Lords Sitting of 22 June 1978

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

AIR TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE: STATUS
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 the Airline Users' Committee, now renamed the Air Transport Users' Committee, is recognised as the consumer body covering air travellers and, if so, whether it is the only public service consumer council to which the Government do not propose to give statutory status.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government recognise the Air Transport Users' Committee as the consumer body specifically promoting the interests of all air travellers. There are also individual Airport Consultative Committees which protect the interests of airport users. At present, we have no plans to make the AUC statutory.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, apart from the unfairness, I think that that reply has serious implications and I hope the House will agree with me. Might I ask the Minister whether I am correct in my understanding that, at the moment, the Post Office Users' National Council and the National Gas Consumers' Council, being statutory bodies, have the right to be informed and consulted beforehand by the industries concerned on major consumer plans? Am I also right in understanding that it is the intention of the Government to give statutory standing and similar rights to the National Electricity Consumers', the National Transport Consumers' and the Domestic Coal Consumers' Councils, and that legislation to this effect is to be introduced as soon as possible? Finally,
1376
might I ask the Minister what pressures have been brought to bear to exclude the Airline Users' Committee from this list?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The Airline Users' Committee is the only one that is not likely to have statutory status in the near future. But there are difficulties in giving the AUC statutory rights similar to those that are enjoyed by the nationalised industry consumer councils, since the AUC is in a position to consider the services of all airlines, whether private or nationalised, and not only British Airways.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, might I ask the Minister whether she recalls that I have a communication in writing from the Ministry, which stated that there would be no insuperable difficulties in making the Airline Users' Committee statutory, if the Government really wished to do so?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not know that there would be no insuperable difficulties, but there would be difficulties about it. The Government believe that the consumer councils ought to be seen to be financially independent of the industry, and the position of the AUC is different from the others, because they get their finance from the Civil Aviation Authority. The situation is rather different in the airport industry, because British Airways have their own consumer councils which they consult about changes in services, fares and so on. British Airways also face the possibility of having to defend any proposed changes, including fares variations, before a public inquiry. This is a powerful constraint on them, but there are difficulties, because the Airline Users' Committee has some responsibility for what all the airlines, private or nationalised, do, and not just British Airways. That is where our difficulties lie.
Lord BOYD CARPENTER: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the noble Lord who set up this Committee—modesty forbids more precise definition—gave to the Committee something much more valuable than statutory status, by appointing her noble friend, the noble

1377
Baroness behind her, as a member of that Committee?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that I, and all those who preceded me in my position at this Dispatch Box, welcome the fact that my noble friend is a member and is able to keep the House advised on what is happening.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I must pay a reciprocal compliment to the former chairman of the Airline Users' Committee, who was always most fair in dealing with most recalcitrant members. But may I ask the House whether it does not agree that nobody can equal the Government for putting up reasons for not doing something which they ought to do?

NAMIBIA: PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
3.10 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the progress of negotiations on the future of Namibia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met the Foreign Ministers from the other four Western members of the Security Council in Paris on 14th June to discuss developments, particularly the Front-Line Presidents' meeting in Luanda on 10th and 11th June. We are in touch with all the parties involved and are resolved to resume discussions as soon as possible.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, while accepting that that report contains some welcome progress, may I ask whether my noble friend agrees that it is rather a pity that the South Africans should have chosen next week
1378
to go ahead with their plan for the registration of voters, just as SWAPO was on the point of resuming the talks? Does he feel that going ahead with that registration next week is likely to impede progress? So far as the resumption of talks by SWAPO is concerned, can my noble friend say whether their participation is to seek to renegotiate the terms of the proposed settlement, as has been reported, or to seek clarification of certain points, which would clearly be much more welcome? May I also ask whether those points include, in particular, Walvis Bay and the disposition of forces during the election period, and whether he thinks that progress is likely on those points?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the proposals of the five, as my noble friend knows, state that proper registration of voters will,
"… have to be conducted to the satisfaction of the special representative";
that is the special representative whom we expect will be appointed by the UN Secretary-General when he is authorised to do so by the Security Council. As to the point of clarification with the South-West African Peoples' Organisation, SWAPO, we are most ready to see them for reasons of clarification on any point that gives them concern. We appreciate, of course, that their concern is primarily addressed to the two points that my noble friend has mentioned: the location of the residual forces—some 1,500, as compared with the present presence of, I am told, between 20,000 and 30,000; and also the future of Walvis Bay. Certainly, I do not think that those two points—the question of the location of the residual forces and the future of Walvis Bay—should present insuperable difficulties to a final settlement.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while welcoming the information from the Minister that SWAPO has resumed taking part in these talks, may I ask whether the Minister would confirm that the Government will in no way renege on the final terms which were negotiated between the five Western Powers in the United Nations Security Council and South Africa, whose Government accepted those terms? I should be grateful for this confirmation. I should also like to know whether the Government will seek to implement a

1379
satisfactory solution in the UN Security Council.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, certainly. Regarding the last point, the sooner the Security Council discuss this question, the better we shall be pleased. As to the first two points, SWAPO have indicated that they are willing to resume discussions with the Five. I take it that they are particularly interested in clarification of the two points which we have mentioned this afternoon. There may be others. For our part, we are ready to meet them at any time. The South Africans have accepted the proposals. This is not, so far, the precise position of SWAPO. The South Africans have accepted the proposals, but there are, no doubt, certain reservations—I make no complaint about this—which SWAPO may consider to be deterrents to their own acceptance of the proposals. We hope that the Five can now get together everybody who is concerned in order to continue the discussions, certainly with regard to any points of clarification, and also to discuss practical steps to implement the executive action which is mapped out in the proposal of the Five—a copy of which I believe the noble Baroness already has, although I should be delighted to make my own copy available to her—and which I regard as a most workmanlike paper for a peaceful and expeditious transfer of sovereignty to an independent Namibia.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions? First, does he agree that it will facilitate negotiations if the South African Government desist from any further incursions into Angola against the SWAPO freedom fighters there? Secondly, what is the position of Her Majesty's Government so far as the question of Walvis Bay, an essential outlet for a future Namibia, is concerned?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will know, of course, that we have made very clear our view of the South African raid on Kasinge. Indeed, we voted for the United Nations Resolution which denounced this action. I do not think that it will be repeated. Indeed, with the diminution of the South African military presence in South-West Africa—Namibia—the residual force
1380
will hardly be in a position, either locationally or in view of their strength, to repeat this piece of adventurism. Equally, I expect that the South African leaders will have learned the lesson that this kind of action is not to the advantage of anybody, least of all to the South African Republic. As to the second point that my noble friend made, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to repeat it for me.
Several noble Lords: Walvis Bay!
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend tell the House what is the position of Her Majesty's Government regarding Walvis Bay as a future outlet for an independent Namibia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, and in part to the rest of the House, for making it possible for me to be reminded. The fact is that occasionally one's handwriting runs ahead of one's mind. We take the view that Walvis Bay is part of Namibia. No doubt a declaration by all concerned in that sense would be very helpful. In any case, we think that SWAPO could, with advantage, accept the proposals of the Five and hand over the question of Walvis Bay to negotiation between an independent Namibia and South Africa after independence. I can see no contingency in the future in which Walvis Bay will not indeed be part of Namibia. This is inevitable. It is equitable. Let us do it in a way which enables the South Africans to co-operate with Namibia in a peaceful, orderly and productive transition of sovereignty.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the last question which the noble Lord answered, instead of warning the South African Government against their security forces' incursions into Angola, would it not, in his judgment, be more effective if the Government, in negotiations with SWAPO, backed by Russia—although SWAPO have already said that they do not want to join in any discussions—were to use their influence to discourage the guerrillas from Angola proceeding into South-West Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we do everything that we can

1381
to discourage guerrillas, whether official or unofficial, whether governmentally promoted or otherwise supported. As to the future of Namibia, we aim at an independent Namibia that is independent of all external influences, except proper ones. As I once said, the way to preserve Africa from going red is to remember that it is black.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that those of us who sought to influence SWAPO to resume these discussions are delighted by the announcenent that he made? Is he also aware that his statement on Walvis Bay is likely to make an agreement much easier to reach?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Walvis Bay was in fact a part of the League of Nations mandate? Was it part of German South-West Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that it has always been a peculiar enclave. I could not, off the cuff, answer the legalistic point put to me by the noble Lord. Perhaps others may be able to do so. However, I should prefer to do so in my own way if the noble Lord would put the question separately to me.

DESALINATION PLANT: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORTS
3.22 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: 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 technical and financial support continues to be given for development of desalination plants and whether figures can be given of the value of desalination plant exports from the United Kingdom for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, technical support for development of desalination plants has been provided in the past through Government funded R & D programmes, mainly with the
1382
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. There are no such programmes in progress at the moment, the last having been completed very recently. Desalination plant development nevertheless continues to be eligible for technical and financial support through the various schemes operated by the Department of Industry. Unfortunately, it is not possible to give the value of UK desalination plant exports, as these are not separately identified in the overseas trade statistics.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, would he not agree that it is rather disappointing that we seem to have come to a standstill as regards Government support for what I believe other Members of your Lordships' House will agree is one of the great new developments of recent years which can be of enormous industrial use to this country, and of enormous value to the parched deserts of the Third World?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's view of the importance of this operation and new development. It seems that the relationship at the moment between Government-supported research and development and the input from private industry is not in as good balance as it might be. However, the facilities for Government support are there and can still be called on.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, whilst agreeing very much with the remarks of the noble Lord in relation to the tremendous importance of the development of desalination, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are keeping in constant contact with other Governments, and in particular with Israel which is investigating this problem and is to a very considerable extent proceeding towards a possible solution of the whole desalination question? In those circumstances does he not consider that we should spend more than we are spending at present on research, in combination with other countries as well as on our own account?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can only speak today on the activities of Her Majesty's Government within this country. The point made by my noble friend is, of course, of great interest.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, in view of the importance of this subject, will the noble Lord see that the figures are kept separate in future? Can it be that our lagging in this field has something to do with the fact that we have been lagging in the field of nuclear exports?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, we are in advance in the nuclear field.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will see whether it is possible to get a specific number related to desalination plants, which is a growing major industry. I think that there is no question of lagging. There is no relationship between our activities in the nuclear field and those in respect of desalination.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, with regard to the question by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would it not be right to say that the British firm that is prominent in this industry is probably the most prominent in the whole world in its progress in new methods of desalination?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, yes, our record is good. We have done well. However, as the noble Lord feels, we could do better.

SOVIET SHIPPING: UNFAIR COMPETITION
3.26 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 report on the meeting of the appropriate European Community Members and what action was proposed with regard to the difficulties of dealing with unfair competition by Soviet shipping with British merchant shipping.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Transport Ministers Council agreed at its meeting on 12th June to adopt a decision enabling the Community to monitor the activities of the fleets of countries whose practices threaten EEC shipping. There is also provision for the
1384
possible subsequent use of concerted counter-measures. The question of applying the monitoring system to State-trading countries, including the Soviet Union, and to flag-of-convenience fleets, will be studied further with a view to a decision at the next Transport Council in November.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether, as a member of our country, he will take every possible step to help those who are really interested in the unfair competition between the Soviet Union and ourselves, and to get moving before our shipping is almost swept off the oceans of the world? This is the problem. Will the Minister act always with the greatest possible care to protect our shipping?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, since the noble Baroness started questioning me on this matter the present Government have made substantial progress. This is a serious matter. The noble Baroness has been very pertinacious in following up the interests of the British shipping industry. I congratulate her on that. The fact that we are getting to the point where the European Community is acting in concert on this matter is of great importance. One of the problems that we face is not that we disagree with our colleagues, but that one of the member countries feels that flags of convenience must also be included in any study and monitoring of action that we must take.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the appropriate EEC Commission has made inquiries about wages and conditions on these Soviet vessels? If it has discovered that the unfair competition is the real cause of the trouble why not refer the matter to the International Labour Office and condemn the Soviet Union for unfair competition arising out of the abominal wages and conditions obtaining on Soviet vessels?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, unfortunately we cannot control the way that the Soviet Union runs its economy. Commercial factors do not enter into its pricing policy. What we in Europe can do in concert is at least to act and make

1385
certain that it at least obeys the rules, and agrees to the rules, of the various conferences regulating shipping prices and so on throughout the world.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that there has been deliberate uneconomic undercutting in freight charges by the Soviet Union on routes between third and fourth countries in different parts of the world, not involving Soviet imports or exports, with the express intention of taking over the business of shipping on those routes?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Soviet Union has been following a very aggressive commercial policy in this area, for instance between Australia and the United States. But I think it can be regulated only by concerted action between interested nations. The Common Market, which includes the United Kingdom, has a very substantial influence in the world decision to make certain that the Soviet Union in fact follows the example of the other members of the Comecon nations in falling in with the regulations of the shipping conferences.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the results of the monitoring system are due to be reviewed every six months, and, if that is the case, say whether in fact any results will be available for consideration at the Council of Ministers in November?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would assume that since the Council sits every six months, once in the lifetime of the presidency of each of the Member Nations, that a six-monthly review will take place, although I cannot confirm that.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on re-commitment of this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): If no noble Lord objects, I propose to call the clauses and Schedules en bloc.
Clauses 1 to 67 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill) moved the following Amendment:
Page 47, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert (" "Act 1958" to "removal" there shall be substituted the words "Act 1958 or section 34 of the Adoption Act 1976 or section 34 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 for the removal".
3. In section 17 of the said Act of 1958, for the definition of "relative" there shall be substituted the words " "relative" has the same meaning as in the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978".").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which has two effects. First, it preserves a reference in Section 6(1)(f) of the Children Act 1958 to orders made under Section 43 of the now to be repealed Adoption Act 1958 as well as to orders made under the corresponding provision in the Consolidation Bill. Secondly, it substitutes in Section 17 of the Children Act 1958 for the definition of "relative" contained in the Adoption Act 1958 a reference to the corresponding definition contained in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I understand that this is a matter which came up in the Committee on Consolidation Bills and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether he can confirm that the Committee are now happy with this Amendment and that there is no question of a change in the sense in what is proposed as a consolidation.
Lord KIRKHILL: I can confirm both those points.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

WALES BILL
3.35 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I understand that at the last sitting we reached the Motion that Clause 47 stand part, and Clause 47 was stood part; so we begin today at the top of page 5 of the Marshalled List with Amendment No. 89.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved].
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 19, leave out lines 28 to 30.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 57C.
Baroness STEDMAN: Dependent, of course, upon what may happen to it when that Amendment goes to another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General]:
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 91: 1388
Page 20, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly, recommends the removal to Her Majesty.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the manner of the removal from office of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. Subsection (3) of this clause provides for his appointment or his removal from office to be made by Her Majesty if the Assembly resolves that the Secretary of State be requested to recommend such removal. The effect of this Amendment is that it would be for the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly, to make such a recommendation if he thinks fit. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This is the first of a series of Amendments concerning the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and it may be for your Lordships' convenience if at this stage I indicate the Government's views as to his office and the various arrangements relating to it which are set out in the Bill. Briefly, the Government wish to see a relationship between the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and the Assembly which resembles as closely as possible that between the United Kingdom Comptroller and the House of Commons. That may not be a particularly helpful formula, since that relationship is a unique one and depends largely on custom rather than definition, but we hope to see the office of the Welsh Comptroller established as that of an independent public official responsible in a very generalised sense to the Assembly and to its Accounts Committee for the proper discharge of his duties, but not, in the way of an ordinary official, for his particular actions. The Comptroller's independence of the Assembly in a day-to-day political sense is symbolised by his appointment by Her Majesty and by the fact that as the Bill stands his salary and pension are charged directly on the Welsh Consolidated Fund and are not subject to appropriation annually by the Assembly.
I do not think there is any difference of view between noble Lords opposite and those on this side as to the desirability of ensuring that the accounting and audit arrangements set out in the Bill should operate as effectively as possible. It is clearly important that the examination of the Assembly's accounts should be

1389
carried out clearly and punctiliously, that the reports of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General should be full and should be objective, and that with his assistance the Assembly's accounts committee should pursue its examinations in a searching manner. Much will clearly depend on the creation of a close and trustful relationship between the Welsh Comptroller and the accounts committee and on the Committee's emergence as a strong back-bench watchdog for the Assembly, analogous in its standing to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.
I acknowledge that there are differences from both Westminster and the Scottish Assembly, in both of which there is an Executive constituted separately from the main body of Back Bench Members. But the Bill confers certain important functions on the Assembly's Executive Committee, as established by Clause 18, which must seek credits for expenditure from either the Welsh Consolidated Fund or the Welsh Loans Fund, and which must account, under Clause 52(1)(a), for payments into and out of these Funds. Only one member of the Executive Committee may be a member of the accounts committee, and under Clause 22 Party balance must be reflected in its membership.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether these aecounting arrangements are likely to operate more successfully if the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General is seen to be an officer of the Assembly as a whole, independent of the Executive Committee, or as a place-man of the Government, as he would be turned into by a number of the Amendments we are about to come to. There is no discipline like self-discipline, and so far as the Government are concerned they are in no doubt that responsible attitudes to expenditure can best be induced by giving responsibility fro the Assembly for ensuring that the accounting arrangements are properly administered. It is with this philosophy in mind that the Government have carefully considered all the Amendments put down on this subject, and for reasons which I will be happy to explain when we come to the later Amendments, we believe there are good reasons why some of them should be resisted.
1390
However, so far as the present Amendment is concerned, I must confess that we have some sympathy. It has been suggested that the existence of a power for the Assembly to resolve to request the removal of the Welsh Comptroller could prevent the proper kind of relationship, such as I have been speaking about, from developing. In the Government's view, this risk is a theoretical one, but we do agree that there is a case for saying that an Assembly which itself has executive power to request the removal of a public official responsible for examining its public accounts could be held to be anomalous. It might lead to public misunderstanding as to the extent of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General's authority and in certain circumstances might affect public confidence in him. For these reasons, provisions on the lines proposed in the Amendment do have a value in reinforcing the independence which is symbolised by the Comptoller's appointment by Her Majesty and by the special charging of his salary to the Welsh Consolidated Fund. The Government are happy to accept the Amendment.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: This is a very encouraging start to the afternoon. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91A not moved.]
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 20, line 17, after second ("the") insert ("Scottish or").
The noble Lord said: I think the purpose of this Amendment is really very obvious. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: It is my job to be handing out the goodies this afternoon. It may be arguable whether there is any essential constitutional incompatibility between membership of the Scottish Assembly and the office of Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General, but we do accept that as a matter of practice active membership of the Scottish Assembly could not be reconciled with the efficient discharge of the Comptroller's duty. Moreover, it is hardly fitting that a senior public official in one part of Great Britain should be an active politician in another

1391
part. Therefore, once again, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: Is the noble Baroness denying the Assembly the ability of a Scottish accountant, because that would be a very retrograde step?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, we are not denying them the benefit of a Scottish accountant. What we are saying is that the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General should not also sit in one of the other Assemblies as a politician.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I hardly know how to thank the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 49, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
3.46 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am not sure that I have fully taken in what the noble Baroness said in her long speech about the Welsh Comptroller; it may be that the notes I have prepared need a little amendment. I ask the Committee to be patient. Having dealt with the matter of the Comptroller's removal from office, I should now like to ask the Government how he is to be appointed. The very fact that sub-section (1) provides that there shall be a Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General shows that the Government recognise the need for this ultimate safeguard, as the noble Baroness explained.
Government spokesmen have frequently explained that the Welsh Assembly is a new body; it is not a local authority; nor is it similar to the Scottish Assembly, as it has no legislative powers. Finance will be of prime importance, and we on these Benches fully endorse the decision by the Government to build a provision into the Bill for an officer to oversee the financial doings of the Assembly. Of equal importance will be the qualifications and experience of the Comptroller, and presumably his duties will be analogous to those of the United Kingdom Comptroller.
I should like to make a suggestion here for consideration; if that is the case—that his job will be so analogous—I would
1392
have thought the most suitable person for the job would be somebody in the United Kingdom Comptroller's office. I would think that the best idea would be to second a member of that Department to the Welsh Assembly, particularly in the early stages of setting up this unique body. I hope that this is just what the Assembly will try to arrange. This would be in no sense a derogation from the powers of the Assembly. Rather would it give confidence to the Welsh people, who will be assured that his voice will speak with the force of independence and disinterest.
I see no reason why the Assembly itself would not agree to this proposal. In fact I hope that it might welcome it, as the Members of the Assembly, of all people, will be well aware that this is a brand new and untried body and that they will need all the independent expertise that they can get. I am not being in the least dogmatic. I just think it would be a better arrangement. But if this proposal does not find favour with the Committee, I would think that the next best thing would be for the Secretary of State to be not only the person who may recommend his removal from office but also the person to appoint him. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am sure that noble Lords who speak Welsh in this Committee will agree with me that questions of expenditure can be very sensitive in certain parts of Wales. I have been wondering whether the words "after consultation with the Assembly", which have been accepted in Amendment No. 91, require further clarification. As that Amendment has been accepted, the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General,
"may be removed from office by Her Majesty if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly, recommends the removal to Her Majesty".
This may be considered to be a minor point, but what does "consultation with the Assembly" mean? Does it mean, as in the original words, that a resolution of the Assembly would be required? And what is the scope of that consultation? I raise this matter only because I can see that there will be very considerable anxiety at some stage to get rid of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, I wonder whether the words,

1393
"after consultation with the Assembly", should be further considered by the Government.
Baroness STEDMAN: So far as the Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned, provision is made in this clause about the tenure of the office. He will be appointed technically by the Crown, but it will be on the advice of the Government to the Assembly. He will hold office during "good behaviour", which is a phrase which cropped up in the Scotland Bill, as well. He will be completely independent of the Executive Committee, but he will be ultimately responsible to the Assembly as a whole. He will have the right to resign if he so wishes, but only the Assembly will have the power under subsection (3)(b) to take the initiative to secure his removal from office. That will have to be done by requesting the Secretary of State to recommend the removal to Her Majesty.
He will be responsible for the staff numbers which again the Assembly will control because it will hold the purse strings in the form of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. He will be able to delegate to his officers such powers to the extent laid down in subsections (6) and (7). As regards whether the most suitable person is someone in the United Kingdom Comptroller's office, that is something that would have to be considered when the necessary advice was being given to the Assembly.
I take on board the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I should like to look at them further to see whether there is any way in which we can clarify his suggestions. However, as regards the appointment, that is made on the advice of the Government by the Crown. So far as getting rid of him is concerned, it is for the Assembly to take the necessary initiative for his removal from office via the Secretary of State who will make the necessary recommendation to Her Majesty.
Lord LYELL: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she could enlighten me as to whether there will be any method of appeal or what will be the mechanism for the removal of the Auditor. I can see that there might be a clash or a differing of opinions and possibly
1394
a personality clash. The Auditor might interpret his duties in a fairly strict way and the Assembly might feel that he was being unduly harsh or restrictive. The Assembly might, by resolution, ask the Secretary of State to propose to Her Majesty that the Auditor be removed. However, would there be any method whereby the Secretary of State would have to accept that resolution, or could he take a broader view than the elected Members of the Assembly? Could the Secretary of State suggest to Members of the Assembly that they pause for thought or that their views—even though they have made the resolution by a majority view—might be unduly hasty? Would there be any mechanism under subsection (3)(b) for such a cooling off period?
Baroness STEDMAN: There is no such mechanism written into the Bill. We do not envisage that this is the sort of situation that will arise. I take the noble Lord's point that there perhaps ought to be some means of consultation It need not necessarily be written into the Bill but it should be clarified before the next stage of the Bill and that I shall certainly undertake to do.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Salary and pension of Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General]:
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The next Amendment is No. 92C.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The Committee will be pleased to learn that I am moving into a sort of "not moved rhythm". Consequently, Amendment No. 92C is not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 92C to 92H not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Appropriation and other accounts and audit]:
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("lay") and insert ("send").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 93 which I should like to link to Amendment No. 94. These are the first of a series of Amendments which also affect Clauses 53, 55 and 77 and Schedule 11 and which standardise the wording applied to the making of reports to the Assembly, by requiring that they should be "sent to" or "made to" the Assembly and be "published by" the Assembly. The Amendments eliminate the use of the phrase "laid before" the Assembly. The Amendment is purely for the sake of good English and I feel sure that noble Lords will support it. However, I should like to explain the situation for the record.
In the case of a report made to a Minister it is appropriate to require him to "lay" it "before" Parliament, and Parliament can then resolve that it be printed. But in the case of a report made to the Assembly, it is less clear how the Assembly can "lay" it "before" itself. One observes the difficulty here. And without a publication requirement it might have been possible for reports whose contents should be generally known not to be made available even to all members of the Assembly.
The Amendment accordingly proposes that the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports on the Assembly's acounts should, together with the certified accounts, be "sent to" the Assembly. There is already a publication requirement in Clause 54, which is unaffected. In this case, therefore, the Amendments are designed to standardise as explained above. The later Amendments which I shall mention as they arise, relate to various matters: Clause 53—reports of the Assembly Accounts Committee; Clause 55—reports by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts of transactions into and out of the Welsh Loans Fund; Clause 77——a standard conversion for reports at present laid before Parliament but which relate to matters with respect to which the Assembly will exercise functions. There will be sent to the Assembly which will have to publish them; paragraph 87 of Schedule 11—reports to the Assembly from the Welsh Development Agency; paragraph 91 of Schedule 11—reports to the Assembly from the Development Board for Rural Wales; paragraph 96 of Schedule 11—reports to
1396
the Assembly from the Health Service Commissioner for Wales.
It may sound trivial, but we thought it better to get it right and I hope that noble Lords will support the Amendment. I beg to move.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Is the noble Lord moving the two Amendments at the same time?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am moving Amendment No. 93.
Lord ELTON: We are always glad to welcome improvements in the use of English and also increasing clarity in legislation. However, I rise to my feet at this stage to ask the noble Lord whether he will be kind enough, if lie has the information before him, to tell us the numbers of the other Amendments which are linked to this Amendment because it makes much more sense of the Marshalled List if we can tick off those Amendments in advance.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 are the two concerned. There is also Amendment No. 95 which deals with Clause 53. I think that perhaps it would be better, having had notice of the question, to sort the matter out properly.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Yes, I should have thought that that would be for the general convenience.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4. p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("before") and insert ("to").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 52, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAWKE: Can the noble Lord assure me that the interval of time is not too great? The clause states the month

