previously said. I still think it was right that we should regard this measure as indeed a modest one, with very limited and restricted application.
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has reminded us—and I think he did us a great service in so doing—that the Welsh Assembly will not possess any legislative powers in any real sense of the term. In Wales we have had a Welsh Office only in the last few years, I think since 1964. Only in the last few years have we had a Secretary of State. At first the Minister of State looking after the affairs of Wales was generally the Home Secretary—and the Home Secretaries, as I have acknowledged before, contributed materially to the well-being of Wales. I am thinking particularly of the late Lord Kilmuir, and of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. They rendered invaluable service.
  But the machinery of government in recent years has become ever more complicated and far-reaching. In recent years
  1752
  there has been a process of administrative devolution and under this Bill decision-making, instead of piling up on the desk of the Secretary of State, can be brought closer to the people most affected by the decisions.
  On a Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House your Lordships can give general expressions of opinion as to whether a Bill is to be commended or not. Of course, we did not have a vote in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading, but we heard the speeches of many noble Lords. Some were in favour of the Bill; some were against it, but felt that as it had received the approbation of another place, the elected Chamber in our Constitution, the Bill ought not to be opposed, but as much as possible should be done to improve its content. But I did note that many noble Lords expressed the view that the measure might endanger the unity of the United Kingdom. I am sure it was absolutely right for noble Lords who felt that to give expression to that view. It is something that your Lordships have to have in mind. I can only express my own personal view, which is that the fears expressed by those noble Lords are groundless. I am sure that the over whelming mass of the Welsh people would not wish to loosen the ties which hind us together within and for the great benefit of the United Kingdom and of its constituent parts.
  Since Second Reading we have had Committee stage and Report stage, and I am left with two major impressions. The first is of great admiration for those who over months and years must have been concerned in drafting this Bill. It was a mammoth task going through the Statute Book and deciding what to put in the Bill. The other impression with which I am left is of the great skill shown in your Lordships' House, on the one side by the Ministers of the Crown and on the other side by very many noble Lords who spent a great deal of labour, who devoted their skill to examining the interstices of legislation and then bringing forth proposals for your Lordships' consideration. I have intense admiration for those on both sides of the House. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as he has been leading for the Opposition side, and many other noble Lords, deserve your Lordships' gratitude for what they have done. In the nature of things, it was not possible

  1753
  for most of us to go into the particular detail that was involved in almost every one of the Amendments. There were some Amendments which concerned the question as to whether the newly created Assembly should be left to decide various questions which an Assembly might be expected itself to decide, or whether they should be mostly settled in advance.
  At first some of your Lordships thought that from the Opposition side a certain mistrust of the Welsh people was being shown. But, happily, that can now go out of our consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, most definitely and most generously has assured us that there is in no sense any mistrust of those who are likely to be Members of the Welsh Assembly. Of course, I accept all that the noble Lord has said, and all your Lordships will also do so. But we did have a good many excursions into the Division Lobby. I wondered once or twice why, but I think the explanation must have been that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had concern for our health and thought that from time to time we ought to wander into the Division Lobbies and so have a little exercise.
  The noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the Second Reading expressed himself, I think, quite firmly in favour of the principle of this Bill. May I remind your Lordships of what he said:
  "The avowed aim of this Bill is to bring control of the Government of Wales more closely into the hands of the Welsh nation, and in this we have no quarrel with the Government whatever. We are absolutely at one with them. We believe in a louder and more effective Welsh voice in deciding how Wales should be run".—[Official Report, 23/5/78; col. 840.]
  They are very splendid words, and I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for expressing himself so clearly. He went on in his speech to pay tribute to the distinct and separate nation with a distinct, separate, proud and very long national tradition. But then at the end of his speech he said:
  "This Bill creates an Assembly ill-suited to express the aspirations, or direct the affairs"
  of what he called
  "a proud, loyal and talented nation".—[col. 846.]
  I was sorry that the noble Lord rather slipped away at the end of his speech from the great sentiment which I am sure he meant to express in favour of the principle of this Bill.