1397
of November, and if I am correct that would mean eight months after the close of the financial year. If it was eight months instead of November everybody might think that was rather too long an interval. I should have thought that six months would be adequate for the purpose. Moreover, if he is going to delay receiving the accounts until the end of November, then Christmas creeps on very soon, and I do not suppose that the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General will report until well into the New Year on events that happened nearly a year before. Surely, six months would be better than eight months. Naming a month creates complications if we should ever change the Parliamentary year. That, of course, has been discussed in various Select Committees. Perhaps one day we may get round to it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS: BRIDGE: If a change were made, of course it would be possible to make a change in this, too. I have not given consideration to this point. It was recommended by the financial people who were advising the Government on how to set this up. We are takling not on an Amendment, but on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? I shall certainly talk to them about it and if they think there is anything in the suggestion I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord HAWKE: I am glad the noble Lord took the view rather than the financial people. They always like plenty of time.
Lord DONALDSON o KINGS-BRIDGE: I spoke eliptically. After some discussion, I will take a view, and I shall discuss with my ministerial colleagues and write to the noble Lord.
Lord LEATHERLAND: When the noble Lord discusses the matter with his ministerial colleagues, and when he comes to consider whether September shall be substituted for November, will the Minister bear in mind that in the months of September, August and probably July quite a number of people are on holiday and therefore the machinery might not be functioning fully.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think one must accept that this is rather an elementary point which, if the advisers have not already regarded it, they should have done so.
Lord LYELL: Before we conclude this clause, may I commend the Government for the drafting of Clause 52. I believe that subsection (1), particularly paragraphs (a) and (b) provide a very sound basis for the accounting of moneys paid into and out of the Consolidated and the Loans Funds. I think it is fairly safe to assume, as we found in the case of the Scotland Bill, that these accounts are going to be in a complicated form which will be alien to almost anything which has been seen by many members of the Assembly. Thus, we think it is absolutely right that the Auditor should carry out his duties which have been very plainly and clearly set out in subsection (2). It seems to me more clear that the Scotland Bill although I am loth to admit it.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I cannot understand the insertion of the phrase "alien to many members of the Assembly". If the noble Lord knows a Cardiganshire farmer, if he knows a good Welsh housewife, and if he knows a good Welshman who cannot add up and work out sums of money, then nobody else in the world can. I do not like the phrase "alien to members of the Assembly". They are well-versed and numerate.
Lord LYELL: I think those remarks were aimed at me. Fair enough—I will always accept comments and admonitions from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I do not know whether the noble Lord was present in your Lordships' House when the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, produced some accounts which were very alien to what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, had seen in business. Certainly my attempts to unravel some facets of the Consolidated Accounts on a Governmental or even a local authority basis do not involve the mere question of adding or subtracting. It is a question of seeing what lies behind the figures. I shall probably have more to say on that point when we come to Clause 53. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and I are at one.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Accounts Committee]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 95: Page 21, line 36, leave out ("laid before") and insert ("sent to").
The noble Lord said: This is the third Amendment to which I referred when I spoke a short time ago. It applies to Clause 53, page 21, line 36, and the second Amendment No. 96 refers to Clause 55, page 22, line 34, in each case altering the words from "laid before" to "sent to".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LYELL: Before we conclude the discussion on this clause, I believe it is right to show that it provides for the appointment of the Accounts Committee. This is an admirable concept, but I wonder precisely what is going to be the role of the Accounts Committee. There are several that I have in mind. First, how is the Committee going further to examine the accounts? These accounts will in all conscience be difficult enough to comprehend—hence my comments with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek—even to those members of the Accounts Committee in the Assembly who have experience of local authority or even Government accounting.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will be aware, as certainly will other noble Lords in the House—and again I look at the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who I know has experience in this field—that one aspect of the art and skill of accountancy is to haze, to de-emphasise, to provide so much information that the relevant information is effectively camouflaged. Who is going to assist the Committee in their work in trying to dig through and unravel much of the witting and unwitting camouflage of this form of accounts? I wonder whether the Auditor General could fill this particular role of helping the Accounts Committee in their deliberations and investigations, since it is his handywork, if I may call it that, which is under discussion?
Secondly, how is the Accounts Committee going to report further on the accounts over and above the report of the Auditor General? That seems fairly difficult. There is a way round it, but I
1400
wonder how it is that the Accounts Committee is going to report on the Report of the Auditor General. Are they going to criticise the way he has gone about his work? The clause means to be clear, but to my mind it is not entirely clear. It is far away from much of what I found in auditing and similar investigation work in the financial world. This particular aspect means little to me, but the Committee must have some duties which will not be just as set out in the clause. I would hope that they would find some other duties, even of scrutinising various aspects of expenditure and receipts.
A third point came to my mind with the Accounts Committee. Would the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, be able to suggest any imaginative new concept so far as the Accounts Committee is concerned? I venture to think that he or any other noble Lord who has not explored fully the wonderful world of accountancy with its enthralling symmetry of debit and credit will be bogged down as are all of us in finance in the wide world.
Lastly, I consider that this Accounts Committee could adopt a completely new role which would be akin to the Public Accounts Committee in another place, or even would be able to scrutinise other aspects of Assembly spending. However, I do not think that the Bill appears to grant the Committee power to do anything other than to carry out a pale shadow of the audit which has already been carried out by the Auditor General. I just wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, would be able to give me his thoughts on this matter. He might like to read the full text of my remarks; I have fired one or two rather sharp balls at him and he might like time to reflect. These are thoughts that have come to my mind; I hope that they are relevant. I support the concept of the Accounts Committee, but I just wonder whether its duties and scope are adequately spelled out in Clause 53.
Lord HAWKE: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, might care to answer me at the same time. If he followed what I said on a previous "clause stand part" debate on the timetable, he will know that this Accounts Committee will report on the report of the Auditor General, and

1401
literally it will be catching trains in the year-before-last Bradshaw. I believe that that may happen in the United Kingdom at the moment, but when a new arrangement is set up, can we not do something a bit better? It is no good indicting people for being extravagant the year before last. That is what will happen.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I do not quite know what the fuss is about. Subsection (2) of Clause 52, which we discussed with moderate intelligence, says that copies should be laid before the Assembly. The Assembly will then pass these copies on with reports that will be submitted. I would judge that Clause 53 is doing a wise thing in appointing an Accounts Committee. That committee, being composed of an intelligent band of men and women, would be a pragmatic organisation because it is new. I entirely agree about the difficulty of modern accountancy; it is changing year by year. However, expert advice would be given to that Committee, as is the case in all types of Committees in this place and in the other place. Without any doubt, I believe that that expert advice will be available to the Members of the Assembly. I do not disagree with probing at all; I think that the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, were wise. I believe that that advice would ultimately create an Accounts Committee that would be responsible and would understand what it was doing for the Welsh Assembly.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: First, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that the time issue should not be very seriously altered by an Accounts Committee looking at accounts. Of course, it could be: the Committee might take six months; but if it did, it would be very bad organisation and I see no reason whatever why that should be so. I have accepted that there may be some virtue in the noble Lord's main criticism, but I do not believe that it really makes any difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is asking for something which we already have. The Accounts Committee, which is described in this clause, has the power, though not the duty, to behave exactly as he suggested, which is matching the existing practice at Westminster, where the
1402
Financial Secretary to the Treasury is ex officio a member of the Public Accounts Committee and advises that Committee on the import of the accounts submitted.
Happily, I am not a businessman, but I think that the normal drill of business is for an auditor to go through the business firm's accounts which are submitted to and scrutinised by a sub-committee of the board—that is not invariable, but it is very usual—and then, with the sub-committee's comments, they are passed on to the board. I see nothing in what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said—which I thought was very sensible—which is not entirely available to the Assembly, if that is how the Assembly wishes to do it, although it is not obliged to. I do not know whether that covers the noble Lord's point, but, as he suggested, I will read his remarks with the greatest care and see whether I have anything to add to what I have said.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for what I believe is a very honest attempt to come close to my points. I do not have much experience of large-scale business, but I think that the noble Lord would accept from me that as far as I am aware the relationship which exists between the auditor and the board of directors in large companies is a somewhat distant one, whereby the auditor tries to remain at arm's length. I will not go into the ramifications of the relationships between an auditor and a public company where—as I am sure the Committee will be aware—the auditor is appointed by the shareholders. If there is a dispute with the board, it is the shareholders and the company in general meeting which decide whether or not the auditor shall stay and whether or not he has performed his duties adequately.
I take the noble Lord's point that it is believed that Clause 53 produces an Accounts Committee which is, to all effects, analogous to the Public Accounts Committee in another place. However, perhaps he would look at line 34 on page 21 of the Bill, which states quite clearly that the Accounts Committee shall be appointed by the Assembly and this Accounts Committee:
"shall examine and report … on the accounts and reports"
et cetera. Taking those words on a very restrictive basis, it seems to me that the

1403
Committee will just be examining the accounts as submitted; it will not scrutinise. It does not seem to me that the two words "examine" and "report" give the Accounts Committee of the Assembly power to scrutinise a little further or to carry out a much deeper audit than the Auditor General would wish to do, or perhaps even to have a special examination of one particular item of expenditure which might be of great interest to the people of Wales.
Through its Accounts Committee the Assembly could, of course, exercise all its care in examining this especial problem and these especial figures of expenditure, or perhaps income, in any one year. It seems to me that the method of "examine and report" is somewhat staid. I believe that the Government wish this Accounts Committee to have somewhat wider powers than are set out in subsection (1) of Clause 53. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and I are thinking along the same lines.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I really do not believe that the noble Lord has a point of substance here. I have been a director of one very large company, even though it is not my habit. When the accounts are received surely somebody looks at them very carefully to see what they reveal about the progress of the body concerned. The Assembly will have a very large sum of money at its disposal. It may overspend it; it may underspend it; it may wrongly spend it. The accountant's business is to produce these facts and the Committee's business is to comment on them and to say that one department has clearly behaved in a way in which it should not, and so on. I do not believe that there is anything between us at all. I believe that the clause covers exactly that which the noble Lord is asking for, though it does not insist on it. I repeat, I will read with the greatest care what he has said and see whether I have anything to add.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 95A:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
(" .In relation to any accounts examined by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General in accordance with the provisions of section 52
1404
of this Act, section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply as if—

(a) such examinations were an audit of accounts under Part VIII of the Local Government Act 1972;

(b) The Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General were a district auditor;

(c) members of the Assembly were members of a local authority;

(d) any reference in the said section 161 to a person being disqualified for being a member of a local authority were a reference to that person being disqualified for being a member of the Assembly; and

(e) subsection (13) of the said section 161 provided as follows:—

"(13) The Court having jurisdiction for the purposes of this section shall be the High Court."").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne and Lord Gowrie, I beg to move this Amendment. After my comments on the previous two clauses—Clauses 52 and 53—I think that the Committee will certainly be satisfied, as indeed I am, that the powers of the Auditor General are well-defined and, I submit, well-understood. However, the powers of the Accounts Committee are—subject to the comments which I hope to be receiving from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—I believe a little less well-defined and a little more difficult to understand, especially to the Assembly and to the people of Wales. But I think that we shall come to understand this role more clearly as the Committee stage and the other stages of the Bill proceed.
The Committee may bear with me if I consider the implications of Section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972. Noble Lords will be aware that this section deals with the powers of the district auditor in local government and the court. The section commences by giving the auditor power to seek a declaration from the court that some item in the accounts is, as the section has it, "contrary to law." In this case no declaration need be granted should the person, against whom it were to be granted, be found to have acted reasonably. There is a safeguard here and I think that is excellent.
However, it seems that under this section the auditor has power to recover from any person the sum total of any loss of discrepancy in the accounts for any sum which has been misspent. We

1405
find particularly in subsection (7) of this section that the section permits disqualification from being a member of a local authority. I believe that this is a powerful deterrent to any malfeasance, manipulation, or to any misappropriation of money for which the authority and indeed we hope the Welsh Assembly, is going to be responsible.
By moving this Amendment I seek in no way to down-grade the Assembly by bringing it to, or even suggesting that it will be at, the level of a local authority. But, indeed, there are local authorities in England and Wales—and at least one in Scotland—which are of colossal size and would rival in size and responsibility as well as finance the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. There are various mentions in Section 161 of a parish council. However, I think that this section provides a useful guide to what ought to be, or what could be, done in the Assembly which will be handling, or indeed will be responsible for, sums a lot larger than any other authority, as is mentioned in the Bill. It is likely that many Members of the Assembly will already have had considerable experience of local government, and certainly I should have considered that some members of the accounts committee that we have been discussing on Clause 53 would not be overly intimidated by the form and scope of the accounts presented to the Assembly. For all these reasons, I beg to move this Amendment.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, it is Section 161 of the Local Government Act which makes the detailed provision for handling irregularities arising from the audit of local authority accounts. The basic objection to this clause is that the Welsh Assembly will not be a local authority, and it will not be exercising local authority powers nor engaging in the kind of direct provision of services in which local authorities are involved. The Assembly will be acting on behalf of the Crown, and exercising functions which are at present exercised by Ministers of the Crown. Heaven forbid that I get into discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on Ministers of the Crown, as I did with one of his colleagues on Scotland.
1406
In these circumstances, the accounting and audit arrangements which provide the best analogies are those which relate to Ministers and the Comptroller and Auditor General, and not those relating to local authorities and the district audit system. The system provided in Clauses 49 to 54 of the Bill is therefore based on the Westminster arrangements. I readily acknowledge that the absence of a separate Executive gives the Welsh Assembly certain superficial resemblances to a local authority when compared with either the Government or the Executive provided for in the Scotland Bill. But I say advisedly superficial resemblances, because there are a number of important provisions in the Bill which clearly distinguish the organisation of the Assembly from that of a local authority, and these are of particular significance in the context of finance.
Clause 18 provides for a separate Executive Committee. The Executive Committee must recommend all orders appropriating sums from the Welsh Consolidated Fund (Clause 42) and must take the initiative to seek the credits on that Fund and the Welsh Loans Fund (Clauses 41 and 43), which must be obtained from the Welsh Comptroller or Auditor General before any sums may be withdrawn from either Fund. It is the Executive Committee under Clause 52(1)(b) which prepares the accounts of payments into and out of the Funds. The Assembly accounts committee, as I said on an earlier Amendment, may include no more than one member of the Executive Committee, and its membership must reflect Party balance in the Assembly.
We think it is important that the Accounts Committee should be encouraged to develop into a strong back bench "watchdog", which will be the guardian of the public interest in expenditure matters and can be counted on to bring any irregularity to the notice of both the Assembly as a whole and the general public. It will then be for the Executive Committee, or individuals concerned in any irregularity, to justify their actions to the public in Wales. In the case of an important political body elected by the whole electorate of Wales and exercising functions on behalf of the Crown, the political disciplines should be, and must be, made to be effective. That will not be

1407
achieved by procedures of the kind applied by the new clause, which seem to be designed to deal with problems arising at local level in bodies with functions of a quite different nature.
It is important, in the Government's view, that the arrangements for accounts and audit should encourage self criticism and self-discipline in the Assembly. We want—and we expect—to see an Assembly which is confident, mature, and responsible in its handling of all such matters. The Government fear that the new clause would in practice operate in diametrically the opposite direction from that which we want the Assembly to take. I therefore ask noble Lords to reflect on this further, and not to press this Amendment at this particular time.
Lord LYELL: I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness for giving a particularly full reply to the question that I raised and to the questions raised on this particular Amendment. I think that it would be unwise of me to bandy further comments on Ministers of the Crown, or indeed to start discussing Crown Prerogative, with the noble Baroness this afternoon. I am sure that the Committee would think that there are better things to do.
All we sought in this Amendment was to set up a guideline, or suggest a guideline. However, I take the noble Baroness's comments that the authority exercised by the Assembly will be that of Ministers of the Crown. I accept that, so far as their responsibility for funds spent and received is concerned, although I do not believe that there is much between Section 161 and the methods which have been suggested by the noble Baroness. I do not believe that there is a lot between them.
If the noble Baroness would allow me to reflect on the full reply she has given, I would be grateful, and I am sure that the Committee would be. I was impressed that the noble Baroness included comments on the Accounts Committee, and included comments that she hoped that the Accounts Committee would be able to conduct its affairs in a new and imaginative light. These were exactly the kinds of comments I had received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord 1McCluskey, at an earlier stage on the Scotland Bill. Indeed, I was surprised that these comments came from
1408
the noble Baroness and not from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, although of course the noble Lord had no knowing of the points I was going to raise on Clause 53 stand part. Certainly I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and if she and the Committee will forgive me I shall read her comments carefully and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I say that I would support quite strongly the principles and motives behind the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and I sympathise with what the noble Baroness said. However, I feel that this Committee should give firm indications that considerable control should be exercised by the Welsh Assembly over the actions of the Auditor General and the Comptroller General.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Modification of enactments providing for payments into or out of Consolidated Fund or authorising advances from National Loans Fund]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 22, line 34, leave out ("laid before") and insert ("sent to").
The noble Lord said: This is another of the Amendments to which I referred earlier. The noble Lord opposite asked whether I could give the numbers of all the Amendments. I am now in a position to do so. Amendment No. 95 is in relation to Clause 53; Amendment No 96 is in relation to Clause 55; Amendment No. 106 is in relation to Clause 77; and Amendments Nos. 108B and 113 are both in relation to Schedule 11. I beg to move formally Amendment No. 96.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Enactments authorising the lending of money]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 64, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The Amendment is perforce agreed to by the Government, but I wish to add our usual proviso that this is without prejudice to returning in another place to the question of restoration of Part IX of Schedule 2.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Rate support and other grants]:
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 96D:
Page 23, line 31, at end insert ("and shall be made to the full extent of the amount specified under section 44(1A) above.")
The noble Lord said: I propose to be honest to the point of naivety, in that I had expected my noble friend Lord Gowrie to move the Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: With slightly less brevity, I should like to reply to the Amendment. We feel that the Amendment rests on a misunderstanding of the financial proposals in the Bill. The block fund to be paid over to the Welsh Consolidated Fund, under Clause 44, will be designed to cover that part of devolved public expenditure which falls to be met by the Assembly after allowance is made for contributions to devolved spending from other sources, such as local rates. Obviously, certain assumptions as to such contributions will have to be made when the block fund is settled. We dealt with this in our White Paper on devolution.
The Government, in deriving the amount of the block fund from the United Kingdom estimates of total public expenditure, will have to make assumptions about the contribution of local rates and about the amounts local authorities will borrow for capital expenditure. It can then be worked out what their remaining expenditure will he and what will he the requirement, on certain further assumptions, for rate support. But these assumptions do not commit the Assembly
1410
or the Welsh local authorities. They must get together separately, and work out a rate support grant settlement in accordance with the procedures of the Local Government Act 1974. The relevant powers are transferred to the Assembly by Schedule 2 and Clause 58. It would not be practicable to identify a sum within the block fund as a kind of embryo rate support grant, and in fact no sum will be earmarked for any devolved purpose. Whatever assumptions may be made when the block fund is being discussed lose their validity as soon as the total is settled. It is an integral amount, and it is for the Assembly to decide how to divide it up between different devolved purposes. That is what having a block fund means.
How could the Government, even if they wanted to, work out the rate support grant? They will have no direct concern with education, roads, personal social services, planning, water, or other important local government services. They will have no means of conducting the kind of dialogue with the associations representing the Welsh local authorities which is required by the legislation as a preliminary to the fixing of the grant. It would be quite improper for the Government when they settle the block fund to pre-empt all the discussions which ought to take place between the Assembly and the local authority associations by laying down a rate support grant figure which must be applied regardless of the course those discussions may take. That is a course which would deny the local authorities rights of consultation which they have always enjoyed.
I find it difficult to understand the suspicion that somehow or other the Assembly may be out to do down the local authorities, which is half implicit in the Amendment. The extent to which the work of the Assembly will link with that of local government is likely to create a close working relationship between them and a ready understanding on the part of the Assembly of the problems of the local authorities. Moreover, there will be fairly close coincidence between the Assembly's constituents and the local ratepayers, and that, too, should result in greater understanding. We appreciate that noble Lords opposite are anxious to ensure good relations between the devolved Administration and

1411
local government. For the reasons I have given we think that they are perhaps unnecessarily anxious and concerned, hut, in any case, the Amendment is not compatible with the system of devolution provided for in the Bill.
Lord CULLEN of ASBHOURNE: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for a very educational speech. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.37 p.m.
Lord MONSON: This seems the right moment to discuss the merits, or other wise, of introducing a Speaker's Conference clause into the Bill, possibly at the next stage, given that it was at the precisely equivalent point in the Scotland Bill that a Committee of your Lordships' House approved an Amendment which introduced just such a clause into that Bill. Many of us had little enthusiasm for the Speaker's Conference Amendment so far as the Scotland Bill was concerned, because we felt that the case for a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, in the event of legislative devolution becoming a reality, was so overwhelming and unarguable that a Speaker's Conference would merely fudge the issue.
However, the case for a reduction in Welsh representation—and Wales is over represented to the tune of about 15 or 16 per cent. compared with England—is more finely balanced; or at least it seemed so until yesterday evening. At that point the Government made absolutely clear their rigid determination to bestow the luxury of absolute privilege upon the Welsh Assembly. This luxury was hitherto confined to the sovereign Parliament itself, and, incidentally, has never been bestowed, and is never likely to be bestowed, upon any other non-legislative body in the United Kingdom, however large.
It seems to me that there are only two possible explanations for this attitude on the part of the Government. The first is that it is a ploy to delude the Welsh Nationalists—or to be more precise, those erstwhile Labour voters who may be toying with the idea of switching their allegiance to the Nationalists—into think-
1412
ing that the Government plan before very long to expand the powers and privileges of the Welsh Assembly.
The alternative explanation is that it is not a ploy at all; that the Government really do have an undeclared plan to expand the powers and privileges of the Assembly in this way, possibly by means of a short, simple amending Act, if, and when, they obtain a larger majority in the House of Commons. I am sure the Committee will agree that in this eventuality we should obviously have to take a long, hard look at Welsh representation at Westminster. Therefore, I wonder whether there is not something to be said for putting down a Speaker's Conference Amendment before the next stage, as a precautionary measure. I should be interested to hear the views of the two Front Benches upon this suggestion.
Baroness STEDMAN: I have been interested in what the noble Lord has been saying, but, quite frankly, it does not have much relationship to the rate support grants and other grants that we are discussing on this clause. Certainly, the noble Lord has every right to make up his mind—in the light of what we say as we go through the Bill—as to what action he takes at the next stage. However, at this point I do not think that what he has said is really relevant to the clause, which deals with rate support grant.
Lord MONSON: I should like to explain to the noble Baroness that it was at the precisely equivalent point in your Lordships' consideration of the Scotland Bill—at the beginning of this Part—that a Speaker's Conference Amendment was introduced and approved.
Baroness ELLES: If I may say just a word from these Benches, I do not think that this is a matter which should be discussed at this stage of the Bill. I believe it is a matter which should be discussed, and I hope it will be discussed later, during the proceedings in Committee on this Bill. I therefore reserve the right from these Benches to speak on this matter later, at the appropriate stage.
Lord MONSON: I am very pleased to have heard what the noble Baroness has had to say.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Power to make new provisions as to certain bodies]:
[Amendment No. 96C not moved.]
4.41 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 96B:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert—
("(6) No provision made by order under this section shall effect any change in the law or government of any part of the United Kingdom other than Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that this Amendment is a very important Amendment; a fundamental one to the purposes of the Bill and to the system of devolution which is envisaged by the Government to the Welsh Assembly. I advise the noble Baroness—and I should like to thank her for all the help and co-operation we have had so far on this Bill—that this is only a probing Amendment at this stage. It is in order to elicit some information during this Committee stage of the Bill that I put this Amendment forward now. It is particularly to elicit from the Government clarification on the powers which are being devolved under this clause, and to define the areas within which the Welsh Assembly may or shall operate, in particular in relation to the exercise of its authority over certain statutory bodies which are listed in Schedule 7 to the Bill.
I must say that I was not reassured as to the powers of the Welsh Assembly in relation to United Kingdom matters by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, during the discussions in Committee last night. Of course, I have not got the column reference because we have not yet had Hansard, but I can inform the noble Baroness that it was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, speaking between 1.45 and 1.50 a.m. I hope that I may be taking up something which he had not perhaps meant to say, but I think I should repeat what he did say, and that is that the Government do not think it necessary to provide a power of policy override in respect of possible repercussion on what might be termed the "English dimension" of a devolved matter.
As the clause stands, and as I read it—and this is why I should be grateful for clarification—it seems to be giving the Welsh Assembly the most sweeping powers
1414
of an unconstitutional nature. To my knowledge there is no elected body which has ever been given powers to be exercised over an area outside the power base of the body concerned. Indeed, if the Bill were to go through as it now stands and as I read the clause—I hope I may be mistaken, and that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify this point for us and reassure us—I cannot but see that this clause will enable intervention by the Welsh Assembly in areas within England; and this will undoubtedly sow the seeds of conflict, or may sow the seeds of conflict, between the English and the Welsh peoples. I am not here to speak in any scaremongering sort of way—that is not my intention at all—but I think that there are such matters in the Bill, and I should now like to go into it in a little detail to show where I think there is going to be some difficulty.
In Clause 59 there is a bundle of provisions. I will not go into them all because it will take up too much of the time of the Committee and I do not think it is necessary to do so in order to show the points that I wish to make. But under this clause a Minister may confer powers on certain bodies which are listed in Schedule 7 to the Bill. These bodies are very important bodies. I have to name only some of those in Part I: the Forestry Commissioners, the Housing Corporation—both of which, of course, are United Kingdom national bodies; and I use the words "United Kingdom national" as opposed to "Welsh National"—the Severn-Trent Water Authority and the Welsh National Water Development Authority. In relation to these four bodies, which are contained in Part I of Schedule 7, according to Clause 59(2) of the Bill, as I understand it, a Minister may by order modify or exclude any provision of the Act in relation to these bodies.
Again as I read it—and I shall be grateful for clarification if I am wrong—this would enable the Minister to change the lists in Schedule 2, which we have debated for so long, in relation, for instance, to the Forestry Commission or the Welsh National Water Development Authority, and to remove functions from the right-hand side, column 2, "Excluded functions", into the functions which have been devolved to the Assembly. It might well seem to your Lordships that we have

1415
wasted a considerable amount of time discussing Schedule 2 when all along the Government have had up their sleeve this power, which a Minister can use to change totally the contents of Schedule 2 in relation to the listed bodies under Part I of Schedule 7.
The other area in which the Bill operates is in Clause 59 (3), which gives to a Minister the right to make provision:
"enabling powers to be exercised or requiring duties to be performed by the Assembly".
It also gives the Assembly powers, under subsection (3)(b), which will allow them to require or authorise the appointment of additional members. This is one of the key provisions of this clause, because the Committee will realise that these boards which are referred to in Clause 59 and listed in Part II of Schedule 7 are not Welsh bodies; they are not bodies which are set up within the areas of Wales for the benefit of the Welsh people. They include the British Waterways Board; the Council on Tribunals, which is a council of major importance in the administration of justice throughout the United Kingdom; the Health Services Board; the Housing Association; the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, and the Medical Practices Council. I will not weary your Lordships with a continuation of this list, but it will be been from the ones I have already mentioned that there is a considerable number of very important bodies, all of which are of United Kingdom national composition and not local bodies reserved entirely for the benefit, in their operation, of the people of Wales.
Under this clause the Welsh Assembly would be able to require these bodies to appoint, or authorise the appointment of, additional members, to which there is apparently no limit. I am not saying that this will happen, because I am not in any way commenting on the attitude or the content of the Welsh Assembly; I am merely saying that these are powers which are being given to a local body to interfere with, to intervene in and possibly, in the end, to overtake and control bodies which are of national importance to the whole of the United Kingdom. I am just wondering whether I have read this clause correctly. I should be very pleased to know that I have read it incorrectly; but, if not, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could reassure me on these particular points.
Is it a fact that the Welsh Assembly will be entitled to meddle in any way with these national bodies? Will they in fact, in their subordinate Instruments and through the operation and control that they might take of these bodies, therefore be able to affect territory or interests which are outside the Principality of Wales? Because, if so, this Bill is a mockery and, I would call it—I hesitate to use the word, and it is certainly not a word that I would use to any individual noble Lord opposite—a major piece of deceit: that, when you are talking of devolution to the Welsh people, you are in fact giving the Welsh people powers which will affect the lives and interests not only of the Welsh but also of the English and other members of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: Over the years, Governments of both Parties have created large numbers of public bodies which are appointed in the main by Ministers and on which extensive statutory functions have been conferred. In certain cases the substantive powers to provide a service or regulate an activity are vested in the public body and not in the Minister himself; and his functions are supervisory and, perhaps, financial. When we come to devolution, it is only these limited ministerial functions which can be devolved. But if a single public body operates in both England and Wales we cannot devolve the ministerial function as it stands. We have to create a reserved ministerial function relating to the body's activities in England and a corresponding Assembly function relating to its activities in Wales.
The functions of these bodies and the arrangements for ministerial oversight are so varied that it is not practicable to make detailed provision in the Bill either in general terms relating to all the bodies or in specific terms relating to each of them separately. Accordingly, provision is made for the necessary 'adaptations to the constitution of the existing bodies to be made by order. Many of the bodies in Schedule 7 currently operate on an England and Wales, Great Britain or United Kingdom basis. The purpose of Clause 59 is to allow for a division of responsibility to take place to take account of the devolution of functions to the Assembly. There will therefore be some consequentials which

1417
have an effect on the law and government of the United Kingdom outside Wales. This is inevitable: a change in the government of Wales is bound to have some impact upon the government of the rest of the United Kingdom given the present unitary system. This is particularly so when the ministerial functions are concerned with bodies operating beyond the boundaries of the Principality.
The effect of this Amendment would be to make substantial inroads into the Government's devolution proposals, because it would make it virtually impossible to make an order under Clause 59 in respect of a Schedule 7 body. I appreciate the fears of the noble Baroness and her colleagues, but I would remind them of the safeguards which already exist in the provisions of Clause 59. First of all, the Assembly has to convince the Minister that an order should be made. Then the Minister has to consult the body itself to see whether they are willing for the order to be made. The order has to be laid before Parliament for Affirmative Resolution. In the Government's view, all of this will ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom beyond Wales will be fully taken account of when the time comes for an order to be made.
I think that we have written sufficient safeguards into the Bill: the use of subsection (2) of Clause 59 to devolve further powers in relation to Part I of the Schedule 7 bodies. We have all sorts of bodies, and this was raised in the Commons when they were discussing it. All the bodies are concerned with functions, all operate on the general basis of United Kingdom or Great Britain; so we have to have provision to divide their responsibilities so that they can account satisfactorily to and be responsible to the Welsh Assembly for what are their activities in Wales while they remain responsible to the Government in the United Kingdom for the other operations. If we had made detailed arrangements, we should have burdened the Bill with immense and unnecessary detail about accounts, appointments, finance and other matters which are normally best dealt with by orders. We should have imposed detailed arrangements on the various bodies in respect of their activities in Wales without any opportunity for the Welsh
1418
Assembly to be consulted either about their nature or their details.
In practice, the Assembly may be content that only minor changes are made; for example, enabling them to make a nomination to a board of management. But it was in dealing with these bodies that it was necessary to distinguish between those whose devolution is so central to the devolution of functions in the field in which they operate that provision must be made for them from day one—and those are the ones listed in Part 1 of Schedule 7; for example, water authorities, the Forestry Commission—and those whose devolution can be postponed without producing administrative chaos. So those bodies shown in Part I have already had most of their relevant functions transferred by entries in the appropriate part of Schedule 2. Some of the functions which need to be divided as between England and Wales are at present expressed in a way which makes them "unsplittable"—which, perhaps, is not a very usable word: but I think noble Lords will find it is what we mean—without some modification. The effect of the order will be to re-express the functions in a way which makes them operable separately by both the Assembly and the Minister. The safeguards that are written into Clause 59 will, I hope, allay the noble Baroness's fears.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. As I understood it, it has confirmed my worst fears. It appears to me that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent, for instance, the Welsh Assembly under subsection (2) of the clause being able to acquire considerable powers over say, the Forestry Commissioners and to take measures which undoubtedly will affect England as well as Wales. There seems to be nothing written in this clause which prevents it. I accept what the noble Baroness has said: that the Welsh Assembly must convince the Minister and that the Minister must go to Parliament and he must lay an Affirmative Resolution before both Houses. Nevertheless, these are not mandatory prohibitions against the Welsh Assembly interfering at any time with geographical areas or matters outside the Principality either for geographical or interest reasons. It seems to me, therefore, that the provisions

1419
in this clause are not satisfactory, but I should like to study carefully what the noble Baroness has said and to come back to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Public bodies]:
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 64, leave out lines 21 and 22.
The noble Marquess said: This is a consequential Amendment on forestry. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Just to make the usual proviso, this is without prejudice to the Government's attitude when it is considered in the other place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 64, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords may well have been slightly confused by this Amendment which seeks to leave out "The Welsh National Water Development Authority" from the provisions of Schedule 7. I hasten to say that this is a probing Amendment and there is no design to have a major water debate on it. Two things which concerned us were, first, that, by order, on 1st April this year the Welsh National Development Authority changed its name to the Welsh Water Authority. It has occasioned no little confusion to have both these titles running through these debates and in my own mind and in that of several of my noble friends. May I ask the noble Baroness whether it would not be appropriate to transpose, wherever they appear within the Bill, "The Welsh National Water Development Authority", and "The Welsh Water Authority"?
The second point is a little different. The Water Acts (or those bits which remain) will, through the interaction of this Bill, make the Welsh Assembly responsible for promoting national water policy for Wales. This is in the 1973 Act which, I know, is not particularly germane to this Amendment, but I hope that the
1420
noble Baroness will be good enough to answer the point. When the Act was written, national water policy meant water policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. Now that the Assembly has its hands on a section of this, I should like to know whether the national water policy referred to is Welsh national water policy or whether it is still United Kingdom water policy. If it is still United Kingdom water policy, I have a further question: there does not seem to be any means of communication in the Bill for the Welsh authority to determine what the national water policy of the United Kingdom is. With this list of questions, I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Government believe that water is so central to domestic matters of everyday concern to people in Wales that the Assembly should be given substantial powers. Also, it is an essential element in the devolution proposals to improve democratic control of nominated bodies operating in Wales. The Bill seeks to achieve both these aims. But the Government recognise that it is necessary also to take account of the fact that the Wales/England border does not follow the hydrological boundaries of the Welsh Water Authority and the Severn Trent Water Authority. Therefore the Bill provides that in general these two water authorities should be responsible to the Assembly for their activities in Wales and to the Government for their activities in England.
The Bill establishes the general principles for the split of responsibilities and covers important matters such as the arrangements for safeguarding the England and Wales national policy for water and the question of appointments to the water authorities, but we have not attempted to deal in the Bill with all the practical arrangements, for example in relation to the division of accounts and reports, which are also consequential on the split of responsibility. Instead, we have provided, by listing the water authorities in Schedule 7, for orders to be made under Clause 59 of the Bill to deal with these detailed matters after full consultation with the authorities. As a result of the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment in another place, the orders under Clause 59 are to be subject to approval in draft by each House of Parliament. Acceptance of this Amendment would prevent the necessary practical

1421
details being dealt with by order in relation to the Welsh Water Authority and would leave a state of confusion for that body.
The noble Lord suggested a change of name. He will probably be delighted to know that we are considering a change of name. We hope to put down an Amendment at Report stage to change the name to the Welsh National Water Development Authority, which I think may meet some of his points—
Baroness WHITE: The other way round!
Baroness STEDMAN; I beg your pardon; yes, the other way round. The noble Baroness is right. The Welsh Assembly have to act in harmony with England and Wales over water policy, and the Government will tell it what is the national policy and it will be expected to conform with it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that full answer. At the begining, it sounded like trotting out the same old gramophone record. But I assure the noble Baroness that certainly, to me, she has put her message firmly across. The last part of her answer needs a little clarification. She says that the Government will continue to set out their policy. Will this also continue to be interpreted and passed on through the chain of the water authorities by the National Water Council?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, that is the way I see it working.
Baroness VICKERS: May I ask about water abstraction and applications for a licence? Who is going to be responsible for informing the owners when a licence is taken out to abstract water? At the moment notice has to be published in the London Gazette and at least once in each of two successive weeks in one or more newspapers. It is extremely important to individuals to know when water is going to be abstracted from rivers. The noble Baroness may remember questions about aquifers. In many cases the owners of rivers are not notified, and two years ago, when we had the very bad drought, farmers did not know when water was going to be abstracted. Their beasts went without water or had great difficulty in
1422
climbing down banks to get to it. Also, fish died because of the shortage of water.
I should like to know which authority will give notice—or will one authority let another authority know that they are going to abstract water? Landowners and farmers do not know these things at the moment. I understand that it is said to be too difficult to notify them individually. A practical suggestion might be to place a notice on telegraph poles. Notices about refuse collection arrangements are dealt with in this way. Everybody in the villages looks on telegraph poles nowadays because they know that is where they will see postal and local authority notices. This is an important aspect. Technically, I understand that there is no requirement to notify any landowners or occupiers. Certain authorities must be notified, including the district internal drainage board. If the noble Baroness could give me some assurance on how this is going to work in the future, I should be grateful.
Baroness STEDMAN: We shall have a major debate on water when we get to Clause 63 and Schedule 8. We had the question of abstraction raised earlier, and we said that both the authorities would be consulting and the announcement would still he placed as it is now, in the London Gazette. I was asked whether there was going to be a Cardiff Gazette, but there is just the London Gazette. Both authorities will be consulted. Notices on telegraph poles is an ingenious suggestion. I do not know whether the noble Baroness meant it seriously—I think she did.
Baroness VICKERS: Yes, I did.
Baroness STEDMAN: We will look at that idea.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is a little difficult to reconcile that. The only thing I can say is that telegraph poles actually float, given half a chance. With that remark, I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 64, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and because I know that this is a matter which the Committee would wish to discuss at a later stage, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved the Amendment formally in his name in order that the noble Baroness should have an opportunity to make clear the position of the Government. My noble friend will then be able to rely upon her reply to determine his position. I speak in some ignorance. If my noble friend has arrived at an agreement with the noble Baroness on this matter, I shall withdraw. If he has not, it will be of use to the Committee and my noble friends on the Front Bench to have some clarification of the implications as to what is becoming an increasingly important industry in this country. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of explaining how we see the position of the Inland Waterways Board and the British Waterways Board. This Amendment, as it is framed at the moment, would mean that the Welsh Assembly would be prevented from exercising any functions in respect of the British Waterways Board. The Government consider this is unreasonable. But, on the other hand, we do not propose that functions in respect of inland waterways should be automatically devolved from the outset—in the manner for instance of housing functions. What we propose is a middle course which we have arrived at after close consultation and the consideration of representatives by those concerned with inland waterways. We believe now that the proposals in the Bill are reasonable and practical ones.
During earlier debates on forestry, the House gave considerable weight to the linkages between forestry and other matters. It was argued by some that it had closer links with reserved than with devolved matters. I would suggest that with inland waterways there is no such room for argument. Whether one regards inland waterways as a form of transport or a form of amenity, all the analogous matters are to be transferred to the Assembly—for example, those functions in respect of general transport policy, roads, countryside and tourism are to be transferred.
1424
It might, however, be argued that inland waterways in Wales have close physical links with those in England. This is, of course, true. I think that there are two canals in Wales which cross the border and a third which has links with canals in the West Midlands, and perhaps the difficulties here are exaggerated. Canals, even more often, cross local authority boundaries—but I have never heard it argued that it was wrong to give local authorities inland waterways functions under Section 114 of the Transport Act 1968. Indeed, Section 114 even gives to a local authority powers in respect of a waterway entirely outside its area, if it can conveniently be used by persons residing in the area of the authority. We assume, of course, that local authorities possess common sense and will be ready to consult and cooperate as necessary. If we can assume that for local authorities, and it works, I trust that we may do so for the Assembly.
The Assembly will not have direct functions in respect of inland waterways. It will take over the existing Ministerial functions, most of which will be exercised through the British Waterways Board. The British Waterways Board will remain, as it is now, a single unified body responsible for waterways throughout Great Britain. There is no question, as has sometimes been suggested, that the Bill creates a separate Board for Wales. Let me explain the position. The British Waterways Board is listed in Schedule 7 and so may be the subject of an order under Clause 59—I say "may" and not "will" and I shall return to that shortly. The scope of what a Clause 59 order may do is considerable. The maximum it would do would be to transfer to the Assembly all existing ministerial functions in respect of the Board's activities in Wales, and provide for the Board to be separately financed by, and accountable to, the Assembly for those activities. The minimum it would do would perhaps be to give the Assembly a power to appoint one or two members of the Board.
The listing of the Board in Schedule 7 carries no presumption that either the maximum or the minimum are what will happen. No action at all will be taken unless the Assembly request it. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consult the British Waterways Board—

1425
this is a statutory requirement. In the light of the Assembly's request, after consultation wth the Board, the Secretary of State will then draw up an order containing what he considers to be the provisions appropriate to the circumstances. This order will only take effect if both Houses of Parliament so resolve.
The Bill is, therefore, not in itself devolving functions in respect of the British Waterways Board. It is providing for the possibility of devolution at a later stage, and I would suggest that this is a very modest aim. I should like to emphasise that this is a matter on which we have not only listened carefully to those concerned with inland waterways, but we have altered the Bill in the light of representations. The Minister of State in the Privy Council Office has held two meetings with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Committee accompanied by MPs of both main Parties, and subsequently the Government agreed to accept Amendments in another place to move the Board and the Advisory Committee itself from Part I to Part II of Schedule 7. This has the important effect that there will be no devolution unless and until the Assembly specifically request it. In particular, this allows greater scope for a smooth transition, because concern has been expressed about the position of projects which were already in progress at the time the Assembly is set up.
I suggest that this Amendment is considerably less modest that what we propose in the Bill. The Amendment would entirely exclude the possibility of any transfer to the Assembly of functions in respect of the British Waterways Board, however limited this might be and however much it might have been agreed after consultation. This seems a very extreme remedy for a matter such as inland waterways, which is so closely linked with other functions to be devolved. We believe that the Bill should be allowed to stand as it is.
Baroness WHITE: May I express thanks to my noble friend and her colleagues for having taken a very great deal of trouble about what was a difficult and potentially explosive situation.
The MARQUESS of TWEEDDALE: I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for what she has told us. However, I should like to point out that this matter cropped up in a connection with the Scotland Bill and, as it stands at the moment, canals are now a reserved matter. Although I fully understand that the waterways in Wales are not going to be devolved as yet, I think I should like to keep this open and perhaps come back to it later on, if the noble Baroness agrees.
Baroness ELLES: Before we conclude our discussions on this Amendment, I should like to put two points to the noble Baroness. She gave the analogy of local authorities discussing with each other across the border—obviously water does not stay within the confines of one local authority, and she rightly pointed to the need for good co-operation between adjacent local authorities. I wonder whether she could tell us with whom the Welsh Assembly will negotiate—will it be with the United Kingdom Parliament? There is no regional area which covers England or the adjacent parts of Wales. Would the Welsh Assembly consult with the Herefordshire County Council, for instance, or with some other county councils? It seems to me that one would not get the same level of body through which to hold these negotiations. The analogy, therefore, if I may say so, seems to be a false one.
Could the noble Baroness also tell us whether the Resolution to be placed before both Houses of Parliament before any of these orders can take effect would be a Negative Resolution or an Affimative Resolution, which is subject to debate? I should be grateful for her comments on these points.
Baroness STEDMAN: It will be a matter for the Welsh Assembly to discuss with all the bodies around it, including the English counties, the British Waterways Board and everybody else who is concerned, before a recommendation is made and before any of the procedure is put into effect. My information is that it will be an Affirmative Resolution and therefore both Houses will be able to discuss it.
There is one other point, of course. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place have recently reported on the Board and have recom-

1427
mended that it should be excluded from devolution. The Government have not yet made up their minds about the recommendations of the Select Committee. They will be publishing their response, and I believe similar remarks were made in connection with the Scotland Bill. We expect to get that response shortly, and, if necessary, we will return to it at a later stage in the light of the decision on that report.
Lord ELTON: This has been unexpectedly useful and fruitful, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response to my impromptu intervention. As I understand it, the position of the British Waterways Board has not changed since their response to the White Paper, and the relevant plea seems to be found in the following sentence:
"It would, however, be quite wrong for Parliament to prejudge the general future of the British Waterways Board by making ad hoc decisions on certain parts of their network. Nor, in their view, is the matter one of principle so far as Scotland and Wales are concerned".
That is the kind of starting point so far as they are concerned.
The noble Baroness has deployed a great deal of technical information, which no doubt my noble friends will wish to study. I have noted what my noble friend Lord Tweeddale has said, that the provision in the Bill as it now stands is different from that in the Scotland Bill as that now stands; and I think the noble Baroness was present when I received a most terrible wigging yesterday for suggesting that the Welsh should receive anything different from the Scots, as that was derogatory. I should have thought that this must do something to weaken any position she might take at Report stage in view of what my noble friends may say then. However, in thanking her for what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 65, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential, and I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I must again add the same caveat that this is subject to any further consideration of the Bill after it has been to another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 65, leave out lines 17 to 22.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Power of Assembly to assume functions of certain bodies];
[Amendment No. 99A not moved].
5.20 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 99B:
Page 25, line 1, leave out ("all") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee, if I speak to Amendments Nos. 99B and 99C together. The purpose of this Amendment is to probe and also to be helpful, because I do not think the Government mean what I think I thought they meant. Your Lordships can try translating that into Welsh, if you like. As I understand it, Clause 60(1) empowers the Welsh Assembly, with certain safeguards, to take over duties of all or any of the nominated bodies. These bodies comprise, according to a Written Answer to a Question in the Hansard of another place of 16th March 1978, the following: the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, the Area Health Authorities, the Central Advisory Council for Education (Wales), the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, New Town Development Corporations, the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and the Library Advisory Council (Wales). Can the Government assure me that this is the complete list of all the bodies? Are there any non-statutory bodies that would fall in line? I should also be grateful if the Government would confirm that the power of appointment by local authorities to the Area Health Authorities, to which I referred, is not disturbed in any way by the Wales Bill.
My second question is perhaps the same as my first. Am I correct in assuming that the Welsh Assembly can subsume the