  1754
  As I sit down, may I repeat that I for my part have no fear that the unity of the United Kingdom will be in any way imperilled if this Bill becomes an Act and if later the Welsh people decide that they would like to put it into operation. I have spoken as a Welshman and one who is very proud to acknowledge that he is a Welshman. But I have never found, and never will, that my concern for the honour and dignity of Wales, and the preservation of her traditions and separate culture, forms any bar, any let or hindrance, to my unqualified admiration of the sterling qualities of the English, the Scots and the Irish. Many of our problems are the same problems. My Lords, let nothing be said and let nothing be done which will disturb the mutual understanding upon which the unity of the United Kingdom so firmly rests and from which so many benefits flow for all our people.
  5.58 p.m.
  Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, will not be surprised that I do not agree with him. I should like to say a very great deal more about this Bill; I should like to make several more Second Reading speeches on the subject. In one sense, I think I could say that I have welcomed both this Bill and the Scotland Bill, but only because they have made us think and talk about the rise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism and ponder why it has manifested itself. It is a great pity, I believe, that it has taken a whole Royal Commission and two Bills to make us even start to talk about it, and I do not believe that, even if this Bill is defeated on the referendum, it will be nearly the last that we will hear of Welsh nationalism or the last talk there will be of devolution. It still happens that there are people whom I meet and talk to about Welsh nationalism who act as though they feel they ought to make some obeisance to it, but at the same time rather wish that it was not there, although they cannot say why. It seems to me that there is something of this uncertain approach in the very use of the word "devolution".
  The Government having been persuaded that it was desirable to provide national Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, someone looked around for a rationalisation for what was happening: "Devolution", that is what we shall call it; we

  1755
  know that everyone is in favour of that". Indeed, supporters of these proposals have got a lot of mileage out of that word. But when one examines the proposals—I am not saying that in the circumstances the Government could have done much better than they have—one can see that they do not provide what most people mean by "devolution". I agree that one might fairly claim with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that the Bill would bring Government closer to the people. However, whether that is desirable depends on what kind of government is being brought closer. The Bill sets up a body which would be so placed that it could and would practice the maximum interference and hindrance to local authorities. As local authorities are already complaining that the central Government—far away though it is supposed to be—interferes too much already anyway, one must say that the Bill would bring the wrong kind of Government closer and that its effect would be anti-devolutionary.
  I have noticed that the London Welsh have been fairly vocal in support of the Bill—and the Guidford Welsh too! They are being sentimental and for that I forgive them—I think. I had a noble friend, who is now dead, but who 10 years ago brought a Bill to set up some kind of Welsh Parliament. I used to pull his leg because although he was so ardent about it all, he lived contentedly in W.8. I would not mind expatriates who indulge in flights of fancy, except that some people who are not familiar with Wales might believe them.
  I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on the first day of the Committee stage refer to Wales as "a little community". I think that he must have been tutoring a nice lady who came to stay with us the other day from Oxford—90 miles distant—who declared that she was so looking forward to coming to Wales as she had always wanted to go to Portmeirion. It was with difficulty that I persuaded her that it would be as near for her to go to London; that actually it would be quicker for her to go to Penzance; and, when all was said and done, did she realise that Cardff is as close to Wrexham as Bath is to Bedford?
  1756
  Wales may be many things but it is not a little community. There is a multiplicity of communities stretched miles from each other divided by hills and rivers. They have different cultures and traditions and different social and economic foci often outside the Border itself. Neither is Wales a locality any more than one could say, for instance, that Gloucester and Chester can, by any stretch of the imagination be called local to each other.
  Now, if one were to look around for any one thing upon which the inhabitants of Wales were agreed, it is that North and South do not agree on much. Indeed, the disparity between them is a kind of standing joke. I think that the inhabitants of North and South Wales are trying to tell us something if only we had ears to hear; that is, that North and South have, in reality, little community of interest. They are trying to tell us that the reality of their separation is different from the myth of their unity. So there is a second reason why the Bill would be counter-devolutionary in practice. Not only would power be taken away from the local authorities which, after all, are the government which is nearest to the people, but behind the Bill is the idea that communities which in history and by tradition and by the plain facts of distance and topography are apart in culture and outlook, should be pulled together into an artificial whole.