1429
duties and powers of a nominated body only if it has sole responsibility for appointing all the members to that body? If I am correct, then I suggest that this Amendment is helpful in so far as it says just that, and the Government might like my English better than theirs and accept it. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: In supporting my noble friend, may I say that I regard this Part, even more than that dealing with water, as the most crucial Part of the Bill. I find it crucial, because it is something that is completely anathema to me in my ideas, as I have read the clause and as I understand it. It states:
"… the Assembly may by order … provide for the exercise by the Assembly of all or any of the functions of that body".
Is this a power that the Assembly is taking over from the Secretary of State? The clause also puts a kind of caveat or check on this, by stating:
"… the Assembly may by order made by statutory instrument".
Whose Statutory Instrument? Is it its own Statutory Instrument? I see that the noble Lord indicates that it is. So it has complete and utter power in this matter. I should have thought that this gave the Assembly the opportunity to take over virtually any body, and I did not think that this was what the Government had in mind. I should be grateful for clarification on this matter.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not think that it is as difficult as noble Lords have implied; at least, I hope we shall agree on that by the time I have finished. Clause 60 is concerned with public bodies for which all ministerial powers of appointment will be transferred to the Assembly. In other words, a body will be within the terms of the clause, irrespective of whether one or all the members are appointed by the Minister, provided that all such appointments are devolved by means of entries in Schedule 2. It sounds complicated, but it is quite simple. If one ministerial power of appointment is left with a Minister, then the body cannot be subject to a Clause 60 order. The effect of the Amendment before us is to restrict the terms of Clause 60 to bodies whose entire membership is appointed by Ministers. So if, for example, there is
1430
one local authority appointment to the body, that body cannot be subject to a Clause 60 order.
I have looked through the terms of appointment of the principal bodies who, under Clause 60 as it stands in the Bill, would be subject to the terms of that clause. I find that this Amendment would create some curious results. The main bodies which would no longer be caught by Clause 60, if the Amendment were carried, are the Ancient Monuments Board, the Area Health Authorities, the Community Health Councils and the National Parks Council. Bodies such as the Advisory Council for Education remain as potential candidates for a Clause 60 order. I therefore conclude that this Amendment not only derogates from the powers of the Assembly, but does so in a very arbitrary way. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding in noble Lords' minds as to what Clause 60 does, and I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that this Amendment would confuse matters even more.
Lord ELTON: I just wonder whether there is a misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. If there is not, then there is in mine, because the provisions, as I read this clause, do not coincide with what he said. The clause appears to say that where a Minister of the Crown has power to appoint members to a body—it does not say what proportion there should be; whether it is one in 100, 16 in 100, or all of them—then, if the whole of that power is exercisable by the Assembly, it may then make a Clause 60 order. That is what it appears to me to mean. But the noble Lord went on to say that if any local authority could appoint any member to such a body, then the opportunity to make a Clause 60 order would not exist.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With respect, under the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I apologise to the noble Lord. So that the confusion was in my mind. I think I agree with my noble friend that we have got it straight, and the Government have now said that they mean that as long as a Minister can

1431
appoint one member to a body, and if that power is in the hands of a committee, then it is translated into an ability to take over the body. Although it might have 60 members on its executive committee, if one of them is appointed by the Minister this is an entrée for this system. If that is so, will the noble Lord confirm that the rather short list which my noble friend read out of bodies which meet this specification is complete, because there may be many of which one had not thought—for instance, under the terms of a charity—where the Minister had power to make an appointment, which would fall, perhaps unwittingly, into this basket.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord's list was taken from the reply in another place of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, in which he said:
"The following are the principal statutory bodies which would fall within the scope of Clause 62".
I do not think this means that there could never be another.
Lord ELTON: Indeed. The word "statutory" does not appear in the clause, so the Secretary of State has referred only to the statutory bodies which fall within this definition. There may be a great many others—for instance, trusts, beneficies, who knows what? I should have thought that the Government might at least tell us what this trawl will catch.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am not clear in my own mind about charities of a general kind. I do not think that they come under this clause. I shall have to look at the point again. My impression is that that is not the case, but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: I sympathise with the noble Lord—obviously this is a difficult field—and no doubt he will sympathise with me. It may be that he will be able to deal with my difficulty when he has read that piece of paper. If the noble Lord's answer is that he is right, a letter will, of course, suffice. If the answer is that he is wrong, then a letter will not suffice.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The point which the noble
1432
Lord makes would be sound if it applied, but it does not. The information which I have just had confirmed is that it must be a statutory body.
Baroness ELLES: I wonder whether I could intervene in the happy dialogue which is taking place and reinforce a question which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley put to the Minister. My noble friend read out a list of the statutory bodies which would fall within the scope of Clause 60, and he asked what statutory bodies are considered to fall within the scope of Clause 60, apart from the ones which were given by the noble Lord's right honourable friend in his answer on 16th March 1978. I may be wrong about this, but when the noble Lord referred to some of these bodies I thought that he mentioned two which were not on that list—one in connection with National Parks and another relating to community something-or-other—which I should be grateful if the noble Lord would repeat. Certainly it was not on the list which was given by the Minister in another place. Possibly the noble Lord has a list which would satisfy, at least partly, the curiosity of my noble friend. When the noble Lord answers that question, I wonder whether he could confirm that if Part IX were to be removed from Schedule 2 to the Bill, the Land Authority for Wales, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales would therefore no longer fall within the provisions of Clause 60.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The answer to the last question is certainly, Yes. The point which the noble Lord missed and that I did not emphasise when I spoke about a statutory body is to be found in line 2 of Clause 60(1):
"conferred by any enactment".
I think that those words make it quite clear. I cannot give a complete list to the noble Baroness. I do not think that there could be such a list. My noble friend Lady Stedman wrote a long letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, giving him certain information of this kind, which I have not got. I know that the letter was written, and I hope that it will have given some information of this kind to the noble Lord.
Baroness ELLES: I am sorry to insist on this point. In the case of bodies which are under the threat not only of control but also of extinction, does not the noble Lord consider that it would be a matter of interest both to the noble Lord and to the Committee as to which these bodies might be?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: To back that up even further, it would be a matter of great interest to the bodies themselves.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: We are getting away from the point. The number of statutory bodies is highly limited. We started to speak about charities, most of which are not statutory bodies. I shall try to give a list of some of the statutory bodies that might be affected, but I certainly cannot give it off-the-cuff.
Baroness ELLES: I am sorry to pursue this point. I have with me a document called Paid Appointments to Statutory Bodies. I understand that it lists at least 70 or 80 bodies throughout the United Kingdom which were set up by statute. There is nothing in the clause which states that the Minister who devolves his powers to the Welsh Assembly should be the Secretary of State for Wales. It could be the Department of the Environment. I am not saying that any Minister would ever devolve powers to the Welsh Assembly in order to deal with a national body. Nevertheless, as the clause is now worded, this is a possibility.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am still not entirely clear about this, nor am I sure that the Committee is, either. Can I put the position as I see it, now that the noble Lord has kindly explained it to me. If the Welsh Assembly has the power to appoint all of the members to that particular body, then it has the power to subsume that particular body. To give one example which slightly worries me, after our long discussion at some unearthly hour of the night I understand that one member of the water authority is still to be appointed by the Government. Therefore the Welsh Assembly cannot subsume the powers of the water authority. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord is nodding, which means that I am beginning to make a little more sense. Also, I understand—although I may be wrong—
1434
that, so far as Area Health Authorities are concerned, some of the members are to be nominated by local authorities. May I ask whether the Assembly can therefore subsume their powers, for the Area Health Authorities are on the list? I wonder whether I have explained myself. I have got my answer, because the noble Lord nodded, but when he gets up to reply perhaps he could put it on the record that I am right about that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Yes, I am very happy to do that. It is quite clear that the noble Lord is right on the first point.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: May I ask the noble Lord about the last point—the Area Health Authorities? Why can their powers be subsumed by the Welsh Assembly? I believe that some of their members are not to be appointed by the Welsh Assembly, although I may not be correct about that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: In so far as they have members who are not so appointed, then clearly their powers cannot be subsumed by the Welsh Assembly.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am not absolutely certain about that. I think I have got the point, but I may have to come back to it. At one moment I thought we were speaking about Irish devolution, because we were speakingatcross purposes! However, I understand what the noble Lord says, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99C, 99D and 100A not moved.]
5.39 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 100B:
Page 25, line 9, leave out ("including") and insert ("excluding").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment needs hardly any explanation. It says that the Welsh Assembly should not change the law. Perhaps the Government might care to explain the thoughts which lie behind their wish to allow the Welsh Assembly to change any enactment. Could the Government give me a few

1435
examples of what type of enactment they might want to change? I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The power in Clause 60 to modify any enactment is there to allow for any technical tidying up necessary as a result of an order made under the terms of the clause. For example, if the Assembly were to assume some of the functions of the Area Health Authorities, Amendments might have to be made to the National Health Service Act 1977, for example, to take account of the changed circumstances. There is no question, as seems to be in the noble Lord's mind—I think, wrongly—that the power is intended to be used, or can be used, by the Assembly to extend the scope of devolved functions. The drafting of the provision precludes that.
On the whole I think that the Amendment would do more harm than good. I know that it is only a probing Amendment. I am not treating it otherwise. But, if it were agreed to, it would prevent the kind of mechanical consequential change being made to enactments which may be necessary as a result of the making of an order under subsecion (1) of the clause. Primary legislation would therefore be needed. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is giving the matter an exaggerated and unnecessary importance which is totally out of proportion to the action required. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am very grateful for that explanation. It was proposed only to clear my mind of the fear that the Assembly could suddenly change an Area Health Authority into a swimming pool, or something extraordinary. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 100C:
Page 25, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: As a result of our original discussions, your Lordships will see that Clause 60 is large and important.
1436
It contains far-reaching powers. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me whether similar powers are given to any person or body in England, at the moment, without an order being laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that we are becoming more and more familiar, as the noble Lord said, with the effect of Clause 60. I do not want to waste time by entering into another narrative as to the way the clause works. Clause 60(1) confers an order-making power on the Assembly in respect of a body falling within the ambit of that clause. But the order cannot be made until the body concerned has been consulted. That is a statutory duty on the Assembly and cannot be shirked.
Once consultations have taken place the order must be approved by the Secretary of State who must surely, in deciding whether or not to approve the order, take into account the views expressed to the Assembly by the body. In the Government's view, these arrangements will ensure that adequate attention is given to the views of the body in question and also that the Assembly's proposals are adequate and acceptable. These orders are essentially concerned with the consequences of devolution and the making of arrangements, so that the functions of the bodies concerned may be discharged in the most effective manner appropriate to the transfer of responsibilities to the Assembly. The orders are not concerned with a matter of principle, and are not, therefore, in my view, appropriate to the Parliamentary scrutiny envisaged in this Amendment.
Noble Lords may point to Clause 59 and the appropriate Resolution procedure in subsection (5) as proof to the contrary. Let me remind your Lordships that the bodies in Schedule 7 all operate on an England-and-Wales basis and will continue to do so after devolution. It is only right, therefore, that Parliament should have the means of ensuring that the English activities of the body will not be injured by anything the Assembly may wish to do in respect of the body's Welsh functions. This argument does not apply to the bodies which could be affected by a Clause 60 order. Hence the differing treatment of them. The noble Lord asked me whether anything of this kind could be

1437
done in England without a statutory order. The answer to that, I think, is in the negative.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am not entirely happy about the whole position of Clause 60—in fact, I am far from happy about it. I am certainly very much happier and understand the clause much better since the noble Lord has been so good as to explain it so fully. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment 100D not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness ELLES: The initial fears expressed by my noble friends on this side of the House have not been allayed by the answers, although they were extremely courteous, from the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. In fact, not only have they not been allayed but I think that they have been increased. For one thing, there seems to be no limit to the number of bodies which may be included and which may fall within the scope of Clause 60, apart from the facts that they must be bodies established by statute and that a Minister of the Crown—it need not necessarily be the Secretary of State for Wales— has the power to appoint Members to that particular body.
There are three points in relation to individual bodies that I should like to mention that were not discussed on earlier Amendments. The first is in relation to the Welsh Commission, which may be debated later under Clause 62. The Welsh Commission will be a body of immense importance, in accordance with the subsections of Clause 62. But, under subsection (13) we see:
"Section 60 above shall apply in relation to the Welsh Commission as it applies in relation to the bodies there referred to".
This is a real case of strangulation at birth, if not a case of abortion.
The second board included in the original list printed in the Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 16th March, is the Welsh Tourist Board. This gives rise to concern and causes us to ask why
1438
this particular board is included. There will already be possibilities under Clause 61 for the Assembly to make arrangements direct with the British Tourist Board to undertake activities in relation to the promotion, quite rightly and very properly, for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Wales. It seems to me that there will be a schizophrenic situation here, using one body for one purpose and another body for another, and in the meantime the British taxpayer will be paying out more for the people who have to administer these dichotomies.
A further point, which has not been commented on but which certainly gives me cause for concern, is the matter of some of the bodies which were in the original list, if I may refer to it as that. Among that original list was the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales. It has not been brought to the attention of noble Lords that it is not only a Minister of the Crown who has the right to appoint members to that body. There are many other bodies who have a right to appoint members to that body, such as, for example, the Trustees of the British Museum. Are the Trustees of the British Museum aware that this body may be dissolved under Clause 60? I am certain that they are not aware of that. If they are aware, they have not expressed the concern which they must undoubtedly feel. There are other bodies in a similar position, to which the Minister may be entitled to nominate or appoint persons—but they are bodies to which other important bodies also have a right of appointment. This matter has not been discussed sufficiently widely. Nor has the attention of these other nominated bodies been drawn to what may well happen to these statutory bodies falling within the scope of Clause 60.
The noble Lord made two points, on which I should like to touch, on the question of consultation. The noble Lord will know very well indeed that consultation is not the same as negotiation or being in a position of power. Many of us have consulted many people and gone away with a dusty answer, and it might be the same in this case. I do not think that the power of consultation with a body which you are about to dissolve will give that body particularly strong support or encouragement in its relationship to the Welsh Assembly.

1439
As the noble Lord himself rightly said, this power under Clause 60 can be exerted only with the approval of the Secretary of State. He pointed out also that naturally the Secretary of State has to take into account the views expressed by the Assembly, and that will be only right and proper. If the Welsh Assembly expresses the view that such-and-such a body should be dissolved, I think it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to go behind that democratic decision of a body elected by the people of Wales. I feel that this clause has immense implications. It has not been discussed in the Commons and I think another place should have an opportunity to discuss it. I hope that my noble friends will agree with me that we should go into the Lobbies and divide on this particular clause.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I thought that in opening her remarks the noble Baroness was slightly confused about the rôle of the British Tourist Authority—and I would remind her that it is the British Tourist Authority and not the British Tourist Board—and the role of the Wales Tourist Board. We are to discuss this more fully under the next Amendment; to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, but the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, seem to me to be misconceived because what is being proposed under the next paragraph is in fact a topping up arrangement whereby the funds which go to the British Tourist Authority—which, after all, is promoting Britain as a whole overseas—can be topped up to some extent by the local Wales Assembly if they wish to have a special promotion in that respect.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I should like to say two things. First, we are discussing the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? and if the noble Baroness thinks of dividing the Committee it would be equivalent to a decision to leave out Clause 60. Just so long as we know what we are talking about. The point of this clause is fairly clearly stated in the Bill. It is to provide a machinery for the Welsh Assembly to take over certain things of which it already has the full functions. The idea of dissolving something against its will is quite wrong and
1440
nothing whatever to do with the functions which we are proposing here.
I am puzzled: I have the feeling that the noble Baroness feels that this will be a way of allowing worthy statutory bodies to be suppressed by an unworthy Assembly. I believe that is an absolutely false idea.
Baroness ELLES: Oh, no!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If that is not the idea held by the noble Baroness, then it is the greatest possible mistake to leave the clause out because the machinery will then not exist.
Baroness ELLES: I am sorry to disabuse the noble Lord's mind. I admit that I am very often confused, and I often fail to understand either what is being said by the noble Lord opposite or indeed what I read, but it seems to be perfectly clear in this particular clause, and in conjunction with what the noble Lord has just said, that the Assembly may exercise all or any of the functions of that body.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If they are devolved, with respect.
Baroness ELLES: Precisely, but what we have not got out of the noble Lord is which bodies are fit to come within this scope, and he seems unable to tell us. He has also, quite rightly I believe, told us that he cannot tell us. I think this is a considerable worry, not only to your Lordships but also to any body which may fall within the scope of that clause. I cannot feel that we should leave this matter as it is. In my view, we should allow another place to discuss it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With respect, if I said "limited companies" the noble Baroness would not say that I must give a list of limited companies. It is a perfectly clear definition and we have an equally clear definition here. I really do not understand the desire to have a list.
Baroness ELLES: It so happens that bodies which might be affected by this clause are interested. If the noble Lord were to give a list of limited companies, those limited companies would be independent, corporate bodies with their

1441
own responsibilities and they are not controlled by an overriding governmental or other elected authority. Here we are talking about an Assembly and it is no disrespect to that Assembly; it is exactly the same as if any body was to come within the control of some other newly elected body, let us say in Ruritania. I think that those bodies who may come under the powers of such an Assembly and whose functions under Clause 60—as it states quite clearly, and as the noble Lord himself stated quite clearly—might be ingested into the Welsh Assembly, have a right to know and the other bodies who appoint persons to those bodies have a right to know. I do not think that the noble Lord has made a good case.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think I must have one more "go". Of course, they have a right to know. Each body knows whether it comes under this definition. The ministerial powers of appointment must have been devolved in Schedule 2 before Clause 60 operates. That is the first
point. Secondly, if the power has not been devolved in respect of even one appointment, then Clause 60 cannot affect the body. Each body will know whether or not this is the case and will know whether or not it is affected. Also it is inconceivable that the Assembly should transfer the powers of a body to the Assembly without discussion with the body. Probably what would happen is that almost certainly the same people would continue to do the same work under a different name. By all means let us test the feeling of the Committee, but I think that the noble Baroness is barking up a gum tree.
Baroness ELLES: I should be happy if that were true, but I think we should test the feeling of the Committee on this and see whether they will come up the gum tree with me.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Plant, L.

Ardwick, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Banks, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Samuel, V.

Barrington, V.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Bernstein, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shinwell, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Boothby, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Castle, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Crook, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wigg, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Willis, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ogmore, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wootton of Abinger, B.

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

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Elton, L.

Amory, V.

Colwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Faithfull, B.

Auckland, L.

Croft, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, E.

Cromartie, E.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Blakenham, V.

Daventry, V.

Gridley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

de Clifford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

De Freyne, L.

Carrington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Cathcart, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Elles, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cockfield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Northchurch, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Long, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Luke, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Lyell, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathspey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swansea, L.

Middleton, L.

Robbins, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Rochdale, V.

Tenby, V.

Monson, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Vickers, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Norrie, L.

Spens, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and clause disagreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness VICKERS: I beg to move to leave out Clause 61. In the document Devolution to Scotland and Wales it states at page 50, paragraph 257:
"The Assembly will be responsible for tourism in Wales, including the Wales Tourist Board, but…"
—this is what I want to draw attention to—
"…overseas promotion will remain the responsibility of the British Tourist Authority, which will receive funds from the Government for promoting tourism in Wales as well as in England and Scotland. If the Assembly wants to give the Authority extra funds for specific promotion overseas, or give work to other agencies, it will be free to do so, but it will not receive extra United Kingdom funds for the purpose".
This Bill is an immensely complicated Bill anyhow, but the position of tourism after creation of the proposed Assembly is very hard to disentangle, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to help me. As I understand it, under Clause 61 the Assembly may make the arrangements I mentioned for the Authority to undertake work outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Wales. Looking at Schedule 11, page 77, the Development of Tourism Act 1969, paragraph 32 reads:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the Wales Tourist Board shall have power, by virtue of subsection (2) of that section, to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Wales".
Under Clause 60 of the Bill the Assembly may subsume and abolish the Wales Tourist Board, provided that the Assembly itself exercises all or any of the functions of that body. So it is left entirely to them to decide whether or not to carry it on. It is, therefore, most unclear, at any rate
1444
to me, as to where responsibility for promoting Wales abroad will lie. Will it lie with the Assembly, with the Wales Tourist Board or the British Tourist Authority, or sometimes a combination of all three? Will, for instance, any promotion of Wales abroad by the British Tourist Authority be chargeable to the Welsh Consolidated Fund? This is what I call modifying responsibility between all these different authorities.
I should like some clarification on this matter. Similarly, it would be helpful to know where financial responsibility will lie. Will, for instance, any promotion of Wales abroad by the British Tourist Authority be chargeable to the Welsh Consolidated Fund? I should particularly like an answer to that question. There are persistent rumours—I have heard this from more than one authority—about a British Tourist Authority display in Brussels where a map of Wales was displayed upside down in a window.
Tourism is a major growth industry in Wales. The Wales Tourist Board appears to have been more satisfactory in its performance in encouraging people to come to Wales than the other authorities. The amounts of money estimated to have been spent by British tourists—in other words, not tourists from overseas—are as follows. I shall give just two examples. In 1972 the British people spent £125 million and by 1976 £250 million in Wales alone. In addition, the contribution of overseas tourists is growing. In 1976 it was estimated that visitors from overseas spent about £50 million in Wales.
On 23rd August 1977, Mr. Harold Naylor, the Chief Executive of the Wales Tourist Board, claimed that the Welsh tourist industry could be earning £1,000 million a year in 10 years if special tourist development areas were set up. In my view that is what the Welsh people can do better than anybody else. That was in response to the proposal for tourist

1445
development areas put forward in a Conservative document called A Policy for Tourism. At present, the Special Tourism Projects Scheme resources and EEC fund aids for tourism are available only in industrial development areas. For example, parts of Denbigh, Conway and West Flint are excluded from development areas. There is a case for separating industrial development areas and tourism development areas so that all of Wales can potentially benefit from these sources.
Under the Special Tourism Projects Scheme established by the Development of Tourism Act 1969, £8 million was set aside until 1978 for grants to encourage tourism in Wales. Under this scheme it was estimated that by March 1976, 3,000 jobs had been created, either directly or indirectly, at a cost of about £1,590 per job. I suggest that that compares very favourably with job creation costs in other industries. In many ways tourism is of special importance to rural Wales. It helps to sustain the economy of the rural areas without causing dislocation or disruption which other industries are prone to do.
The suggestion that the board may be dissolved under the provisions of Clause 60 seems to run counter to the Government's own feelings about the Board. In a Written Answer on 6th January 1978, at column 3 of the Official Report. Mr. Barry Jones, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, claimed:
"The Wales Tourist Board's responsibilities are different from those of the British Tourist Authority. We have certainly no intention of winding up the Board".
On 17th January 1978 the South Wales Argus reported that, Mr. Jones said—and I agreed with him—that
"it would be 'putting back the clock' to scrap the Board, and this would be unacceptable to the people of Wales … Mr. Jones replied that the Board had put Wales on the international map and had been 'a thundering success'.".
In the debates on the Scotland Bill there were references to tourism and I think that they have some bearing on the Welsh Tourist Board. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is here because I gather that on the 14th March this year, at columns 1265 to 1268 of the Official Report, he discussed the question of the reorganisation of the British Tourist Authority as proposed
1446
in the Scotland Bill, and the under-representation that England would have on the newly reconstituted Board. In columns 1275 to 1277 the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, echoed the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, underlining the importance of an independent and impartial British Tourist Authority. I also understand that in columns 439 to 450 on 17th May this year, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, to increase the number of independent members of the British Tourist Authority, was withdrawn following an assurance by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that the Government were prepared to accept that there was a case for a larger board than five members, and were prepared to look again at the proposals in the Bill.
I should like to know today from the noble Lord who will be answering the debate whether he does not think that the Welsh Board is adequate to undertake tourism for itself. I know that the British Tourist Authority is rather annoyed with me because during the Second Reading debate I suggested that it would be better if it were done away with—perhaps I put it more elegantly than that, and said that it should cease to act—and that the various boards for England, Scotland and Wales should do their own work, because in my view they could do it equally well. Moreover, it would save money and they would not have to set up separate offices. They could use the British Airways office and they could immediately fix their clients up, put them on planes and send them to, for example, Wales.
I should like to know how many representatives the British Tourist Authority has working for Wales overseas. I consider that the Welsh people are by far the best people for putting over the conditions of their country. They know what is needed. They know all the beauty spots. Moreover, they have great charm and a particular way of speaking. Perhaps they could speak a little Welsh to show off their language and encourage others to learn it before they visit Wales. I know of an Indonesian diplomat who was going to Wales to give a lecture. He learnt Welsh and gave his lecture in Welsh and it proved very successful. Therefore the language cannot be all that difficult. I know that the Indonesians are very talented in languages but Welsh

1447
is a language which can be learnt. I suggest that the best promotion could be done by the Welsh people. I hope that my Amendment will be considered as a probing Amendment. If the answer is satisfactory I may be able to table a better Amendment in the future. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to her remarks on Second Reading. Whether she put the matter inelegantly or not, she said:
"I should like to take the opportunity to close down the British Tourist Authority, keeping the English, Welsh and Scottish Authorities and letting them manage their own arrangements ".—[Official Report, 23/5/78; col. 907.]
The particular question which she has raised this afternoon is where does the authority for promoting Wales overseas lie. At present the position is that the promotion of Wales and of all different parts of the United Kingdom overseas is in the hands of the British Tourist Authority. From time to time there may be needs for special promotions for particular parts of the United Kingdom.
We know as regards the Scottish Tourist Board that it would like to have some presence overseas. But when it actually comes down to it in the discussions with the Scottish Tourist Board, in my view what is primarily needed is an additional entry in the telephone directories of Montreal, California, Chicago and so on which would have the same telephone number as the British Tourist Authority. In that way people would look under "Scotland" or "Wales" as the case may be, and they would be directed to the British Tourist Authority which would encompass the whole of the marketing for the British Isles overseas. One should say in this connection that the British Tourist Authority already has marketing arrangements overseas with the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland and the Channel Isles. Therefore, what particularly is envisaged here is that there would, of course, be the normal British Government grant to the British Tourist Authority for promoting the whole of the United Kingdom overseas and this particular clause would allow for additional and special promotions for Wales to take place overseas with the authority of the Assembly and with additional monies provided by the Assembly.
1448
The proposal moved by the noble Baroness this afternoon I know not only does not find favour with the British Tourist Authority but does not even find favour with the Wales Tourist Board itself. I have it on good authority that Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies has said that the Wales Tourist Board would be totally opposed to the suggestion which has been put down here. I think the very great danger in this situation is a duplication of effort. We need to have a co-operation not only involving the British Tourist Authority but also involving the ambassadorial posts overseas, British Airways and all the outposts overseas which promote different aspects of Britain. To try to fragment this would, on the one hand, be likely to be less effective and, on the other, be very much more expensive. Therefore I would urge the Committee not to go along with the proposal which has been made.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I take it that this is to leave out Clause 61, but I consider that such a thing would rupture the purpose of encouraging tourist trade in Wales. In Clause 61 the Assembly can make arrangements with the British Tourist Authority for that authority to undertake activities outside the United Kingdom, and the noble Lord who has just spoken illustrated that with knowledge and understanding. But let me tell noble Lords—it is an amazing figure according to the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales—that between 11 million and 12 million people a year visit Wales. The entire population of Wales, whether they are English speaking Welsh or Welsh speaking Welsh, is less than 3 million, so four times the population of Wales visits it for its historical information, its industrial information and for the beauties of its hills; and, further, do not let us forget that it is a great ambassador for peace.
The international Eisteddfod at Llangollen brings people from all over the world, from Eastern Europe, from Latin America, to take part in the Eisteddfod, in singing, musical and cultural activities. The Welsh, to their sorrow, have been beaten by the Bulgarians. The Russian Red Army singing basso profundo can reach the centre of hell itself sometimes, and have amazed us. We have even had them come from Patagonia where Welsh and Spanish is the common dual language.