  We are being asked to accept either what I would call the "London Welsh concept"—that is, that this disparate land is already one community which needs this Bill to give political expression to a unity which already exists—or we are being asked to accept the nationalist concept that the Bill is necessary to bring unity to people who in theory ought to be unified. Perhaps we are being asked to accept both, I do not know; but those two hypotheses exist uneasily side by side. They are mutually contradictory; they are equally mistaken, and both, if put into practice through the Bill, would have the effect of reducing local autonomy.
  The first theory that Wales is a unified country does not conform to the facts and the second—if I hunt around for something nice to say about it—does not belong to true politics but to the realm of romantic antiquarianism. Of all the

  1757
  curious and irrelevant things upon which to base a political creed, the nationalist case is, I think, the most wonderful. They take a fictitious line on a map—that is how my noble friend Lord Energlyn so aptly described it—which was marked out by some 16th century administrators. They populate one side of the area with medieval heroes. They call the people on one side of it a different race and declare that history intended that land to be a self-governing nation. If this nationalism were just romance, perhaps it would not matter. But, unfortunately, we must not forget that this nationalism does not differ in essence or in sentiment from the beliefs which have caused the most terrible wars during the last century or more, during the time in which this creed has been fashionable. It turns brother against brother. It breeds hatred and venom, and it encourages intolerance of those who would live and let live.
  We should not be led astray by the word "devolution" when used in association with the Bill. Whatever my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor avows is the purpose of the Bill, its effect would not be to increase but to decrease local control of affairs and to strengthen Welsh nationalism and we would all suffer a great deal of harm if it ever became law.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (NO. 5) (JOINT EUROPEAN TORUS) ORDER 1978
  6.9 p.m.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 5) (Joint European Torus) Order 1978 be approved; and in dealing with it I will also speak to the draft European Communities (Privileges of the Joint European Torus) Order 1978. Both were laid before this House on 3rd July 1978.
  The Schedule to the (No. 5) Order specifies the Exchange of Letters dated 3rd May 1978, constituting an agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the European Atomic Energy Community regarding privileges to be granted to the
  1758
  Joint European Torus, which I shall hereafter refer to as JET. The Schedule to the European Communities (Privileges of the Joint European Torus) Order 1978 specifies the privileges which are to be granted to JET.
  If the House approves the orders, the (No. 5) Order will formally define the Exchange of Letters between the Government and the Commission as a Community Treaty under Section 1 of the European Communities Act. In the Exchange of Letters, the Government undertook to grant certain privileges to JET. In addition, the Council Decision of 30th May established an obligation to confer privileges on JET. The European Communities (Privileges for the Joint European Torus) Order 1978, if approved by the House, would implement the Government's undertaking and give effect to the obligation incurred by the Council Decision.
  Implementing Orders—in this case the European Communities (Privileges of the Joint European Torus) Order 1978—are usually subjected to the Negative Resolution procedure. However, the Government have elected to subject the Privileges Order to the Affirmative procedure. In the present case, it seemed to the Government that it would be for the better convenience of the House to take these two orders together and to subject them to the Affirmative procedure. This will ensure that both orders can be made with the least possible delay because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the House know, JET was formally established on 1st June this year, and the Government should be in a position to fulfil what is now an obligation, and to do so at the earliest possible moment.
  The House will know that JET is the first European Community body to be located in the United Kingdom. Your Lordships may recall the debate on 18th May 1976 when this House gave support to the Government in their efforts to secure JET on British soil. It was most gratifying that the Council of Ministers decided on 25th October 1977 that JET should be located at Culham in Oxfordshire. I should like to pay tribute not only to the excellence of the case as presented by the United Kingdom for the location of this important joint undertaking in the United Kingdom, but also to

  1759
  the objectivity of our partners, more than one of whom had very strong claims to locate this important undertaking in their own countries but who nevertheless saw the force of the British claim and loyally joined us and the other Members of the Community in deciding that it should, in fact, come to Britain, to Culham in Oxfordshire.
  The Community's thermo-nuclear fusion programme is an exciting and long-tern effort of which JET is the most important single project. JET will be a large experimental fusion machine aimed at the production of energy through the magnetic confinement of high-temperature plasma. If the noble Baroness invites me to explain that, I must respectfully decline.