1449
In other words, the tourist industry in Wales is of fundamental importance.
Already, if it is not returned in the other place, Clause 60 is being taken out; but nothing can be taken out and nothing can be enacted without affirmative statutory instruments coming through the House. Finally, let me point out that there are increasing activities in the tourist industry. When mankind quarries into a beautiful mountainside it leaves a scar. In my boyhood I used to meander around those quarries looking for deep ponds in which to swim, and our mothers were always warning us about swimming in quarry ponds in the slate quarries, even in millstone grit areas, and as any geologist knows, once you reach the millstone grit there is no more coal after that. The fascinating thing about those quarries is that, seen 10 years later when the hand of man has improved the work of nature by planting flowers and trees, the quarry becomes a beautiful resort.
This Board that we set up must be given the local knowledge by means of which it can make arrangements with outside people. We sometimes want to talk with geologists who may be in English or foreign universities. We want to employ them and give them a fee to enhance the local beauty in a quarrying area. Many of your Lordships will remember Aberfan—the tragedy of a moving tip of slurry that wiped off the earth 150 schoolchildren before any could be saved. I am president of a new type of mining museum which we are establishing in Stoke-on-Trent where we have a tip and where we shall have museum objectives, and we expect to draw thousands of visitors a year. In South Wales and in parts where the quarrying of slate is concerned the tourist authority may want outside experts brought in and the power to spend money to increase the amenities and the beauty of areas where once there were tips.
There must therefore be the possibility for co-operation between the British Tourist industry and the Council for the preservation of Rural Wales. All these bodies vv ill have to grow together in consultation. Justifiably, of course, the Opposition must probe, but no Government, whatever their politics, should expect that they can sweep terrific Bills like ths
1450
through Parliament, as they did once with the Common Market Bill. That went through this House like lightning, without any Amendments, without altering a full stop, a comma or a semicolon. It went through your Lordships' House before you could say "Jack Robinson".
I do not object to a long time being spent on important Bills, but I believe we must use our judgment here. This case of the tourist industry and the tourist authority is of paramount importance to Wales. There can be no answers straight away, no Minister can be expected to give accurate answers. I have said about three times during the course of these debates that all this is a pragmatic thing. The Assembly is a novel idea. Men and women of common sense and of different political views will come together in that Assembly, and whatever their political views they will all try to do their best for the Welsh Assembly or the Scots Assembly, and, if the Anglo-Saxons get one outside this Parliament, for that one too. Consequently I hope that this Amendment is not accepted.
Lord ELTON: One of the very valuable functions provided by an Amendment such as the probing Amendment of my noble friend is to elicit a speech such as that we have just heard—full of praise for, as the noble Lord has rightly said, one of the principal and growing industries of Wales. From the figures he quoted one would have thought that the country was saturated. In fact, three weeks ago I had one of the most pleasant motor drives of my life from Cardiff to Carnaervon in that lovely weather, and you would not have known that it was a tourist paradise at all. That must be its principal charm. I passed the fatal tip at Aberfan and noticed how it had been beautified.
If your Lordships will allow me 30 seconds to reminisce, it happens that my great-great-grandfather managed a silver mine for the King of Denmark in Konigsberg, in Norway. I visited the place a year or two ago, and if the noble Lord says that he has a mining museum in mind he might care to visit one there. It goes three miles into the mountain by rail. He would see the old workings, and the machinery still at work exactly as it was in the early 19th century. But perhaps this is not the moment for dissertation like this.

1451
I am grateful to my noble friend for advancing this, and also for the opportunity of saying that of course we on this side recognise the enormous importance of the tourist industry to Wales and the great threat this poses to the Welsh. Maybe devolution comes at an important moment for them to resist this threat, which is the threat of becoming quaint. One has seen communities which are too much exposed to public view become, not human zoos, but human Whipsnades, where people go around in what the foreigners think of as peasant costume and they regard as fancy dress, where they eat food they do not like in order to please customers who pay them well. I am sure that the Welsh have the native strength and widsom to resist this. I should like to take this opportunity of declaring complete solidarity with them in this.
Lord GRIDLEY: May I intervene very briefly for one moment. This is the first time that I have taken part ina Committee stage of your Lordships' House and I am slightly confused. If we have decided that Clause 60 shall not stand part of the Bill, is it possible for Clause 61 to operate?— because under Clause 60 the Assembly must have powers to do what is being proposed, to make arrangements with the British Tourist Authority. In the circumstances, can Clause 61 of the Bill stand?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that it can. In the first place, I think enough remains of Clause 60 for it to be perfectly possible to pass Clause 61, even though it will not, of course, have as wide an effect as it would otherwise have. For example, the Assembly's relationship to the British Tourist Authority is not affected in any way by the removal of Clause 60.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, made a most interesting speech; in fact, we have had a number of interesting speeches. I want to be a little narrower in what I shall say because this is a very modest clause. It does not ask the Assembly to do anything; it does not ask the British Tourist Authority to do anything; it merely states that:
"The Assembly may make arrangements with the British Tourist Authority … for the purpose of encouraging people [from abroad] to visit Wales".
1452
The clause is concerned with overseas promotion. As I say, its purpose is to confer powers on the Welsh Assembly, as distinct from the Wales Tourist Board, to use the British Tourist Authority for promotion overseas to encourage people to visit Wales, if it wants to and if it thinks fit. There is no compulsion of any kind, but the clause gives it the right to do that.
The overseas promotion powers of the Authority for Great Britain as a whole and its responsibility to the Government in the exercise of those powers are unchanged by the Bill. In other words, whether or not we have Clause 61, the British Tourist Authority has a duty in relation to the United Kingdom. In so far as somebody in the British Tourist Authority in a foreign country can persuade people to come to Wales, unless the Welsh Assembly asks them not to they will continue to do so. But, of course, that is quite different from the Welsh Assembly asking them to take specific steps. This clause gives them the right to do that if they want to, and says nothing about the method by which this would be done. Presumably there would be some payment, but that is not specified.
The Wales Tourist Board itself is under the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly will pay for the expenses of the Wales Tourist Board out of the block grant. That is in reply to one of the questions which the noble Baroness asked. In a Bill about Wales we really must not try to abolish a United Kingdom body like the British Tourist Authority. That is not within our power, and I do not think that the noble Baroness raised this as more than a probe.
Lord ELTON: What about the Arts Council?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: That is a question which seems to me to be wholly irrelevant to our discussion. Central Government funds for the overseas promotion of tourism throughout Great Britain will continue to be channelled to the British Tourist Authority. It has great skill in this in spite of the map which was upside-down; that was a horrid story to hear, and I am sure that it has not happened again. However, it is likely that the Assembly will think it sensible to continue to use the Authority's services, though obviously

1453
in discussion with the Wales Tourist Board, which can spend money doing this itself with the Assembly's permission.
I regard this as an entirely satisfactory situation. It is permissive; it is not compulsory or mandatory. I think that we should do much better to leave this clause in position and let the Welsh Assembly, in consultation with the Wales Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority, make its own plans for dealing with this very important part of its economy about which we have been talking. I hope that this is no more than a probe, because it would be rather disastrous actually to omit this clause. I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness—in fact, I do not think that she needs a great deal of persuasion—to be satisfied that we have had a good discussion on the matter.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to thank the Minister very much for his reply. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, had hold of the wrong end of the stick. This was the only way in which we could discuss this matter. It is rather interesting that for once we, on this side of the Committee, are trying to promote the Welsh, saying how marvellous they are and how much better they could do it than the other Authority; whereas the other side of the Committee are now saying how much better the English Tourist Board could do it. I am very surprised at that reaction.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I must deny having said anything of the kind. What I said—and I think that my noble friend said this, too—was that there is a perfectly competent body, the British Tourist Authority, which is doing this. It would be absurd to prevent the Assembly from using the Authority if it want to, but meanwhile it has its own Wales Tourist Board; it has money to pay for it, and it has the power to do it itself.
Baroness VICKERS: But now we are to have another authority. We have the Assembly, the British Tourist Authority, the Wales Tourist Board, the English and the Scottish Tourist Boards. We are
1454
having one authority after the other. I am frightened that there will be considerable overlap and that one authority may be left out.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but this will not be different from the situation that we have today. We have a Wales Tourist Board, we have a Scottish Tourist Board and we have an English Tourist Board. We also have the British Tourist Authority. We have added nothing except changed the authority.
Baroness VICKERS: But we are adding another authority, because Clause 61 says, "The Assembly"—and we did not have an Assembly before—" may make arrangements". There is a little bit of blackmail here, because they will not get any money for overseas promotion unless they do it through the British Tourist Authority. It says so.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am sorry to enter into what seems like an argument with the noble Baroness, but the Assembly is in lieu of the Secretary of State. This is the fourth day that we have been discussing it, and the whole basis of the Welsh devolution is that the statutory powers of the Secretary of State, plus certain other powers discussed in Schedule 10, are transferred to the Welsh Assembly. There is no additional body at all.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that in the past the Minister has not done any promotion, although he has the powers. I do not think that he does any actual promotions; he has other things to do. But the Assembly will be a body that can get together and have a proper programme for promotion. That is why I want it to have a few more powers. I think we have discussed this long enough. I realised that this was the type of attitude I would get from the Government. However, I think that they must be a little sorry that they could not support me a little more in saying how efficient the Welsh are and how much better they probably would have done it had they been given the chance.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Countryside Commission for Wales]:
6.40 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 26, line 25, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is again to ensure against the possible encouragement by the Welsh Assembly of taking and using agricultural land for purposes other than agriculture. The problem here is that subsection (10) of Clause 62 gives the Welsh Assembly powers to tell the Welsh Commission what to do. I should add for the convenience of the Committee that subsection (11) is consequential on subsection (10).
As the Committee no doubt understands, the Welsh Commission will be doing the same job as the Countryside Commission does in England. It is therefore important to note that in the Countryside Act 1968 the functions of the Commission are set out in Section 2. Throughout that section, and in each subsection, the Commission is told to do certain things, and then to make recommendations or take appropriate action. What the section does not do—and this is the point I wish to make, and indeed is the substance of my Amendment—is to authorise the Minister, or indeed anyone, to make recommendations to the Commission. Clause 62(10) of the Wales Bill, the one I am referring to in this Amendment, does just that.
Not only will the Welsh Commission have to abide by Section 2 of the Countryside Act 1968, but they will also have to listen to, as this subsection says,
"… such directions of a general character as appear to it expedient in relation to the exercise of the Commission's functions and the Commission shall comply with the directions".
This is coming from the Welsh Assembly. No similar power coming from anywhere else applies in England to the Countryside Commission; that is, from the Secretary of State.
I believe this to be wrong and to be dangerous. It is wrong because the Welsh Commission will have Big Brother of the Welsh Assembly looking over its shoulders, and dangerous because the Welsh Assembly could make recommendations to the Welsh Commission to take
1456
agricultural land. We already have enough agricultural land taken each year without further encouragement.
May I explain my fears. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is looking perplexed, but I am fairly certain that I am on the right track here and I am not going to be put off by him looking perplexed. My fears are that it is likening the problem to the Welsh Assembly being put in the position of priming the pump of the Welsh Commission, and to pump good agricultural land properly used into some other use. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in the general principles behind his submissions, although I do not agree with his specific references to land. What worries me about this clause is that the Assembly may give to the Welsh Commission
"… such directions of a general character".
What are these directions of a general character? I would not mind those words appearing by themselves in the subsection, but then it goes on to say, "the Commission shall comply with the directions".
I should have thought that there was plenty of opportunity for confusion here. The Assembly gives directions—no doubt as a result of a resolution of the Assembly —of a general character such as appear to be expedient in relation to the exercise of its functions. Then the Commission shall comply with such directions. There is too much scope for confusion here and the wording of the subsection would be worthy of reconsideration.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. I feel that the reduction of agricultural land, whether it is in Wales, Scotland, or here should be opposed. In Scotland, and certainly in Wales, the Assemblies will be predominantly composed of urban people, because far more people live in towns than in the countryside. Inevitably, it will be found that the Assembly will not have the same appreciation of the countryside as the Welsh Commission has.
Obviously the Welsh Commission's strong views are that they should preserve for agriculture, and for beauty, and so on, as much as they possibly can of the Welsh countryside. I am afraid, because it happens continually, that the majority in

1457
the Assembly will be urban-based people. You cannot help it. More people live in towns than in the country. It happens everywhere. We country people are always having to fight to keep as much agricultural land as we can, whether for agriculture or forestry. The general aspect of the use of land we want to try and keep on the agricultural side.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that it is a pity to give anybody authority over the Welsh Commission if, as I believe, they are doing a good job. It is a pity that we should encourage anyone to interfere with that very good job. Perhaps I may be unnecessarily anxious about this but it does happen. The amount of land that is taken away from agriculture for industrial or urban development of one kind or another all over the United Kingdom every year is far greater than it ought to be. Therefore, I should like to support this Amendment because it is important that the Welsh Commission should have scope and authority for its work, which it does very well, rather than be interfered with—perhaps that is rather a strong word—or not allowed to operate without reference to, or without being given instructions by, a body that in my opinion will be largely urban-based.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in moving this Amendment to leave out subsection (10) may have a point. All of us are worried about the use of agricultural land all over Britain, and not merely by the Welsh Countryside Commission but for the huge motorways being built. What is lost in agricultural produce, which saves imports, has never been computed. I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that the type of people who would be elected to the Assembly would be of the kind that would want to preserve agricultural land. When I was a youngster we knew what it was like trying to farm land above the 600 foot contour on the side of a mountain, where you could not use a tractor and where a horse was more useful, and there was a shortage of true meadows. That type of agricultural land in itself is a caveat on the people of Wales letting valuable pieces of land go.
I think that the Assembly might be using these powers because it would think it
1458
necessary to stop the destruction of agricultural land by small villages of caravan sites in some areas which needed reorganisation and better planning than they have at the moment, so that farm land could be used in a better fashion. I hope that after we have had this probing, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, who has been most assiduous in his work on this Bill, will not feel that he has to press this Amendment to a Division.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: When I prepared my notes to reply to the Amendment one point which never crossed my mind was that it would be concerned with agricultural land. I thought that we were to discuss the functions and the set up of the Welsh Countryside Committee, which is now called the Welsh Commission. I must make it perfectly clear that the powers listed in Clause 62 simply put the Welsh Commission into exactly the same position as the English and Wales Commission was in up until the devolution of the Welsh Committee under the Bill. Nothing is added. The authority which the Assembly has over it is only the same as the authority which the Secretary of State for the Environment has over the Countryside Commission. He does not exercise that authority, because he wants the Commission to go its own way; but he has that power.
Having said that, I do not know to what extent I should use the notes which I had prepared and which relate to the Welsh Commission itself, in view of the fact that the concern is about the wrongful purchase of agricultural land. This can take place only as a result of planning permission, which is nothing to do with the Assembly in this regard, and so I do not think that there is anything to be worried about at all. The clause sets up for Wales a separate Welsh Commission, with powers which are, as closely as possible, the same as those of the English Countryside Commission which included Wales—and no more. Having said that, I shall sit down. If noble Lords wish to ask questions on this matter, I shall try to answer them. However, it seems to me that the fears in the minds of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are quite wrongly based. If they were rightly based, I should share them.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Perhaps for once I can help the noble Lord. I disagree with him—and I should be more than happy to take this back—over subsection (10) which says:
"The Assembly may give to the Welsh Commission such directions of a general character as appear to it expedient in relation to the exercise of the Commission's functions and the Commission shall comply with the directions".
I am sure that I shall be told that I am wrong, but I do not think that in the Countryside Act 1968 there are any similar clauses which empower the Secretary of State in England to tell the Countryside Commission to get on with its job in certain ways. I may be incorrect, but that is the substance of my Amendment. I should like, briefly, to repeat the point involved here. Under the clause the Welsh Assembly could say that it wanted more recreation areas, country parks, or lakes. The Assembly could say to the Welsh Commission: "Get on with it —find some lakes, or country parks". That could involve the noble Lord's farm or my farm. The pump is being primed here. I accept that we may have to be made into a country park, with nice dresses as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in relation to the last Amendment. But I do not want this priming. That is what is worrying me. I think that the pump is being primed in order to take over agricultural land. I hope that I have explained why my fear is slightly greater here than it would be in relation to England.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I should like to deal with the question of the powers. Clause 62(10) directly reflects the power of the Secretary of State under Section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to give general directions to the present Countryside Commission, while subsection (11) of the Bill reflects the same publicity requirement for such directions under Section 3(2) of the 1949 Act. I am sorry to be so technical, but this is a technical point. The powers do exist.
The noble Lord is saying—although he does not mean to say this—that one can afford to give these powers to an English Secretary of State, but one cannot afford to give them to the Welsh Assembly. I do not believe that that is what he means,
1460
but it is the effect his Amendment would have. I hope I have cleared his mind on the agricultural land aspect, at any rate.
Of course if the Secretary of State for the Environment was persuaded in Cabinet that more money should be spent on one matter connected with the countryside, rather than another, he could influence the Countryside Commission to behave in that way. I do not think that he ever has, and I do not think that he ever would —but he could. The position is exactly the same here. I agree that the Welsh Assembly would have the power to interfere in a way in which it should not interfere, but one should not assume that it will behave in a worse way than its English counterpart.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I am not entirely with him on this point. I appreciate that in Cabinet it could be decided to direct, but there is not a clause which encourages this—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I have read out the actual reference, and I shall do so again. Section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 gives the right to give general directions to the present Countryside Commission. I cannot be clearer than that.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Very well—I shall have to give way on this. I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, did not think that I might speak about agriculture, as I normally speak about it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is entirely on my side over the question of the taking of land unnecessarily; indeed, I think that everyone is on my side on this. However, I suggest that, while we all say this, it is usually the case that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, and the taking of agricultural land continues. That is the point I am trying to make in the Amendment. I hope that the point will be well in front of the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Commission not to take any more land if it can be avoided. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 102:
Page 26, line 29, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: In view of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, regarding Clause 60(1), I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
6.58 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for some time, because the Bill is somewhat detailed (for very good reasons, which I hope to explain) and I do not think that I can skimp over it briefly. I shall do my best to ensure that we all have some supper —I am thinking here of those noble Lords who wish to stay to hear about the Bill.
The Bill was introduced in another place by a Private Member, my honourable friend Mr. Neville Trotter, who had studied the Green Paper on consumer safety published by the Government in February 1976. For the benefit of noble Lords who are interested, I should say that the Green Paper very much forms the basis of the Bill. The Bill will succeed the Consumer Protection Act 1961, which was also promoted as a Private Member's Bill, and was introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, in order to implement one of the recommendations made by the Committee on Consumer Protection.
That Bill gave powers to make regulations in order to meet the recommendations of that Committee, and some sets of regulations made under the Act are currently in force, dealing with such products as oil heaters, electrical equipment, toys, nightdresses (as regards their flammability) and ceramic ware (toxicity),
1462
and more are in course of preparation. The output of regulations over the last 17 years, averaging little more than one per year, cannot be said to be unduly high, and reflects the policy of successive Governments to rely as far as possible on the good sense of manufacturers and traders in this country to ensure that the goods which they supply are adequately safe in normal use.
The great majority of traders have in fact shown a high standard of responsibility in this respect, as I am sure your Lordships would expect. Even so, unsafe goods can and do reach the market from time to time from various sources, both home and abroad, and it is therefore necessary that appropriate powers to take legislative action should be available. The existing regulation-making powers are pretty extensive, but, as the Government's Green Paper of February 1976 indicated, are inadequate in some respects and, more importantly perhaps, are not sufficiently flexible to meet the various situations which can arise. Moreover, some of these call for action other than by means of regulations, and the necessary powers are at present simply not available.
I now turn to the provisions of this Bill. Under Clause 1 there are precise guidelines to the Secretary of State in drawing up safety regulations by order, which will require wide consultation before being laid before Parliament for approval by affirmative procedure. Clause 2 deals with offences against the safety regulations. These regulations are of a general and continuing nature and do not deal with one of the main deficiencies of the existing legislation. This is the lack of any power to take rapid action to stop the supply of goods which have been found to be unsafe. The making of regulations is inevitably a fairly lengthy process, involving, as it does, consultations with a large number of bodies, and this is hardly the appropriate course to follow when urgent action is called for. Fortunately, dangerous goods are not marketed with any great frequency, but such products are nevertheless discovered from time to time. For instance, your Lordships may remember that not long ago decorative electric table lamps in the form of gondolas were found which presented an electrocution hazard.
When such products as these are discovered, the Department of Prices and

1463
Consumer Protection has to rely on the voluntary co-operation of the supplier concerned to secure their withdrawal from sale, and this is, of course, usually forthcoming. Even so, it would seem very necessary that there should be power to require such products to be withdrawn in the unlikely event that this is not done voluntarily, and the Bill accordingly provides such power in two different forms, in Clause 3 and in Schedule 1. Two different kinds of situation may arise. The first is where a dangerous product is being marketed through one known outlet, namely, a manufacturer or an importer, and the second where many distributors are involved. To meet the first of these sets of circumstances the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to serve on the trader concerned a prohibition notice prohibiting the continued supply of the goods in question by the person concerned. This is somewhat similar to the prohibition notice procedure under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The other, more general, situation which I have described is dealt with by enabling the Secretary of State to make a prohibition order to stop the supply of goods which he considers to be unsafe. Such an order can be thought of as "instant" regulations having immediate and general application, but of only limited duration. There is a precedent for the making of orders of this kind in Section 62 of the Medicines Act, and they serve to deal with the hazard for the time being while regulations of a more usual kind are prepared, involving full consultations with interested bodies.
My Lords, I should mention at this point that, as will be seen from the definition of "goods" in Clause 9 on page 11 of the Bill, the goods referred to in this Bill do not include food, feeding stuff, fertilisers and medicine, all of which are covered by other legislation. This is just as well for me in relation to food, because it spares me from having to declare an interest. To continue, my Lords, the two powers in respect of prohibition notices and prohibition orders enable further distribution of identified dangerous products to be stopped. But how about those that have already been sold to the public, perhaps in substantial quantities? Manufacturers and importers themselves often publish warnings about such goods on their own initiative, and
1464
this is in fact what might reasonably be expected from any reputable trader. In other cases, it has been the practice of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to issue warnings, and there can be little doubt that, as a result of action taken, either by the supplier or the Department, accidents have been avoided. It would seem to be necessary, however, that there should be power to require the supplier of unsafe goods to publish a warning about the potential hazards which they present, and provision for this is accordingly included in the Bill.
Provision is also included for traders affected by prohibition orders, prohibition notices or notices to warn, to submit representations about the action proposed. I attach importance to that. It gives ample provision for persons at whom these various orders and notices are directed to make representations and no doubt express their own point of view about the importance or validity of such orders or notices. For example, in relation to a prohibition order the Secretary of State is put under a duty to publish his intention to make such an order at least 28 days beforehand except that in those cases where the risks are considered to be very grave the prior publication requirement will not apply. In relation to a prohibition notice, the Secretary of State is obliged to give the trader prior notification of his intention to serve the notice, but the obligation to give prior notification will not apply when the risks are considered to be particularly grave. The trader involved must also be given an opportunity to make representations about a notice to warn. Appeal procedures covering both prohibition notices to warn are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, and these should serve to ensure fair treatment for anyone on whom either kind of notice is served.
Another new power in the Bill enables the Secretary of State to obtain from any person any information he requires for the exercise of his functions in regard to safety regulations, prohibition orders, prohibition notices or notices to warn. This implements one of the proposals in the Green Paper of February 1976, and would seem to be one of the essential ingredients of the Bill. In practice, it is not a power which will need to be used with any great frequency, and, in any

1465
event, information of the kind required will no doubt usually be provided voluntarily.
The confidentiality of information provided in response to statutory requests must clearly be safeguarded. The Bill, accordingly, in Clause 4 and Schedule 2, makes disclosure of such information, except for certain specified purposes, an offence punishable by quite severe penalties. The penalties for unauthorised disclosure of information include a prison sentence, while those for other offences under the Bill do not. I should tell the House that it is proposed by Amendment in Committee to tighten up the rules for protecting confidentiality on the lines of an undertaking given by the Minister in another place.
I have already referred to the need for improved and wider regulation-making powers. The provision for these is an important aspect of the Bill which your Lordships have before you. One rather serious deficiency in the 1961 Act is that there is no power to include "deemed to satisfy" references to standards in regulations. A wide range of product safety standards have been published by the British Standards Institution following deliberations in technical committees in which representatives of many different bodies—manufacturers, other trade associations, Government Departments, professional bodies and consumer organisations—have made their contribution. There are also international standards for a number of products.
In this report to the National Economic Development Council on Standards and Specifications in the Engineering Industries, Sir Frederick Warner strongly recommended that greater use should be made of standards in legislation and, in particular, that safety standards should be given "deemed to satisfy" recognition. This will be made possible by Clause 2 which, among other things, will enable safety regulations to provide that compliance with a specified standard is deemed to satisfy a requirement to the regulations for the purpose of criminal proceedings. The approval or certification of goods will usually be of significance in a non-statutory way as indication of confirmation by an independent body that the goods comply with the recognised stan-
1466
dards. But there could be situations, possibly infrequent, in which approval or certification based on type-testing is considered necessary before the goods of a particular kind can be marketed. The Bill accordingly enables such a requirement to be imposed in Clause 2. It also enables regulations to be made imposing safety standards for safety equipment such as life-jackets, bouyancy aids or climbing gear where the problem is not that the product itself presents a hazard but that, in the absence of a statutory requirement, it may be ineffective when used as intended in hazardous circumstances.
I ought to explain that one needs to look at the definition of "safe" in Clause 9 (page 12) and its reference to circumstances in which the goods might be used. I might also mention at this point that I very nearly did not take the Bill, because as a young man I was always brought up by my father on the maxim "Safety-first is a vile motto". Noble Lords who know anything about my father will know that he lived his life on that principle. However, I took it on because, on the whole, it is not unreasonable about safety, but reasonable.
My Lords, I will mention only one of the other improvements in the regulation-making powers. This relates to the all-important aspect of the labelling or marking of goods. In Clause 1, the Bill will enable regulations to require warnings or instructions or other information to be marked on or to accompany goods. This power goes beyond that already provided by the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and will enable, for the first time, requirements to be imposed as to ingredient labelling (of importance in regard, for example, to allergic reactions), the use of warning symbols, first-aid instructions or the name and address or trade mark of the supplier.
Finally, in Clause 5, the Bill brings the powers of enforcement authorities into line with those in other consumer protection legislation such as the Fair Trading Act and the Trade Descriptions Act and makes it the duty of the local weights and measures authorities to enforce safety regulations, prohibition orders and prohibition notices. This changes the position which exists at present under the Consumer Protection Act which enables these authorities to enforce regulations but does

1467
not require them to do so. Even so, there is little doubt that weights and measures authorities have, in fact, conscientiously enforced existing product safety regulations and regard this as an important aspect of their consumer protection work.
My Lords, I must ask you to forgive me for having spent so long—two minutes more than I meant to—in explaining this small Bill which deals with a comparatively narrow subject, albeit of great social importance. Its complications seem to me to stem from the difficulty of providing adequate safeguards for an unsuspecting public while at the same time protecting honest traders from an unreasonable and unfair burden of yet more law.
As originally introduced in another place, the Bill appeared to give rather wide powers and these gave rise to some concern. Subsequent Amendments made before the Bill reached your Lordships' House have met these criticisms and the Bill now before your Lordships is, in my view, much improved in this and other respects. As I mentioned earlier in relation to the safeguarding of confidential information, I shall be proposing some further Amendments in Committee in relation to that subject and to others which are designed to improve the Bill still more before it leaves your Lordships' House. I trust that your Lordships will agree with me that this Bill is indeed a very useful measure which provides about the right mixture of powers needed to ensure the continuing safety of consumer goods marketed in this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Mottistone.)
7.18 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I believe that the House will be immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for introducing this short but, as he pointed out, immensely detailed and complicated measure. My noble friend is, indeed, an expert in this special facet of consumer affairs. I believe that he has made an excellent speech and has detailed the provisions of the Bill admirably; but I wonder whether there are not one or two small gaps in the drafting and meaning. However, I am sure that either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will be able to give me most if not all the answers to any questions that I
1468
might raise at this stage, at the later stages in the Bill, and, I am sure, elsewhere, and in informal circumstances.
For example, I would draw the attention of the House to Clause 1(1). I wonder whether there would not be a case for inserting some concept of reasonableness into this particular clause—as the House found last year in a similar Bill which I had the honour to take part in, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. There, great play was made of the concept of reasonableness in such intricate and complicated consumer legislation.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to Clause 9(4). This gives interpretations of various words and terms. Certainly, I would hope in this context that the word "safe" would be construed in a fairly open way. I note that the definition of "safe" includes the words:
"circumstances in which the goods might be used or kept".
I think it would be fair to traders and others affected by the Bill to have some element of reasonableness included here. Several examples of difficulties that might arise at this stage come to my mind. Doubtless noble Lords in the House will be able to think of cases in their own lives—both actual and theoretical. For example, what of the seller of high quality kitchenware who may happen to produce carving knives? I wonder whether each and every possibility of injury or even fatality should be included in the mind of the draftsman of the Bill. I would hardly believe that. But specific cases have been drawn to my attention, particularly things which are called cleaver type knives, which are made specially for cutting joints of frozen meat which one can buy at large freezer centres. I understand that some owners of this equipment have misused it entirely out of ignorance. They have used these cleaver knives in the form of a dagger. The cleaver has broken and there have been injuries. This is clearly ignorant and innocent misuse of equipment which has potentially risky consequences.
I wonder whether any supplier of such specialist equipment would be able to do more than ensure that this equipment does not arrive in the hands of anyone who has not had special training. It seems to me to be going rather far to suggest that the liability should be on the supplier of this special equipment. So

1469
far as the Bill is concerned in generality, I think that it is very pleasant to find the "reasonableness" paragraph in Clause 3 when dealing with prohibition orders and warning notices. Further on in Clause 7, we find that safety regulations are to be made following Affirmative Resolutions in each House of Parliament. This is excellent in that Statutory Instruments receive close scrutiny, certainly in your Lordships' House. In this case the procedures will enable the regulations to be updated on a special basis as and when they are required.
When we examine the Schedules, we find references to enforcement particularly in Schedule 2. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 we find several cases where an officer of an enforcement authority may inspect any goods, and indeed he may enter any buildings. Certainly he may also examine any procedure in manufacture In these provisions it may be implicit that the officer should have reasonable cause. I hope and believe so. If that is so, I wonder why we find reasonableness in each of the other sub-paragraphs of paragraph 3? I do not think that I am being overly detailed or, I hope, not overly harsh. I am curious and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, or my noble friend will be able to allay most of my fears in this respect.
In paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, dealing with the enforcement, we find that a justice of the peace may sign a search warrant to enter premises and seek evidence of breach of regulations. None of us defend major breaches of safety regulations of any kind. I wonder whether there might be evidence in this case of using a sledge hammer to crack what could be a fairly minor nut? It is just such a case that would bring the measures proposed in the Bill, which are admirable and well set out, into some disrepute.
Some of your Lordships will have heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, recently in connection with entry into premises. This was in connection with pornographic material. He drew attention to the entry powers of tax officers which had been brought in under the 1976 Finance Act. He pointed out that such entry powers as are obtained by tax officers in special and exceptional cases have to be authorised by
1470
a circuit judge. So far as this Bill is concerned, I do not think that we should need to bother circuit judges. Probably we should find that a justice of the peace need only sign a warrant to enable enforcement officers to enter, search and indeed to do their job. In a case where a justice of the peace may sign a warrant, he and the enforcement authority are handling—if I may say this in the context of this Bill—a dangerous and volatile concept.
Far from bringing these persons under the scope of the Bill, the relevant authorities will be able to use their powers, if I may so put it, peacefully and responsibly. Any traders or concerns which are affected or liable to be so will—and in fact do—have to take enormous trouble to comply with what is ever more complicated and detailed legislation such as we find in the Bill this evening. I believe that authority must act with the utmost care and discretion in what I term and call borderline cases. With this small caveat, I want to congratulate very warmly my noble friend Lord Mottistone on his mastery of this subject and his presentation of this Bill. I add my support to it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, both noble Lords who have spoken have referred to this Bill as a small one. For a Private Member's Bill I would not call it a small Bill. We are indeed fortunate to have had the lucid powers of expression possessed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to guide us through this not very small Private Member's Bill. It is with some reluctance that I come to support the Bill because I am an upholder of that ancient, well tried maxim "caveat emptor"—let the buyer beware. But I have to accept that in these sophisticated days one cannot call out "let the buyer beware" in quite the same unqualified way that one used to be able to do.
There are two reasons for this. The first is that in these days ordinary people go shopping for goods which are quite sohpisticated and technical. In this connection one thinks in particular of electrical goods. One cannot expect the householder to be able to judge the qualities and, in particular, the safety of an electrical appliance. The second reason is that today's shopper—I do not like the

1471
word "consumer"—has such a very much more limited range of choice in so many respects.
Take as one example the transport business. Before the motor car came along, I suppose that there was a coach builder—probably more than one—in every town. If one customer withheld an order from one coach builder because of something that he did not like, that was probably quite a blow to the coach builder. Let one customer today withhold his order from one of the few mass manufacturers of motor cars and it is going to make precious little difference to them. So I accept that the present-day shopper needs some more protection than his forebears did.
My Lords, I am pacing myself: I do not want to take very long and I intend to refer to only one point which is more than just a Committee point. Curiously enough, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell and I, have independently arrived at Schedule 2. the enforcement Schedule. The noble Lord has had something to say particularly about paragraphs Nos. 3 to 9 under the subheading:
"Powers to enter premises and to inspect and seize goods".
I had exactly the same paragraphs in mind about which to say something, after which to say something, after which I shall sit down.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has pointed out, one finds in paragraph 3 that an enforcement officer can arrive at a factory and enter and inspect goods without any reasonable grounds for suspicion that anything is wrong. He can go in there on a "fishing expedition". Is this right and is it necessary?
I know where this comes from: at least I think I do. It comes from Section 162 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But I really think we ought to pause over this, because if we allow this paragraph 3 to go through in this Bill we are adding to precedent. There is already the one precedent of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Are we going to add another? Because the next thing that will happen will be that in some future consumer protection legislation—and I am sure we have not reached the end of this topic—there will be two precedents and Governments will be able to argue that these powers of being able to enter
1472
premises without any suspicion are now time honoured because there are two precedents. Before we know where we are, enforcement officers will have powers to go on "fishing expeditions" for all sorts of reasons. I think the time has now conic when we should pause and consider whether it is wise to follow the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in this respect.
There is one curiosity. If the warehouse-owner has the wit to say to the enforcement officer: "No, you are not coming in: you have to go to a magistrate and get your search warrant if you want to come into my warehouse", then, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has pointed out, paragraph 5 comes into play. We find in paragraph 5:
"If a justice of the peace on sworn information in writing is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe …".
And then it goes on. So, my Lords, we have the situation that if the enforcement officer is turned away and has to resort to the magistrate, he has to provide "reasonable ground" for suspecting that something is wrong in those premises, or he is not going to get his warrant out of the magistrate.
I would ask: is it sensible? In the first place, if he attempts a "fishing expedition" he can go in unless entry is refused. If entry is refused he has to provide reasonable grounds for suspicion. I do not think, with all due respect to the Act of 1974, that in following it we are really on very wise grounds here. It may well be that we shall have to return to this matter in Committee. It may also be that we shall be told something this evening about how these enforcement provisions are expected to operate. With those few words, I give the Bill my support.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, having sat through this debate, which is an important one, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for introducing this Bill. As somebody who has suffered, I wish that there were some kind of obligation connected with the production of motor cars. A man can buy an expensive motor car and four days later he taken home in a most undignified way by the AA, who are carting back a brand-new car for which thousands of pounds have been paid. Surely it is

1473
time that some far greater obligation was imposed on the car manufacturers' association. For many people, expenditure on a car is something that will come only three or four times in a lifetime. It is not a pleasant experience when a petrol pump goes on a brand-new car and one is in a stream of moving traffic and the car is jerking along—and I am sure modern drivers are uncharitable: a little more courtesy on the roads could save thousands of lives. Most drivers today seem to be barbarians. Those of us who drive realise that safety in a modern car is essential, and, having suffered this week by seeing a modern car break down, I sincerly hope that sooner or later, when we deal with this Bill in its further stages, we shall be able to get some regulations that will be obligatory on the car industry.
7.35 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, first, I should like sincerely to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his lucid and able explanation of the Bill which, though modest in length, is less modest in its scope and complexity. I would ecrtainly agree with the remarks that have been made that this is indeed a very important measure.
I will express the deepest sympathy with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek; my heart bleeds for him, understanding the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made a considerable number of points, most of which, I have not the slightest doubt, will be dealt with in Committee. In fact it is no secret that there is a complete areas of co-operation on the Bill and that we are already considering possible ways of bringing in Amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made one remark which rather intrigued me, as a former Smithfield worker. He referred to a "cleaver knife". I have never heard of such a thing. A cleaver, in butcher's terms, is a type of axe which is wielded above the head and comes down with a crash on a leg of lamb. Therefore I think this is a misconception on his part, and perhaps on consideration he may feel that some other expression might be needed.
The Bill itself is concerned with the safety of a wide range of goods on general sale to the public. Therefore it concerns
1474
not only the consumers who buy the goods but also those who make, import and distribute them. The Government have been particularly concerned, in consequence, that the powers this Bill provides should strike a balance between the legitimate demands of consumers for greater protection, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the concern of trade and industry that safety requirements should not be so onerous as to add unnecessarily to production costs.
In this connection, it is relevant to consider the evolution of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned that the Bill owes its origin to the Green Paper on consumer safety published in January 1976. That document reviewed the existing arrangements for consumer safety and identified a number of deficiencies in the present system. It then went on to suggest ways in which those deficiencies might be remedied and it invited comment on possible changes in the present law and practice.
The Green Paper attracted wide interest, and comments were received from more than 150 bodies and others representing the interests of trade, industry, the professions, the consumers and local authorities. While the comments differed in detail, the overall response was overwhelmingly in favour of updating the existing, law to provide a more comprehensive approach to consumer safety. These comments were taken fully into account in making proposals for new legislation which the Government intended to introduce as soon as Parliamentary time allowed and further consultations were undertaken with those bodies representing interests likely to be most affected by new consumer safety legislation. It was not possible to introduce a Government Bill in the present Session, but when Mr. Neville Trotter, M.P. expressed his intention to introduce new legislation in this field the Government gratefully lent their support to his proposals and, indeed, provided drafting assistance.
I mention these matters so that it may be appreciated that the Bill is in no sense a hasty or ill-considered measure. Moreover, the content of the Bill is such that it has not given rise to political differences. Indeed, it was conceived in a spirit of co-operation which persisted during its passage through another place, and I believe that it will

1475
receive the same support in your Lord-ships' House. In passing, I might make the comment that it is welcome to find a measure which has received general support in all quarters of another place and here. It is quite a refreshing experience to me, as it no doubt is to your Lordships.
Turning to the contents of the Bill, your Lordships will observe that it is essentially an enabling Bill. Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to secure that goods are safe. Clause 2 provides offences and defences in respect of a breach of those regulations. Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to require by order or notice that goods which are not safe are withdrawn from sale and that the public are warned about dangers discovered in goods which they may have bought. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State power to obtain information. These provisions confer fairly wide discretionary powers, and it is perhaps salutary to consider the fetters and safe-guards to be placed on their use.
The power to make safety regulations in respect of goods is limited explicitly to those matters set out in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. Therefore, in making safety regulations, the Secretary of State is obliged, in all cases, to consult representative bodies likely to be substantially affected by the proposed regulations, as appears in subsection (4). Safety regulations will be made by Statutory Instrument, which will be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedures; that is to say, they must be laid in draft and approved by a Resolution of either House of Parliament before being made. Breach of safety regulations is to be an offence, but, if it can be shown that the accused took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid committing the offence, he will have to make a statutory defence under subsection (6) of Clause 2.
Prohibition orders to be made under Clause 3 will normally, by virtue of Part I of Schedule 1, be preceded by a notice of intention publicised at least 28 days before an order is made, inviting representations about the proposed order which the Secretary of State is bound to consider. An order must be made by Statutory Instrument and will be subject to annulment pursuant to a Resolution of either House of Parliament. Prohibition notices and notices to warn, to be made under
1476
Clause 3, are subject to an appeal procedure which is set out in Parts II and III of Schedule 1.
With regard to Clause 3 powers, while they are essential if the Government are effectively to discharge their responsibility for the safety of consumers, the use to which powers are likely to be put should not be over-rated. Manufacturers and importers are well aware of possible civil liability should injury result from defects in products, and the vast majority cooperate with the Government in remedying voluntarily—and I repeat voluntarily—any defect brought to their notice, whether by withdrawing the goods in question from sale or otherwise. The Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has made it clear that a voluntary approach will continue to be the normal procedure for his Department. Experience has shown that the voluntary approach proves less than satisfactory in only three or four cases a year, and it is only in these few cases that the powers under Clause 3 would be required.
The power to obtain information contained in Clause 4 is accompanied by provisions intended to safeguard the confidentiality of information obtained in this way, and unauthorised disclosure of such information is to be an offence. It is my intention to introduce an Amendment at a later stage which will also safeguard information received by a person, appointed under Parts II and III of Schedule 1, to hear representations against service of a prohibition notice or notice to warn.
I think that I have indicated sufficiently the nature of the safeguards contained in the Bill, which are to some extent responsible for its length and complexity. In sum, I believe that they combine with the powers given under the Bill to strike a balance between trader and consumer, that is necessary in this kind of legislation. This is a useful and a timely measure. It has the full support of the Government and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Mottistone replies, may I clarify one point? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, with his specialised knowlegde, was indeed correct. I was referring to something called an ice knife, which is apparently a specially shaped freezer knife

1477
that is designed to cut up frozen food. Doubtless, that will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, although I do not know whether he cuts up frozen food. But I understand that some housewives have been using these knives like a dagger and hacking at the food, as opposed to sawing it. It is apparently this misuse, by hacking instead of sawing, that has given rise to injury. I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House for wrongly framing my reference.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I appreciate the point.
7.45 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should very much like to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said—from all parts of the House, although I notice that there were no Cross-Benchers. Your Lordships will not expect me to say very much in reply to the points made, but may I say something about what my noble friend Lord Lyell said? The great theme of his speech—and this also applies to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale —was that reasonableness is vital in relation to this whole Bill, and, as both noble Lords said, reasonableness peers through in places. We have to look more closely to make sure that it is in every place that it should be, and I hope that noble Lords who put those points to us will bring them to the fore by putting down Amendments to cover them.
However, having said that, I think your Lordships will appreciate that there are to be a fair number of Amendments as a result of undertakings made in another place, and of what one might call the usual tidying-up of a technical nature. Your Lordships will be aware that a Private Member's Bill does not get such good treatment in another place as it gets here. If we throw it back to our friends—some of them, at least, are our friends—down the Corridor, with a lot of Amendments, it may for some technical reason fail and, as all noble Lords who have spoken have given it support, it is therefore very important that the Amendments should be kept to an absolute minimum. So, having invited noble Lords to put down Amendments, I am really asking them to put down probing Amendments in relation
1478
to the points raised. We might even have one from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, though I do not think that this Bill is designed to cover his point. I thank your Lordships very much, and let us hope that the Bill gets on its way.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE BILL
7.47 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
[Sitting suspended from 7.48 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

WALES BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 63 [Water]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 27, line 11, at beginning insert ("If it appears to him to be expedient for the purpose of securing a more efficient supply of water").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friends, I am a little lost. However, I shall try to move this Amendment. It relates to placing a limit on the power contained in Clause 63, and makes it quite clear, I hope, that it is only for

1479
the purpose of securing a more efficient supply of water. The reason why this Amendment has been put down is yet again to ensure that the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company will enjoy more or less the same privileges under the Welsh Assembly as it does at the moment. The noble Baroness has answered this point. However, my reading of Hansard is possibly not so quick as her reading of her own answers, so I should be very grateful if on this occasion she would be good enough to repeat her answer.
Baroness STEDMAN: It will probably be helpful if I deal with Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B together, as they are connected. Earlier we had two debates about the position of the Welsh Water Authority after devolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said, these Amendments deal with the position after the devolution of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company. The issues are in many ways analogous.
Clause 63(2) concerns statutory water companies which supply water to an area, most of which is within Wales. At present, the only such water company is the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company, whose area of supply includes part of England but lies primarily in Wales. Geographically, the water company is therefore in much the same position as is, on a larger scale, the Welsh Water Authority. Clause 63(2) accordingly enables the Secretary of State to make provision by order for the water company similar to that which the Bill itself makes for the Welsh Water Authority. Until such an order is made, the responsibility will remain with the Secretary of State.
I am aware that Clause 63(2) has led to some misunderstanding, and the Minister of State at the Privy Council Office has been in correspondence with the water company through Mr. Tom Ellis, MP. I should like to take this opportunity to put on the record the assurance given to him by the Minister of State; namely, that there is nothing in the Bill which will affect the independent existence of the water company. The order under Clause 63(2) will merely allocate existing functions between the Assembly and the Government in the same manner as the Bill itself achieves for the Welsh Water Authority. And as has been made clear in
1480
an earlier debate on Amendment No. 99D, the water authority may not be subsumed under the Bill as it stands. Equally, there is no question of the water company being subsumable. It will remain an independent water company, and only primary Westminster legislation can alter its status.
Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B seek to build safeguards for the company into the order-making procedure under Clause 63(2). May I suggest, however, that full safeguards already exist. The order is subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament, and I might add that this was so even when orders under Clause 59 were subject only to Negative Resolution. An order under Clause 63(2) is also likely to be considered by the Hybrid Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House. If, as seems not unlikely, the order is considered to be hybrid, it would go before a Select Committee of the House under the procedures of Standing Order 216. Interested parties such as the water company itself would have the right to petition and to be heard before the committee. I suggest that it is better to rely on these very considerable safeguards rather than to try to build in special criteria for the making of orders. Clearly, an order subject to the procedure I have outlined would not be very lightly made.
Turning to the specific reference in Amendment No. 102B to the special Parliamentary procedure, I suspect that this might be a misunderstanding arising from correspondence on the subject. The procedure which I described under Standing Order 216 used to be known as special order procedure but is distinct from special Parliamentary procedure. I would suggest that Clause 63(2) orders are not appropriate for the application of special Parliamentary procedure, which is more often used for planning and land matters.
Lord ELTON: The noble Baroness is speaking a little fast. She made a distinction between two different processes. I am not quite sure what those processes are. Could she repeat it at a slightly reduced speed?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is the same point.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes. The specific reference in Amendment No. 102—that