  Scientists are generally agreed that this type of experiment offers the best route to potential fusion power. If JET is successful, scientists think that it is likely to make a significant contribution to the generation of electricity in the next century. The construction and experimental stages of JET will last 15 years and it is estimated that eventually about 320 staff, some half of whom will be foreign, will be employed on it. Another way to put it is that quite half of them, although this is a nine-country project, will be British. During the five-year construction phase, some £120 million (at 1977 prices) will be spent by the Community—I repeat, by the Community—on the project. The Community has been joined in this project by two non-Community countries—Sweden and Switzerland—which are associated with JET.
  I should perhaps explain here that JET is a special kind of Community body. It is a joint undertaking established by the Council of Ministers under Chapter V of the Euratom Treaty. Legally it is distinct from the Community: it has a separate legal personality of its own. As with many other international bodies, it needs certain privileges in order to operate effectively. Chapter V of the Euratom Treaty provides that certain privileges set out in Annex III may be conferred on joint undertakings: the Council of Ministers' decision of 30th May 1978 applies certain of those privileges to JET. In addition, the special circumstances of JET called for some additional privileges; these are set out in the Exchange of Letters of 3rd May 1978 between the
  1760
  European Atomic Energy Community and the United Kingdom Government. The draft Privileges Order now before your Lordships gives effect, so far as necessary, to the privileges for JET which come from these two sources.
  I mentioned that JET has a separate legal personality. This is normally expressed in Orders in Council conferring privileges and immunities on international organisations. It is not dealt with in the Privileges Order because we take the view that the second sentence of Article 49 of the Euratom Treaty is directly applicable. We may be asked, why we do not regard the Annex III privileges as directly applicable. It is because they are provided! under Article 48, which says that each Member State:
  "shall for its part ensure that these advantages are conferred".
  In view of this express requirement for Member State action, it would not be safe to treat the Annex III privileges as directly applicable.
  The privileges accorded to JET have been strictly tailored to the requirements of the joint undertaking and are similar to those granted to joint undertakings set up in other Community countries. The privileges agreed are also similar to those granted to international organisations in the United Kingdom by orders made under the international Organisations Act 1968. JET will not, however, enjoy the immunities accorded to international organisations, such as inviolability of premises or immunity from legal proceedings.
  The privileges to be conferred upon JET include exemptions from customs duties and taxes on the importation of goods; relief from the non-beneficial element of municipal rates; relief from value added tax, car tax and other taxes payable on motor cars of British manufacture purchased for official use of the joint undertaking in the United Kingdom; and relief from duty and taxes on the purchase of hydrocarbon oils used in the exercise of the official activities of the joint undertaking in this country. The present Draft Orders are necessary to enable Her Majesty's Government to give effect to those privileges. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No 5)

  1761
  (Joint European Torus) Order 1978, laid before the House on 3rd July, be approved; and
  That the draft European Communities (Privileges of the Joint European Torus) Order 1978, laid before the House on 3rd July, he approved.—(Lord Goronwy Roberts.)
  6.9 p.m.
  The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, first, may I say that I am sure that we on this side of the House welcome the Government's decision to proceed with the Affirmative procedure. This is a subject which, after the Welsh oratory that we have had this afternoon, gives me the opportunity to tell a new story about the English, the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots. It is said that the English like salvation because they can debate it; the Welsh like salvation because they can sing about it; the Irish like salvation because they can fight about it and the Scots like salvation because it is free.
  The location of a Joint-European Torus at Culham might look at first sight like a free gift, but of course it is nothing of the sort. One would be churlish not to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their strenuous struggle to persuade our European partners that this very important laboratory should be sited in the United Kingdom. The case always was—and it was expressed by the Scrutiny Committee on European Affairs two years ago—that the best place to site this laboratory was where there was, and would continue to be, a body of expertise in plasma physics.
  It will be within the recollection of those Members of your Lordships' House who took an interest in this matter during the crucial struggles 18 months ago that there were alternative sites canvassed for this important laboratory. They included Ispra in Italy, Ganching in Germany, and Cabarache in France. What is quite certain is that the Government pressed hard and persistently to win for Britain what is the first major Community establishment in this country, and it is a great credit to the Government that they were able to pull it off.