1481
is to say, the second Amendment—relates to the special Parliamentary procedure. We think that this has arisen because of a misunderstanding during correspondence on the subject. The procedure which I described under Standing Order 216 used to be known as the special order procedure but is distinct from special Parliamentary procedure. Therefore, the Clause 63(2) orders are not appropriate for the special Parliamentary procedure, which is more often used for planning and land matters. May I also suggest that it would be wrong to build in a statutory requirement for the Standing Order 216 procedure to apply to Clause 63(2), as that would be to prejudice our own Standing Orders. Even though the noble Lord thinks that I have spoken rather too fast, I hope that these comments have cleared up the point.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I must apologise both to the Committee and to my noble friends. Before we went to supper I was under the misguided apprehension that we had reached these Amendments. I fully understand that, having dealt with—as I said before supper—the problem of the water authority in Clause 60(1), the same point applies here. I am perfectly happy to leave it at that, but may I thank the noble Baroness for her very full explanation which will be of great satisfaction to that particular body. I apologise to my noble friends for being late.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is a question of horses for courses. I rather wish that on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was in the Chamber. This Amendment elicited such a full reply that I can only repeat my noble friend's thanks for such a very full answer, which covered not only the water authority but also Parliamentary procedures and quite a lot else besides. The water company concerned will certainly be very grateful for these assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
8.8 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102Q:
Page 27, line 19, leave out from ("any") to ("shall") in line 20 and insert ("enactment conferring powers upon a water authority").
The noble Lord said: Before we deal specifically with Amendment No. 102Q, may I say that we now come to two Amendments to Clause 63, whose general purpose is, in the first case, to provide that the powers of intervention in the interests of the national policy for water for England and Wales should not be limited to the class of enactments set out in Parts III and IV of Schedule 8 but should apply wherever the Secretary of State considers the national policy to be at issue in decisions taken by the Assembly; and, in the second case, to set up a form of machinery whereby a water authority can publicly ask the Secretary of State to intervene and to postpone the effect of any decision taken by the Assembly until a decision on such a request has been made.
I referred either yesterday or early this morning to the immense trouble which has been taken by the Government in writing into the Bill the provisions under which it is proposed that the national policy for water in England and Wales is to be protected against decisions of the Assembly. These provisions are contained in Clause 63, Schedule 8 and Schedule 11, which amends the Water Act 1973. There is also a general power of intervention in Clause 34.
The drafting of these provisions, together with Part XI of Schedule 2, must have been a considerable task, and one can only read these parts of the Bill with awe and admiration. However, it is felt that the arrangements contained in the Bill to protect the national policy may prove inadequate. The Amendments, which I shall now have to explain in detail, seek to use the provisions already in the Bill and to strengthen and extend them. If we may now come to Amendment No. 102Q, this is a paving Amendment to make way for the Amendments to—schedule 8, Nos. 102J and 102K on the Marshalled List. I should like to speak to those two Schedule 8 Amendments at the same time as this one.
The Amendments proposed to Schedule 8 are to extend the specific power of intervention to any action of the Assembly in relation to water matters rather than only to those specific enactments at present listed in Parts III and IV of the Schedule. It is therefore necessary in this Amendment to delete the reference

1483
to the provisions specified in Parts III and IV and to include a reference to the exercise of the powers of the Assembly in relation to enactments conferring powers on a water authority, as the powers of intervention under the Schedule 8 Amendments will apply to all such enactments.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 102J and 102K, which seek to amend the specific intervention powers in the Bill, which are as follows. In relation to water matters, the general powers of intervention are replaced by specific intervention powers, which are dealt with by Clause 63 and Parts II, III and IV of Schedule 8. The scheme is that where a function is listed in either Part III or Part IV of Schedule 8, and these functions are necessarily devolved functions which are also listed in Schedule II, the Secretary of State may intervene if the appropriate conditions which specify it, respectively, in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Part II of the Schedule, are complied with.
Part III and Part IV of the Schedule contain a list of enactments, some of which are the same and some of which are different. In relation, therefore, to enactments in Part III, the Secretary of State may intervene if he is satisfied that such intervention is necessary in the interests of the national policy for water in England and Wales. Where an enactment is listed in Part IV he may intervene in the interests of the persons listed in paragraph 3, Part II of the Schedule, these interests being basically those of riparian or fishery owners.
Amendments Nos. 102J and 102K are Amendments which are designed to avoid the restriction at present inherent in Part III of Schedule 8. As I have explained, the specific power of intervention into water matters is limited to intervention where action is taken or proposed under the range of enactments listed in that part of the Schedule. These Amendments, and the paving Amendments in Clause 63, are designed to remove this limitation by providing that the Secretary of State may intervene whenever action is taken or proposed by the Assembly under enactments conferring power on the water authorities, where such intervention is required in the interests of the national policy for water in England and Wales.
I should say that the Amendment in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 102K is a drafting Amendment and takes in the extension to Part IV intervention proposed by a later Amendment, No. 102N on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: It might be convenient to the Committee if, in reply to Amendments moved by the noble Lord, I go rather wide and cover the whole field of the paving Amendments to Schedule 8, which we shall be discussing later, as it may save time in the long run and save much repitition. I shall not rehearse again what we have said time and time again; that is that the Government feel that water is central to the domestic matters of everyday concern to the people of Wales, and also that we take account of the fact that the Wales-England Border does not necessarily follow the hydrological boundaries. That still applies in a preface for all these Amendments.
We have to take into account the fact that Wales is an important source of water for England, and that decisions on developments in Wales can have important implications for England and Wales water policies and for English holders of statutory rights of water. The Government have recognised this by reserving responsibility for the overall England and Wales policy for water; by providing, in paragraph 43 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, that the Welsh policy for water must be in harmony with the overall policy; and by providing (under Schedule 8 to the Bill) for a special intervention procedure to protect the interests of the England and Wales policy and the statutory interests in England.
The Amendments that come under this general heading would limit the Assembly's powers or would enable, or even require at the behest of the Water Authorities, such major intervention by the Secretary of State in relation to the Assembly's functions as to destroy the balance between the devolved and reserved interests described earlier. They would do so in two ways. First, by extending the list of functions in Part I of Schedule 8 to be exercisable by the Secretary of State for the whole of the Severn-Trent area, the amendments would deny the Assembly

1485
any role in relation to important policy matters within the Welsh part of the Severn-Trent area and would confuse the whole relationship between the Severn-Trent Authority and the Assembly.
The purpose of Part I of Schedule 8 is to provide for either the Assembly or the Government to exercise functions which can only sensibly be applied to the whole area of a Water Authority. But the functions which the amendments would add to Part I of the Schedule are readily divisible between the Assembly and the Government depending upon whether they relate to England or Wales. The effect of adding provisions to Part I, is that while it would reduce the consequences of devolution for the Welsh part of the Severn-Trent Authority, it would extend them for the English parts of the Welsh Authority. It may be that the sponsors did not intend this. It is, however, no solution for the Assembly to be given the same functions for the whole of the Welsh Authority area since this would create an equally unsatisfactory situation for the Government in relation to the English parts of that area.
Secondly, they would so widen the range of matters covered by Parts II, III and IV of Schedule 8 that the Secertary of State could intervene in almost any action the Assembly might take. But, worse, the Secretary of State would be compelled to intervene if a water authority applied to him to do so. It is a constitutional absurdity for a nominated body, deliberately made accountable for its Welsh activities to the Assembly, to be able to by-pass the Assembly or to be able to require a Government Minister to intervene against the Assembly on the body's behalf. This we see as a real recipe for conflict.
We think that the scheme for water presented in the Bill is fairly balanced. It gives the Assembly a significant role in Welsh decisions and at the same time it maintains the essential policy framework on an England and Wales basis. Moreover, the Government believe that they have already listed in Parts III and IV of Schedule 8 the powers which are of significance for the protection of the England-Wales water policy and of statutory interests in water in England. The Government completely reject
1486
Amendments which, even if it is not their purpose, would frustrate the scheme for devolution of water functions to the Assembly and would also have inappropriate consequences for people living in the English parts of the Welsh Water Authority's area. If the Assembly were to promote in any way a water policy which was in conflict with the national policy of England and Wales, it would be in breach of its statutory duty under the Water Act 1973. Therefore, we think that enough safeguards have been built into the Bill.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Would the noble Baroness regard it as a retrograde suggestion that the Welsh Water Authority should be responsible to the Assembly for the whole of its area and that the Severn-Trent Water Authority should be responsible to the Secretary of State for the whole of its area?
Baroness STEDMAN: Here we have the difficulty that part of the area is in Wales and part is in England and we think we have solved those problems in the way in which we have arranged the Bill at the moment.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Would it be so disastrous to make the Welsh Assembly responsible for a part of England as regards water and water pollution and for the same reasons to have part of Wales under London?
Baroness STEDMAN: I would not necessarily say that it would be disastrous but I think it might not be quite tidy administratively. I should certainly be happy to look at that point although I cannot offer any satisfaction to the noble Lord at this time.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her usual detailed reply. She has replied to Amendments Nos. 102D to 102H and I shall certainly bear those replies in mind when I come to those Amendments. In effect, I have been saying that the arrangements in the Bill providing the Goverment with sufficient powers to protect the national water policy are inadequate and, in effect, the noble Baroness is saying that they are sufficient. I am advised that the range of circumstances where the interests of the national water policy for England and

1487
Wales may be affected by actions taken or proposed by the Assembly is greater than the list of enactments set out in Part III of Schedule 8. I am further advised that it is not possible to conceive in advance a complete list of all the enactments where the Secretary of State may find it desirable to intervene in the interests of the national policy. But it is certain that the present list is too limited.
To give an example, water is supplied for non-domestic purposes by way of agreements under Section 27 of the Water Act 1945, but the water authority concerned has a general obligation to provide such supplies on reasonable terms as determined by the Secretary of State. That power is devolved to the Assembly, which may secure that water is supplied by, say, the Severn-Trent Authority to consumers in Wales on different and possibly preferential terms to those on which it is supplied in England. I thought that particular case would be caught by Part I of Schedule 8 but I am advised that this is not necessarily so and that the Secretary of State might not be able to intervene in such a situation.
I do not think that these proposals would frustrate the Assembly. After all, they are an extension of the existing intervention powers which the Government realised were necessary in order to regulate matters if the national policy is in any way in danger. These are complicated matters and I think my noble friend and I would be well advised to study the reply given by the noble Baroness before possibly taking more vigorous action to improve the water provisions in the Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.24 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102R:
Page 27, line 21, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Parts II and III").
The noble Lord said: This is a further paving Amendment to make way for the new Part III of Schedule 8 proposed by Amendment No. 102P, so perhaps it will be convenient if I speak to Amendment No. 102P at the same time. The new Part III of Schedule 8 is designed to serve a completely different purpose from
1488
the existing Part III, so that, whereas at the moment the powers of the Assembly are only subject to the conditions of intervention specified in Part II of the Schedule, under these proposals they will also be subject to the conditions in Part III.
If I may refer now to Amendment No. 102P, despite the extension of the powers of intervention—if they are extended—whether the powers are exercised will still be a political decision. The Amendment is designed to ameliorate the position by providing for automatic intervention on an application by the water authority. The Amendment is wide in scope but merely transfers the power back to the Secretary of State who may, of course, exercise it in the same way as would be proposed by the Assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am afraid I am not being very helpful to the noble Lord tonight. As I mentioned in my general remarks covering the whole range of these Amendments, this really is quite the most incredible Amendment of all those which have been tabled on the water provisions. It enables a nominated water authority, which the Bill deliberately makes fully accountable to the elected Assembly, to go over the head of that Assembly to compel the Secretary of State to intervene in any matter arising between the authority and the Assembly. This would create tremendous constitutional problems. It would make nonsense of the Assembly's status and responsibility and would cause tremendous friction between the Assembly and the water authorities as well as between the Assembly and the Government. I hope the noble Lord will think again about it.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I wonder whether I may go back to the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which I thought was sympathetically received by the noble Baroness, regarding the two water authorities having their own areas. I think the noble Baroness said that she would look into it and I wonder whether it would be possible for her to say what are the snags of such a possible scheme?
Baroness STEDMAN: There are all the problems about the different areas for the different water authorities, about

1489
financial provisions for them, about trying to keep standards the same over the whole of the United Kingdom, and there would be tremendous administrative problems if we tried to move part of a water authority's area into another part to be administered. But, as I have said, I shall look at it again and I will write to the noble Lords.
Lord MIDDLETON: This is another Amendment designed to protect the national water policy in England and Wales and it is one that arises from the fear that the duty to promote a harmonious national policy laid on the Welsh Assembly by the Amendment in Schedule 11 to the Water Act 1973, to which the noble Baroness has referred, is vague and unenforceable. I suppose in practice the national policy for water in England and Wales does not really exist, except in the broadest outlines or concepts. The policy is determined from case to case as matters come up for consideration by the Minister.
The Amendment is designed to provide the Secretary of State with notice of actions taken or proposed by the Assembly so that he may consider whether if he had to make the decision in the light of his views of the interests of national policy, he would make the same decisions. I think the noble Baroness said that the application could be made on any matter whereas the Amendment says that it must be a matter where the interests of the national policy are in question; not any matter—that would be far too wide. I think the Amendment is a reasonable one but here again I believe we should study with great care the reply given on behalf of the Government and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.29 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN Lord RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 102C:
Page 27, line 23, at end insert—
("(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, with a view to the promotion of common policies and practices within any water authority area which lies within both England and Wales in respect of matters mentioned in section 1(2) and (3) of the Water Act 1973, the Assembly and any Minister of the Crown concerned with the exercise of powers (other than powers specified in subsection (1) above) relating to such matter, which, in the opinion of the
1490
Assembly or the Minister or the Authority, would affect those policies and practices, shall consult together before exercising such powers and, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, in any case where in exercise of any such powers either the Assembly or any such Minister determines to cause a local inquiry or hearing to be held the inquiry or hearing shall be held by the Assembly and the Minister jointly.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment in the name of myself and my noble friend Lady White, who unfortunately cannot be here. This is an Amendment which I think it is fair to say is designed to facilitate the harmonisation of policies and procedures as between the Welsh Water Authority and other authorities. As my noble friend Lady Stedman has just said, and as has been said earlier in the Committee proceedings, the Welsh Border does not follow the boundary of the Welsh Water Authority, which is a hydrological one. The Welsh Border was invented in the 16th century as a device to help cope with problems arising out of the feudal ownership of land, and in the 20th century it performs, as I believe, no useful purpose. That is my opinion. There it is, unfortunately. It follows the course of rivers like the Dee, Lugg Monnow, Wye, going overland in between, whereas the Welsh Water Authority's area of administration is bounded, understandably and purposefully, by the watersheds of these rivers located on the English sides.
My noble friend Lady Stedman said, at about 2.19 this morning, that the Bill proposes that in general the two water authorities operating in Wales should be responsible to the Assembly for their activities in Wales and to the Government for their activities in England. But I think we deduced from some remarks she made a few moments ago that the matter is very much more difficult and complicated than that. Where an area of the Severn-Trent Water Authority lies within the geographical area of Wales there is a fairly intricate tie-up between the two authorities. The way it works, as I understand it, is that the Welsh Water Authority acts as a kind of landlord to the Severn-Trent Authority, which otherwise has charge of all the normal functions which river authorities perform. In administering their area, the Welsh Water Authority have consultations to perform, which are complicated by the fact that the area at present under the

1491
Welsh Office stops short of the area under the water authority. Before confirming by-laws, for instance, they have to consult the relevant Ministry in England and at the same time keep the Secretary of State for Wales informed. They also keep a close liaison with two of their neighbouring English counties, Cheshire and Hereford and Worcester; though why only those two when there are two others, Shropshire and Gloucester, along the border, I have not yet learned.
To help them with the discharge of their duties the authority at present has 35 members, 20 of whom are from the eight Welsh counties and two of the English counties and nominated by elected authorities; 10 members and the chairman are nominated by the Secretary of State, and four members are nominated jointly by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture. Somewhere in the Bill—where is is I do not know because the cross referencing, I have found, is so complex—it is laid down that the Assembly will have power to control all those appointments at present made by the Secretary of State and those which are nominated by the Welsh local authorities. The Assembly would be required to retain on the authority the four nominees appointed from the counties of Hereford and Cheshire and one member jointly nominated by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister. However, as the Bill stands, there will be no duty laid upon the water authority or the Assembly to keep the Secretary of State for Wales informed on all matters about which it is in consultation with the Severn-Trent Authority, and there will be no requirement for it to consult neighbouring authorities on matters of water and other policy. Nor is there provision that inquiries and hearings shall be held jointly by the Assembly and the Minister, something which surely is essential.
The Welsh Water Authority is a statutory agency which wants only to perform its functions to the best of its ability. One of its functions, in its view, and indeed one of the principal reasons for its being given responsibility within its present hydrological boundaries, is to avoid inconsistent policies and practices as between one side of a river and another. In the authority's view, the Bill provides no real safeguards against this happening.
1492
As I understand it, the Government argue that, because the authorities will initiate the action to which the divided powers apply, consistency on the separate exercise of these powers by the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Minister of Agriculture and the Assembly will be assured. However, there is no reason, in my view, to suppose that this will follow, bearing in mind the emphasis which is being placed on the constitutional independence of the Assembly and the English Ministers.
The Government appear to argue that if on rare occasions the possibility of different practices in England and Wales arose because of differences of view between the Assembly and English Ministers, these would surely he discussed between the two administrations to overcome the difficulties. But there is no provision in the Bill for such consultations, and indeed I understand that this absence has arisen from a conscious view that the Assembly should not be obliged by the Act to have consultations but only to have them if it so chooses. Since there is no recognition in the Bill of even the possibility of difficulties arising from the application of different policies in the Welsh and English parts of the Welsh Water Authority area, the authority believes that it is unrealistic to suppose that the newly-separated administrations will not be very jealous of their independence and correspondingly reluctant voluntarily to adopt consultative procedures that must constrain their independence.
The Welsh Water Authority feels that an effective safeguard would be provided by the inclusion in the Bill of a requirement that the exercise of any powers, by either the Assembly or the English Ministers, in relation to any functions of the Welsh Water Authority or the Severn-Trent Authority in regard to which a common policy or practice throughout the authority's area was necessary, should be subject to prior consultation between the Assembly and the relevant English Ministers, and in cases where a public inquiry was to he held, by the setting up of a joint inquiry by the Assembly and the relevant Minister. An explicit definition in detail of all the circumstances calling for a common policy or practice would hardly be practicable. The Amendment, I think, would cover all that is necessary.
I could go into further details but I will not detain the Committee much longer. I share the Authority's concern that the effective provision of water services could be impeded by having two different sets of land drainage or fishery by-laws operating on the two sides of the mid-line of a single river, or by having one fishing licence to fish from one bank of a river and another licence to fish from the other bank. We hope it would not happen, but it might. I therefore beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: I so much agree with nearly everything which the noble Lord has said about these problems, indeed they are the very problems which are prompting me to produce very complicated Amendments from this side of the House. As he so rightly said, the Bill provides no real safeguards against inconsistencies between those areas under the responsibility of the Assembly and those under the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I am a little doubtful about how effective a safeguard this prior consultation will be, followed by possibly the joint inquiry. That is my doubt, although I so much agree with everything else which the noble Lord has said about the problems involved.
Baroness STEDMAN: As my noble friend has said, the purpose of his Amendment is to try to ensure the continuation of common policies and practices throughout the area of the water authority after devolution, allowing for the fact that both the Severn-Trent and Welsh Water Authorities operate in England as well as Wales and therefore will be responsible to the Assembly in Wales and to the Government in England. There is nothing wrong with that and we think that the Bill has dealt with it.
The Bill is not cluttered with provisions about consultation between Government and Assembly, but it clearly implies that there will have to be close consultation on a very wide range of subjects, not just on water policy. The Assembly will have a role in helping to shape the water policy, but the protection of the national policy cannot be achieved through general powers of direction. Protection is achieved through the duty of the Assembly to promote a water policy which is in harmony with that for England and Wales as a whole and
1494
the ability of the Government to intervene if it is necessary when particular water schemes are put forward.
We have given a great deal of thought to these proposals for water. We have set out detailed proposals to ensure the continuation of a national water policy in England and Wales and we have required the Welsh policy for water to be in harmony with it. We have also tried to identify those situations in which it is essential that we have identical policies and practices within a single water authority area so that they can be listed in Part I of Schedule 8. Perhaps inevitably, the Government do not necessarily see eye to eye with the water authorities about this or with my noble friend and noble Lords on the other side who have no doubt been lobbied as we have by the water authorities.
But the authorities, not surprisingly, are concerned about the administrative inconceniences of being accountable to two administrations and of perhaps having two sets of by-laws. The Government are concerned to provide a meaningful degree of devolution for the Assembly and that must allow for the possibility of differences between England and Wales, but it does not necessarily mean that the byelaws in Wales will contain substantially different provisions from those in England or that different banks of the same river will be subject to divergent requirements.
There is a natural fear that a new administration will want to change things significantly and upset perhaps the accustomed way of life. I suspect that there is a similar fear that it will be unversed in the problems it faces and to preserve its independence will be reluctant to look for advice. We do not share those fears or that apparent mistrust of the Assembly. The Wales Bill, like the Scotland Bill, is not cluttered with statutory requirements for consultation between the Assembly and the Government but it is nevertheless inevitable that there will have to be close consultation on a wide range of subjects, including water. In the Government's view, it is unrealistic to assume an unwillingness on the part of the Government and the Assembly to consult and co-operate on common problems. If the Amendment were to be pressed and adopted it would do nothing to ensure that meaningful

1495
consultations would take place; indeed it might be more likely to create that atmosphere of mistrust which it presumably wants to avoid. And it might carry the unfortunate implication that subjects other than water also do not require consultation with the Government. Further, there will be nothing to prevent the Government and the Assembly jointly setting up inquiries where both consider that it would be advantageous. So, we think that the Amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. and we hope that it will not be pressed.
My noble friend referred to the question of appointments, who made them and how they were made. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if we leave that point until we get to Amendments Nos. 109F to J to Schedule 11, because they deal with the breakdown of appointments and that might be a better stage at which deal to with this matter in more detail.
Lord ELTON: Before my noble friend returns to this matter if he intends to do so or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan returns to it, I should like to say at this convenient juncture that we are aware on this side of the Committee that water is an essential and emotive matter which must be looked at with the greatest care and that there are few areas of this or indeed any other Bill that I have come across, which are constructed with such complexity. I do not speak in criticism of the draftsmanship although I wish that it had been possible to express the Government's intention in a form if not in language, more easily assimilated by the layman that most of us are. However, I think that this is sufficient reason for saying that we should like to take counsel on these matters when they have been elicited.
Of course, there is a very wide area covered by this succession of Amendments and I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman will also want to form a view when she has heard what is said as regards the other Amendments. However, I am grateful to her for her extensive reply and I hope that the eagerness which we all have to retire early today will not in any way inhibit her from replying equally extensively at each stage because that will make it easier for us to come to the right conclusion before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has given us a very long and interesting reply. However, along with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I do not sec how—unless there is something which safeguards the complicated business of rivers with one bank in one section and another in another section, and unless there is some power with a body other than the Assembly—we can be sure that the matter will not become greatly tangled.
In Scotland we have this very problem with the River Tweed. That is a very important river with one bank in Scotland and another in England—the estuary is in England and the river rises in Scotland. I am full of anxiety about this matter, because I think that, unless there is some proposal put into the Bill for both Wales and Scotland, we are really storing up a lot of problems. I should have thought that it was much better to try to do it now during the Committee stage when we can discuss the matter and then study it again on Report. Although I realise that the Government think that everything in the garden will be lovely, I am very anxious as regards this particular subject which is highly controversial locally and about which it is difficult to get people to agree, unless there are some kind of guidelines laid down. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, although long and complicated, does at least give some guidance. Although the Minister will not accept it now, I hope that the Government will think again and give us another opportunity to discuss what I believe to be a vital matter which cannot just be left to chance.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for one reason only, namely, that I gather that the water authorities themselves are concerned. I should have thought that that gave cause for us to support it. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Baroness who always takes so much trouble when replying to these matters might make a few inquiries of the water authorities to see how they feel about it, because, after all, they will be the people who have to do the job in the end.
Lord RAGLAN: I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I have sat here for a