  It is also only fair to say that in the Government's endeavours they were
  1762
  mightily supported and assisted by the adept, tireless, resourceful and always good humoured diplomacy of Commissioner Guido Brunner. My noble friend Lord Bessborough was unable to remain for this debate, but he asked me to mention what he would have mentioned himself, that he, as a member of the European Assembly who has been closely in touch with Dr. Brunner over the last four years, would like to couple his name with those of any other noble Lords who take this opportunity in the House of Lords of expressing our thanks to the tireless and most resourceful diplomacy of Dr. Brunner in working to get an arrangement that would bring the laboratory to Britain, and particularly to Culham.
  It is also greatly to the credit of our partners and, in a sense, of our competitors in the Community, French, Italian, and Germany in particular, and Dutch and Belgian likewise, that they have, now that the dust has settled, readily recognised the strong British claim, on grounds of expertise in plasma physics, for having the laboratory over here. It is also important to put in laymen's language the phraseology that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, gave us just now. I am notorious in Sub-Committee F of the European Scrutiny Committee for always using layman's language and never bringing more than a layman's comprehension to the erudite debates of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, opposite, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and other noble Lords who sit on our Committee and exchange ideas and information on scientific subjects way above my head.
  But, as a lay chairman, I am accustomed to trying to pick up what they say and turn it into ordinary, plain, vulgar journalese. If I were asked to say what was this thing at Culham all about, I would say that it is an endeavour to reproduce the physics of a sunspot on this planet. Since a sunspot is a very hot thing indeed, and one would be unwise to try to touch it, the problem is how to enclose it when any metals, or even rocks, that might be brought near to it would rapidly melt. The device that the scientists have discovered is what I would choose to call a coil; a coiled and circular magnetic field which provides the walls within which the experiments are conducted at very great heats. I think it is something like 100 million degrees, and these heats have been

  1763
  attained for as long as one-hundredth of a second hitherto. One of the hopes of this laboratory is to be able to attain them and maintain them for as long as a second. Should all this prove successful, this is but one stage in a long journey on the road to developing power by fusion.
  If the present position in atomic energy is compared with the position in, I think, 1940 when the first fission pile went critical in Chicago, that is about the distance that we are now from fusion, if it ever works. It is a distance of about 45 or 50 years. However, whether or not it will ever work—and nobody knows this yet—one thing is already of great significance: the fact that the European Community has decided to set up this laboratory has put the Community within the top league where energy research is concerned.
  We heard over in Brussels only the other day that, through the medium of the International Energy Agency in Vienna, the Russians have made known to Japan, the Community and the United States that they will be very happy to collaborate in the next stage. They have recognised that the Community, as such, is in the big league, comparable to Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union. This, as a piece of achievement for the standing of the European Community, is something which is difficult to exaggerate.
  Having said those things, it would be a pity to miss this opportunity to say one or two further words about the conduct of our policies in the Community in the energy field, Of course, all sorts of questions arise, and in what I am going to say I am not—repeat not—attempting at this moment to criticise or attack the Government's energy policy in the Community but to draw attention to one or two things which one has come across and which are germane to the whole story of the way we got the JET site to Culham.
  Quite recently, the United Kingdom delegation in the Atomic Questions Group of the Council has created something not far from a blockage in discussion of Commission proposals on the fast reactor option, on reprocessing policy and on the handling of nuclear waste. Likewise, there has been from the British side a severe blockage on proposals to limit and cut back refinery capacity, when there is over-capacity in the world at large.
  1764
  Although the reasons for the British stance are quite easy to understand—Britain would like to export white products from North Sea crude, and to get North Sea crude refined in this country—nonetheless, whether that policy is wise or not, there has been some raising of eyebrows in Brussels about it.
  I am not at this moment attempting to make any kind of capital out of the policy that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing, but I believe that it is proper, in an area so critical to the future of Western Europe as a whole, and to the Community in particular, and certainly to ourselves in the area of energy policy, that there is a great need to follow the principle of Lord Chesterfield in his letters to his son, "Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re", or, if you prefer, if there is to be an iron fist, let it be within a velvet glove.
  I believe that we have in our handling of matters in. Brussels caused needless annoyance. If one is differing from one's partners—if one is differing from the Commission and doing so consistently and frequently—all the more reason to handle them with the utmost diplomacy and care. Here, of course, there is not the vestige of a complaint about the work of our permanent representation in Brussels, headed by my kinsman, Sir Donald Maitland, who I am glad to say supports the Clan Maitland tartan and has in his front hall the emblem of our clan. There is not the smallest adverse comment about his distinguished work. Indeed, everything one hears in Brussels is full of praise for him as the head of our representation and for his staff, who have won great respect for hard and assiduous work and for their great tact in handling matters that may not always he easy to handle.
  However, there have been complaints in certain quarters about the personal stance that one or two of our Ministers have taken. I wonder whether the word could be gently passed on to the Secretary of State for Energy, whose ability and agility any politician must admire, and even envy, that if he were perhaps one day to pay a personal courtesy call on the Commission, with whose proposals he has tangled so often, he might dissolve anxieties and apprehensions that have no reason whatever to be there.

  1765
  Having said that—and it is the most I want to say—I return to give a sincere word of congratulation to the Government for achieving this very important result for enabling the United Kingdom to play a part in an important and critical scientific work which enhances the status of the Community in the world and puts the Community in the top league. For that we cannot thank the Government enough, and in thanking them I suggest that we metaphorically raise our glasses to Commissioner Brunner and all his skill, attention and friendship for this country. With those comments, I wish these orders godspeed.
  6.33 p.m.
  Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I had the privilege of being in Brussels with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and had the delight of being entertained by his kinsman. As a Welshman, I do not expect to find a Scot sitting in every Embassy in the world; he probably will be there, but a Welshman will almost certainly not be sitting there. Nevertheless, it was a most enjoyable occasion.
  I wish to make a few observations about the proposal which is before the House. Perhaps it would be simpler if we had used more popular language and instead of talking about the Joint European Torus we talked about the doughnut. It is a magnetic doughnut, literally something like a doughnut; that is what is happening at Culham. We are delighted it is being done there, but it is important to remember certain things about it. First, it is a joint European effort and if it were not such an effort it would not be carried on at all. For this country it would be too expensive; it would absorb far too much of our national resources, and therefore it is important to realise that it is being done not simply for the aggrandisement of this country but to produce energy throughout Europe.
  Secondly, the method being employed was developed essentially in the Soviet Union. Let us remember that in these scientific matters, worldwide co-operation is important. If we had not had—and I assure the House we did have—the closest association with the scientists of the Soviet Union, we should not be where we are today. So do not let us put this
  1766
  either in national or ideological terms; let us remember that this is an attempt to do something worldwide.
  To take the matter further—I wish to question my noble friend about this—a similar project is going on in the United States. The one here at Culham is, I think, on a slightly bigger scale, but because the American resources are much greater than the resources of Europe as a whole, they not only have this Torus or doughnut magnetic containment project; they also have a project for laser implosion. It is a fascinating idea. They have an intense laser beam and to produce that beam they need the energy of a complete generating station as big as any we have. The beam is concentrated into a very narrow line and is focussed on certain particles which drop down. They are minute glass pellets containing hydrogen and they implode in the beam. The Americans believe—at least those working on the project believe; being a scientist myself, I appreciate we are always optimistic—that within a short time (they think within 10 years) they will reach the point of being able to produce in that way energy by fusion which will rival the method we are trying to use.
  My question is this: how close is the association now between the Joint European Torus project, the Russian project—and for Heaven's sake do not let us ignore the Russians; they are extremely competent scientists, as I know—and the American project? Unless we have the closest co-operation between those three bodies I do not believe the world will get proper advantage from all the work that is being done. And remember, too, that this work is not being done simply for we in this country, for the European Community or indeed for the whole of the Western World. It is work which must be done for the world as a whole.
  If one thinks about it, the future for energy in the world will depend, first, on the possibility of this fusion work: but there is other work. We think it will work, but we do not yet know how successful it will be. Secondly, we have the utilisation of solar energy, and despite all that people say, we are not yet certain how far we can go in the full utilisation of solar energy. Thirdly, we have the utilisation of such things as wave energy. There we have the forms of energy for the future, and this order which has been

  1767
  presented to us today is something of immense importance and significance. It is one of the three legs on which the future of energy is going to depend and if only we get that right it will be absolutely invaluable.
  Therefore, I do say that this matter we have had put before us tonight is not a trivial one; it is something absolutely essential to our future. What has been done so far is good, but what I should like to be assured of by my noble friend is that the association with the Soviet Union and with America shall be on the proper basis, so that we are guaranteed that we reach what all of us know must be done to protect the future of mankind.
  6.41 p.m.
  Baroness ELLES: My Lords, it has been a most useful short debate. We have had not only the benefit of hearing the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, introducing the orders to your Lordships' House and explaining the technical matters involved, but also two most interesting and valuable contributions from my noble friend Lord Lauderdale and a very distinguished scientist, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. Both emphasised the fact that this is a joint European effort. That is what has come out of the speeches and has been a most valuable contribution to the acceptance of these orders tonight.
  I shall say just one rather churlish word, I must confess, in that we regret the two years' delay that it took to get JET on to these shores. I have no doubt at all that it was a question of persuasion by the British Government, mitigated somewhat by distrust of the true European intentions of some individual Members of the present Government, and that is to be regretted. We can only say thankfully that in the end the Member States acted in concert to enable the first European institution in our country to be the major contribution to science that it is obviously going to be.
  It is an immensely important scientific project, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in particular, has pointed out, not only to the future well-being of the United Kingdom but even of world benefit. I understand that similar projects have already been started and have been going on in the Soviet Union, in particular, and
  1768
  in the United States and we can only hope that the delay in setting up JET at Culham will not have put us behind in the development of this great, high technological experiment.
  I understand also from the Council decision of 30th May—and perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would confirm this—that not only has a decision on the idea of Culham being set up as a centre for JET been passed and accepted, but already a financial contribution has been made from the Community of the sum of something like £68 million in order to get on with the first stage of the project That is to be welcomed. This is not something which has been held back by bureaucratic red tape hut is something that all the Members of the Community believe in and want to see started and set on its way.
  It is also appropriate to mention in this short debate (if I may call it that) the very valuable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, in enabling this project to be sited here. The technological analysis made by the Commission at the time showed certain deficiencies in the United Kingdom compared with other possible centres based on social grounds, I understand, rather than economic or technical grounds or on the scientific ability of our scientists at Culham. I understand also that it was the persuasion and the technological analysis made by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, that contributed very largely to persuading the Commission that Culham was capable of undertaking this very major scientific work, not only on behalf of Britain but also on behalf of the other Member States of the Community. So, we are delighted and we congratulate the Government that this JET is now here.
  But there is one slight shadow cast on this sun which worries us, and that is the question of the European school. I apologise that I have not given notice to the noble Lord the Minister on this particular matter, but hopefully he will be able to answer one or two queries which have arisen because of something that appeared in the Press over the weekend. It may be mis-information, I do not know, and I have not been able to verify it, but perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough, if he is able to do so, to verify

  1769
  this matter tonight. As noble Lords know, where there is a European institution—and, as the noble Lord has said, there will be about 160 nationals from other Member States working at Culham—provision has to be made for the schooling of the children of the members working in the European institution. So, a European school is to be set up, attached to Culham, to which the children of the people working at Culham will be able to go, and, presumably, children from neighbouring centres round about, in order to fill up the places available.
  The difficulty arises over the question of the salaries of the teachers. Normally in the other European schools there is a national salary, which is usually agreed, and income tax is paid at the national rate on the national element of the salary. But, because of its very special nature, there is what is called a "European topping up" of the salary, on which at the other European schools no tax is paid. It is free of tax. The Press report indicated that the United Kingdom Government was pressing for United Kingdom income tax to be paid on the total salary of teachers—whether it is only on teachers who have English nationality I do not know. Perhaps that is something else the Minister can tell us about, if this report is in fact correct.
  Clearly, there should be no discrimination whatsoever for teachers who are working in an institution. If teachers are being employed by the European school in order to serve the European Community and the families who live in the European Community, many of whom come over to Culham from other States to work in Britain, those teachers should not be discriminated against. They should have precisely the same treatment as teachers in other European schools throughout the Community. It would be very undesirable if, because of one's nationality, one should be discriminated against and that because one happens to he British one should have to pay tax on a European element whereas a teacher in the classroom next door who happens to he Belgian, Dutch, or whatever nationality it might be, would not be paying it. It would probably be against the Race Relations Act, although I am not certain about that. Nevertheless, it would not be a principle
  1770
  to be followed advisedly by any Government. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reply on that minor point, although I completely accept that he may not be able to do so tonight as, regrettably, I did not give him notice of this particular question.
  In conclusion, my Lords, we on this side of the House warmly support this order, and hope that the trust that the other Member States have placed in Britain and in its capacity to work on a joint European effort—not only for the benefit of Europeans but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne Jones, has said, for the benefit of mankind—will not fail.
  6.50 p.m.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have had a short, but very, constructive debate, and I welcome very much the positive spirit in which your Lordships have approached the establishment of this, the first Community body to be sited in this country. Before turning to the questions raised during the debate. I wish to express my appreciation of the graceful tribute which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, paid to the efforts of Ministers to secure this important laboratory for the United Kingdom. I was myself personally grateful for the powerful support of this House when we were making our moves in this direction. I am very glad to join him once more in appreciation of the attitudes of the Commission and of the Commissioner, Commissioner Brunner, and indeed, of Member States, who were themselves keen candidates for this joint venture. I also wish to join the noble Baroness in paying special praise to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, for his contribution, especially on the technological level, in the attempt to secure this important centre for Britain.
  We heard from my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones a fascinating speech, based on expertise and on the capacity to make scientific and technological matters clear to laymen. After all, he is not only a distinguished scientist; he is also a very eminent professor and teacher, and his experience in that field came to his aid today, as it often does. He reminded us that this is no nationalistic, nor indeed exclusively regional, matter. It is of world-wide importance, and he stressed the need for world-wide co-operation in

  1771
  these questions. He asked how close is the association between the Community and the Russian and the American scientific worlds, and I am very glad to assure him that there is frequent contact between United States, Soviet and Community scientists. As the noble Lord noted, the JET machine is in fact derived from a Soviet machine, named TOKAMAK. There has been frequent contact. I have no doubt that it will continue in the future, and that it will not unduly be disturbed by certain legalistic and other preoccupations which now concern us. Whatever happens in various countries, it is important that contact—individual and professional—should continue. It is when contact is broken off that the attempt to link human rights with scientific progress becomes increasingly difficult. So I join with my noble friend in welcoming this co-operation among the three groups of scientists, and I accept very much the phrase he used, that this matter, like everything in science and technology, is "for the world as a whole".
  The noble Baroness complained in a mild and graceful way about what she called a delay of two years in obtaining this project for the United Kingdom. I do not think that she should be too impatient with our friends and allies in the Community. After all, they, too, were candidates for this important centre, and the fact that they went on fighting for two years to have the centre—in France, Italy or Germany—should not lead us in this House to complain. They were quite right to go on fighting for it, and it took quite two years to persuade them, through arguments of technology and otherwise, that Culham in Oxfordshire, in the United Kingdom, was overall the best site for the project. I do not consider that two years was too long to obtain this result.
  As the noble Baroness said, the first stage is in hand. She quoted the financial aspect of the matter, and I think that that is substantially true. She raised the question of a European school and the arrangements for the payment of teachers there. I do not think that I should go into details about this. There are proposals only, and I am advised that Ministers have not yet reached decisions. However, I note very carefully what the noble Baroness said on this matter, and I think that that should be part of the
  1772
  consideration of Ministers as they approach a decision on the question. The school is of great importance. It would be a separate institution from JET itself, but it is essential to Culham, to the new giant undertaking, and certainly to the families who will be working in connection with Culham and who will be sending their children to school.
  In thanking the House once more for the all-Party welcome which has been given to the order, and in assuring the noble Baroness that the points she has made will be borne in mind, I commend both orders to your Lordships' House.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (PRIVILEGES OF THE JOINT EUROPEAN TORUS) ORDER 1978
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft European Communities (Privileges of the Joint European Torus) Order 1978, laid before the House on 3rd July, be approved—(Lord Gorowny-Roberts.)

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.