1497
good many hours and often when I have looked around the Chamber—as I look around it now—I have discovered that I am the only member of the chosen race actually present. In other words, I have sometimes been the only one out of over 40 noble Lords who actually lives in Wales and to whom the provisions of the Bill would apply. I would be an elector to the Assembly; I think I am even eligible to be a Member of it. As a Welshman, up till now my head has been ringing with the praise which the Government have been heaping on me: how brilliant, how capable, how judicious and, above all, how reasonable. Yet the very first time that I move an Amendment I am turned down fiat by my noble friend. I must say I am extremely disappointed.
I think my noble friend is being very much more sanguine about this matter than many people are and they are not just from outside Wales, they are from within Wales. My noble friend talked about administrative convenience, and the slight differences that there might be between the Welsh Water Authority area and other areas, and so on. Parliament, when passing the 1973 Water Act, actually took the trouble to write into the Act a consultative procedure or requirement, of a kind. It is contained in paragraph 42 of Schedule 3 to the Act. Time and again when listening to debates on this Bill I have felt that a reasonable test of what ought or ought not to go into this Bill might be whether, if Parliament were setting up an English Regional Assembly, they would take certain precautions. Because it is a Welsh Assembly they feel that they ought not to take precautions. They took precautions over the Water Act; why should they not take precautions under this particular Bill? At any rate, I have aired my views on the matter. I shall read with interest what my noble friend has said, and, with the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Water]:
8.54 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102D:
Page 65, line 40, at end insert—
("The Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 (c. 40) sections 3 and 4.
The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961 (c. 50) sections 5 and 6.
The Public Health Act 1961 (c. 64) sections 60 and 62.
The Water Act 1945 (c. 42) sections 12 and 13(4) and (5).
The Water Resources Act 1963 (c. 38) sections 107 and 108(4).").
The noble Lord said: The Amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 8, Amendments Nos. 102D, 102E, 102F, 102G and 102H, have a common purpose which is, as the noble Baroness said, when she replied a little earlier, to extend the range of functions exercisable by the Secretary of State and by the Assembly, regardless of national boundaries. It may be convenient if I speak to all five of them now. Part I of Schedule 8 and Clause 63(1) provide the enactment one might call the deemed national provision. In effect, Clause 63(1) provides that for the exercise of the enactment listed in Part I of Schedule 8 the national boundary shall follow the boundary between the Welsh and Severn-Trent Water Authorities. This will mean that the powers in the enactment will be exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to the Severn-Trent and by the Assembly in relation to the Welsh Water Authority, regardless of the national boundary.
These Amendments seek to build upon this provision by extending the range of functions specified in Part 1 of Schedule 8. The provisions now specified in the Bill are limited to matters concerning the constitution of the water authorities and certain powers as to charges. These Amendments seek to include powers in connection with appeals of one sort or another, the exercise of which directly affects the execution of the national policy for water for England and Wales.
I am bound to say that while these Amendments ameliorate the position so far as the Severn-Trent is concerned by reserving these powers to the Secretary of State alone, they may be taken to worsen the position for the English part, the Welsh Water Authority area. This is a lower image of the Severn-Trent portion. Extending the range of enactments listed in Part I of Schedule 8 will mean that the Assembly will exercise those powers in relation to the English part of the Welsh

1499
Water Authority's area. If required I could deal with each one of the specific powers sought to be included in Part I of Schedule 8 section by section, enactment by enactment, and give detailed reasons why it is thought desirable that they should be so treated. If I were to do so we should certainly not get through the Committee stage this week, and probably not next week either.
When the noble Baroness spoke about these Amendments in reply to Clause 63 she did rather brush them aside as being wrong and unnecessary, so perhaps the Committee will allow me to deal with one or two of the points by way of illustration. Under Amendment No. 102D it is proposed to insert the Water Act 1945, Sections 12 and 13(4) and (5). Section 12 deals with bulk supplies and subsection (5) provides:
"where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient that one water authority should give to another a supply of water in hulk and he is satisfied that the giving and taking of such a supply cannot be secured by agreement he may by order require the respective authorities to give and take such supplies at such periods and on such terms and conditions as may be provided in the order".
This section could be used by the Assembly, if the powers were devolved, to require Severn-Trent to take a supply of water from the Elan Valley reservoir on terms dictated by the Assembly, including a provision for a profit on water export. Section 13(4) and (5) provide for the Secretary of State to transfer the functions of a water authority to himself if he finds it in default of its duties to supply water. It is considered that these wide-ranging powers should not be passed to the Assembly in relation to Severn-Trent.
In regard to Amendment No. 102F may I make a general comment on the reasons for including these sections of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. In relation to fisheries it is important to bear in mind that the River Severn contains important commercial salmon fisheries. The spawning areas are in the upper and Welsh part of the river, while the netting area where the profit accrues is in the English area. It is therefore of little benefit to the Welsh interests in conserving salmon fisheries to the possible prejudice of trout and coarse fishing. It is therefore important that the fishery should be managed as a whole so
1500
that the various competing interests can be reconciled.
Amendments Nos. 102G and 102H relate to land drainage. Certain sections already appear in this part of the Schedule. The first group relate to the constitution of the regional land drainage committee in the Severn-Trent and the Welsh Water Authority. The other sections relate to certain powers of the Lord Chancellor in matters concerning charges. Inclusion of the new sections proposed would cover such matters as the designation of a particular section of the water course as main rivers. The amount of main river determines the level of the water authorities' expenditure on the land drainage function. It is important that main river policy is consistent throughout a river basin. The proposed Amendment also seeks to include matters relating to by-laws, because it is important that standards should be consistent, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan has just said, throughout a river basin.
Section 84 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 contains a provision for appeals against a precept to the Minister. It is considered that this power should not he devolved lest the Welsh be put into the path of temptation to load costs onto English consumers by reducing the precept to internal drainage boards in the Welsh part of the Severn-Trent Authority area. I think that that is sufficient to indicate the reasoning behind the Amendments in Schedule 8, up to and including No. 102H. I beg to move.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure the Committee is, for taking a whole lot of Amendments in one go. Amendment No. 102D would add to the list in Part I of Schedule 8 certain provisions which deal with the control of water pollution, agreements for the bulk supply of water and default powers over water authorities. We do not believe that a general political division of ministerial responsibilities on the basis of water authority boundaries instead of the England-Wales boundary would be acceptable to the English parts of the Welsh Water Authority, to the Welsh parts of Severn-Trent or to England and Wales as a whole.
But the co-ordinated management of river basins is retained by the water

1501
authorities themselves, who carry out most day-to-day functions. It is these authorities who will initiate action and provide much of the information and advice on which the Assembly will judge how to exercise its functions. The Assembly will be composed of people—like my noble friend Lord Raglan—with a great deal of knowledge and practical experience of the whole range of interests, and I am sure that they will not be rushed into uninformed decisions which create incompatible situations between the English and the Welsh parts of a water authority area. Further, the Assembly will be working within the national policy for water in England and Wales and there will be a great deal of discussion with the Government on policies and objectives. I cannot see, in these circumstances, why it should be suggested that the Assembly is likely, for example, to tolerate higher pollution of rivers and streams than might be tolerated in England, with detriment to English interests lower down those streams.
Of course, it is true that such a possibility might occur and perhaps the Bill should cater for it. But it does cater for it, and in a way which I suggest is more appropriate than the proposed Amendment. Many of the provisions dealt with in the Amendment are concerned with discharges into rivers. These are in large part prospectively repealed and will be replaced by the equivalent provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These provisions of the 1974 Act are already listed in Part 1V of Schedule 8, so the Secretary of State will be able to intervene if the Assembly allows unacceptable discharges into rivers flowing into England
Equally, the Government would accept that some other provisions dealt with by the Amendment might have implications for national England and Wales water policy. Examples are Sections 12 and 13 of the Water Act 1945 and Section 108 of the Water Resources Act 1963. But the Bill already lists these provisions in Part III of Schedule 8, so the Secretary of State will be able to intervene if these powers are exercised by the Assembly in a manner which is prejudicial to national water policy.
I pass on to the next Amendment, No. 102E. Again, the same general arguments apply as were used on the
1502
earlier Amendment. The only provision of this Act which we believe needs to be listed in Part I of Schedule 8 is Section 52, which enables the Secretary of State to order that water authorities may make charges in relation to consents for discharges of trade or sewage effluent. Clearly, the same scheme of charges needs to apply throughout the water authority area. The Bill already provides for this, and the Government believe that all other functions can and should be split on the normal England-Wales basis. Where it is necessary to safeguard English interests downstream, the Bill already does so, because it lists the appropriate provisions of the Control of Pollution Act in Part IV of Schedule 8—thus enabling intervention by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 102F is concerned with the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act and the fish in the rivers and similar matters. The Government consider that these are matters which can be dealt with by them or by the Assembly in respect of England and Wales, but other powers under the 1975 Act require special intervention procedures and these are provided for in Part IV of Schedule 8. Sections 26 and 28 are examples of this.
I turn to the two final Amendments on the powers of the Land Drainage Act. These are already listed in Part I of Schedule 8. They relate to the constitution of Regional Land Drainage Committees and Local Land Drainage Committees, to general drainage charges and to charges option orders which are made on the application of a water authority. These arrangements have to apply uniformly throughout an authority area.
In general, the Government consider that the additional provisions listed in this group of Amendments can and should, for the same general reasons I have given before, be split on a simple England-Wales basis. However, I may bring some joy to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, when I say that in so far as his last two Amendments are concerned, we have been reviewing more generally the effect of the Bill on the arrangements of internal drainage boards which may straddle the England-Wales Border. We are still considering the issues and although the Government's approach will, of course, be on the same principle that I have already described, we shall be bring-

1503
ing forward any necessary Amendments at the Report stage in relation to the land drainage provisions. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will read carefully what I have said and perhaps not press any of his Amendments.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am sure that we must be grateful for the final words of the noble Baroness and, of course, we shall read with very great care her very carefully reasoned reply, for which I am extremely grateful. The noble Baroness is more optimistic about the smooth running of the water arrangements than are my noble friends and I. I think that the inconsistencies to which so many noble Lords have referred tonight are bound to occur. I do not see the water arrangements running smoothly under the Bill as it is at present, as the noble Baroness says. However, we shall look very carefully at what she has said and perhaps return to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102E, 102F, 102G, 102H, 102J and 102K not moved].
9.7 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102L:
Page 66, line 31, after ("water") insert ("or tidal waters").
The noble Lord said: I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to meet us on this Amendment, which can be taken on its own. In the tidal part of the River Severn there is an anomalous situation where, by virtue of ancient grants, certain persons claim rights to private fishing. The Amendment is designed to extend the protection to persons owning such rights. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sorry that I cannot oblige the noble Lord this time. We think that this is another Amendment that would increase the scope for intervention by the Secretary of State, and really we do not think we could accept it at this point.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am disappointed about this because provision is made for owners in all other kinds of water. There are apparently people who claim rights to just the very end of the Severn where the
1504
tide comes in, and I should have thought that if you could give the rights throughout the whole of the river, then for the bit at the end where the fish are coming in with the tide the provisions in the Bill could have been extended towards them. I believe it is considered in some quarters that the claims to these rights are dubious, but this does not affect the validity of the Amendment, because if the claims are established protection is needed, and if the claims are not established protection does not apply as it only goes to persons owning such rights and not to persons claiming such rights. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at this. It is very nearly a drafting Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord has been very gracious and generous. Yes, all right; I shall take it back and have a look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.9 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 102M:
Page 66, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment paving the putting in of a new sub-paragraph by virtue of Amendment No. 102N, so it will no doubt be convenient if I speak to both of them together. The Amendment to Part II of Schedule 8 which is listed as No. 102N is designed to strengthen the power of intervention. This is another possible way of doing it. We feel that these intervention powers are not strong enough under the Bill.
Despite Amendmnt No. 102K, about which we spoke earlier, there may be cases where the interests of a group of consumers may be affected by where intervention is not justified in the interests of national policy because it may be a very localised effect. This Amendment is designed to rectify that situation. As an example, a group of consumers of water supplied by, for instance, the Severn-Trent Authority, may find that the water quality changes by virtue of actions committed by the Assembly in Wales, and this may increase their costs where they have plant designed to accept water of a particular quality. That is an example of the kind of case that is not covered and we think should be. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment, as the noble Lord said, and the second Amendment, No. 102N, adds any person for whom a water authority provides services (that is the general public) in the interests on behalf of whom the Secretary of State may intervene. We are not happy at this extension of powers of intervention for the Secretary of State. We think they are extensive enough, taken together, to make a nonsense of devolution. The Assembly will be constantly looking over its shoulder while, on the other hand, the existence of wider powers may result in the Secretary of State constantly being bothered to intervene on a host of what might be trivial local matters. In view of the way that the noble Lord has dealt with these Amendments we will take them back and look at them.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am most grateful. I think that this is one that could be looked at, and I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102N and 102P not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 8 shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: From time to time I have endeavoured to intervene, but things have been moving so fast that I have not been able to get in, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, is indicating by nodding his head. I do not propose to delay the Committee. I have been following the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, because he has been reading almost word for word in certain passages from documents which have also been supplied to me by the South Severn and Trent Authority. I had hoped to ask the noble Lord why the Severn and Trent Authority were so worried about the lack of safeguards in the Bill for the matters to which he referred. My view is that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has replied fairly fully with regard to the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has raised. I do not propose to delay the Committee at this stage with all the papers I have. I shall read very carefully what the noble Baroness
1506
has said, and consider that matter at a later stage.
Lord ELTON: It may be worth saying at this stage that I do not think there is any criticism imputed to my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is not only an accepted, but also an extremely valuable practice for noble Lords who are Members of your Lordships' House, and who are extremely busy outside it, to supplement their own knowledge by detailed briefs from interested parties who have retained counsel to give advice. Therefore, the question here seems perfectly fair. It is worth remembering that this is a recognised way in which we operate. Indeed, I have received contradictory briefs from different sources. One then has to sit in judgment upon them because one cannot propose both.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have no idea why the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is so helpful to me at this stage of the evening. It was my intention to be helpful in the debate by indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that I have the same papers as he has, and so I did not want to repeat what he was saying. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, on the one hand, that I am fair, but then appears to indicate that there may be something wrong in the attitude I have adopted. If that is not so, I cannot understand his intervention.
Lord ELTON: We do not want to waste time on this point. I was not criticising the noble Lord. I was merely wishing to say that the debate has been followed outside the Chamber very critically by people who are anxious to learn how what is being proposed works. The noble Lord's remarks, taken in isolation and in print, when the inflection in his voice would not be there to explain what they meant, could be taken as a criticism of what is a very profitable and practical process.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, did not intend any criticism in regard to the way the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has handled the Amendments. Like other Members of the Committee, we on the Government Front Bench have also been bombarded by the Severn and

1507
Trent Water Authority. We have tried in the course of the debate to put our arguments against the fears and doubts of the Severn and Trent Water Authority. I hope that I have succeeded, and I hope that when the Severn and Trent Water Authority reads the report of the debate, it will perhaps understand some of the thoughts behind the Bill, as well as in the way in which we are hoping it will operate.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Planning]:
On Question, Whether Clause 64 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.16 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: I do not think that I need reassure the noble Baroness that the proposal to leave out Clause 64, as well as the proposal to leave out Schedule 9, is intended only for probing purposes, and I do not intend to press them this evening; nor indeed would I do so in this form in the future. They give me an opportunity to raise an important point which was also discussed during consideration of the Scotland Bill. In particular, it was raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on the fifth day of the Report staged of the Scotland Bill.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will know the point that I am about to raise. In Schedule 9 of the Bill certain powers are given to the Secretary of State to intervene in planning matters. Part I of the Schedule lists the sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in relation to which the Secretary of State may intervene. The list covers planning permission and various other matters, but it leaves out listed buildings, which I believe come under Sections 54 and 55 of the Act. I wish to draw to the attention of the noble Baroness the missing element which is in Part I of the Schedule, and the desire on this side of the Committee to have those two sections included.
The point of this matter was very ably outlined by my noble friend previously, so I do not propose to spend much time explaining to your Lordships all the reasons behind it. The main point concerns what might happen if listed buildings are not included in Part I. For instance, as the Bill now stands, in a case of a valuable property which is of national
1508
interest and part of our heritage, the Secretary of State would not have the power to hold a planning inquiry because this is part of the devolved functions. Certain powers under Sections 4 to 6 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act will be given to the Welsh Assembly, although only Section 7 powers (which concern access to the National Land Fund) remain available to the Secretary of State.
Let us suppose that there is in Wales a valuable property which everyone agrees should be protected, and possibly have money spent on it to restore it. The Welsh Assembly would not have access to the National Land Fund. On the other hand, the Secretary of State would not be able to hold a public inquiry where national bodies—United Kingdom national bodies, not Welsh national bodies—could give evidence and put their views as to the value of such a property, and advise the Secretary of State that funds from the National Land Fund should be used for that property. For instance, I am given to understand that, if we had not had these powers, Erddig would not have been saved from being pulled down.
I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could look at the point I am making. As I say, there is no question of pressing either of these Amendments. My noble friends carried a similar Amendment into the Scotland Bill. I shall not start the argument whether one thing is good for Scotland and another thing is bad for Wales, because I think we are getting on quite nicely and I am not going to hold up the proceedings of the evening. Nevertheless, I think it is a point that needs looking into, and I should be very grateful for a reply from the noble Baroness on this point.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: In an earlier debate which we had on Schedule 2 to the Bill I outlined the broad range of powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which were to be transferred to the Assembly. These include, for instance, the powers to confirm development plans and to determine planning applications on appeal or call-in. These powers are transferred outright to the Assembly because land use planning can be sensibly considered only as a whole

1509
—and that has been recognised throughout all our post-war planning legislation. So regard must in all cases be paid to all competing land uses and to all development and amenity needs.
I think it fair to say that the majority of land use considerations arising in planning cases will relate to matters in respect of which the Assembly will exercise functions in other contexts; for example, housing and roads. But the Government recognise that there are other important considerations which relate to reserved subjects—for instance, energy or defence—and the Assembly will of course be required to weigh all such considerations in reaching their planning decisions, just as local authorities must weigh considerations for which they might not have responsibilities in other contexts. If all considerations are not properly taken into account, then planning decisions can of course, and may, be challenged in the courts. But there will be occasions where the Government will nevertheless wish to intervene—for instance, in cases where the Assembly does not have the knowledge that would be available to the Government. For example, if a development was proposed near a defence base, the Assembly might not itself be aware that a security risk was involved. Where such important United Kingdom considerations are raised, then the responsibility must in the last resort rest with the Government.
Therefore, we must consider what is the most appropriate means of Government intervention. I would suggest that for a range of planning matters of a more general nature, the general override procedure of Clauses 34 and 35, which we debated in the earlier hours of today, provide all that is required. For example, during an earlier debate the noble Baroness herself, and her noble friend the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised the question of Section 7 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which places a duty on local authorities to have regard to economic policies when they are preparing their structure plans. It was rightly pointed out that the Assembly will, after devolution, have the functions under Section 9 of approving structure plans, and therefore will among other matters need to consider whether the local authority has reflected the Government's economic policies.
1510
I am sure the Assembly will give proper weight to this, which is, of course, only one of a whole range of considerations they will have to take into account; but should the need arise, the Government would be able to use their general powers of intervention under Clause 34. Equally, if the Assembly made a general development order under Section 24 which was prejudicial to a reserved interest, then the intervention of powers of Clause 35 would arise. The Government, however, consider that there are a range of important development control decisions in individual cases for which these general intervention powers are suitable. These are listed in Part I of Schedule 9, and Clause 64 provides that in these cases the intervention procedures of Part II of Schedule 9 should apply instead of those of Clause 34.
I shall explain our reasoning. The powers listed in Part I of Schedule 9 are all ones under which the Assembly must decide for or against a particular development proposal, and which are presently subject to quasi-judicial procedures. The most important example—in terms of the number of cases presently arising—is the determination of planning appeals under Section 36 of the 1971 Act. The general intervention procedure of Clause 34 is not apt in these cases for two reasons. First, it imposes a Parliamentary procedure on the decision of the Secretary of State, which inevitably must prejudice his quasi-judicial role. And, secondly, it does nothing to safeguard the rights of parties to a case to be heard—which are central to our established planning procedures.
The procedures in Part II of Schedule 9 avoid both these difficulties. They make no provision for Parliamentary procedure, and the Secretary of State simply takes the case over from the Assembly—in shorthand he "calls it in". Secondly, the procedures are in such terms that the Secretary of State may take over where the Assembly left off. If, for instance, a local inquiry is in mid-progress, that inquiry may continue but with the inspector's report going to the Secretary of State rather than the Assembly. Parties to the inquiry will retain their existing rights to be heard, but the Assembly will additionally be given such a right by virtue of paragraph 6(1) of the Schedule. I hope that this explanation shows the reasoning behind Clause 64 and Schedule 9. We think that these pro-

1511
visions are important in terms of the retention of our planning procedures, and their deletion might risk bringing planning decisions subject to intervention into the political arena in an undesirable way.
Perhaps I could also take this opportunity to return to a point made in an earler debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about office development permits. As I said at the time these have never been in practice applied to Wales. But we take the point that they are not an apt matter for the Assembly as they primarily concern employment and regional policy. Accordingly we shall propose amendments on Report to reserve ministerial functions in respect of office development permits.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, during proceedings on the Scotland Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Conville, raised a number of points on the equivalent Schedule to that Bill. I believe that we were able to satisfy him on most points, but he, as was the noble Baroness, was particularly concerned that listed building control should come within the scope of the planning intervention procedures. The difficulty here is that intervention—as with the general override procedures—is only allowed where a reserved matter for which the Government is responsible throughout the United Kingdom is affected. If the Welsh Assembly is responsible for a matter in Wales then that matter cannot provide grounds for intervention. With listed building control I am advised that it is very difficult—or indeed impossible—to envisage what reserved matter of United Kingdom importance might be affected. The noble Viscount tried to overcome this difficulty by broadening the grounds of planning intervention so that the Secretary of State could intervene simply because the Government were responsible for the equivalent matter in England. The Government cannot accept this because it would mean that planning intervention procedures were more widely available than the general intervention procedures. This is not only inconsistent. It would, in the planning context, make very little sense in practice. The Government would therefore have to oppose any Amendments put forward to the Wales Bill which are equivalent to those carried on the Scotland Bill.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking so much
1512
trouble in once again answering questions which I have not put but which, nevertheless, elucidated for me and for my noble friends many points in connection with the effect of Clause 64 and its working in conjunction with Schedule 9. We are grateful. I am also grateful for her response to my comments on Section 74(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act in relation to office development permits. This is a positive contribution for which I am grateful.
I find it difficult to accept her reasoning with regard to the listed buildings powers which the Government do not seem to be able to accept as a reserve matter in Part 1 of Schedule 9. I think that one of the obvious difficulties that will occur is that the Welsh Assembly will not be able to have access to the National Land Fund. This is probably one of the major stumbling blocks. I see that there may be legal reasons why this is difficult to work out at the moment, but I feel sure that it would not be impossible to find a way of getting round this difficulty. It must be in the interest of Wales, and of the nation as a whole, that some great building or historical monument or monument of Welsh culture—which is the same as British culture —should be preserved for the nation, and that access should be available to the National Land Fund.
I should like to look at this again and perhaps submit something else on Report. If the noble Baroness feels that there could be some slight movement in any way from her side on this matter, I should be grateful if she would communicate with me.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Status and remuneration of certain officers and servants];
[Amendment No. 102S not moved.]
9.31 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 102SA:
Page 27, line 31, leave out ("the home civil service of the state") and insert ("Her Majesty's Home Civil Service").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is solely concerned with nomenclature. Clause 65 at present provides that service

1513
as an officer or servant of the Welsh Assembly shall be service in the "home Civil Service of the State." There was comparable provision in Clause 65 of the Scotland Bill. The phrase is precedented in that the Civil Service Order 1968 refers to the "Civil Service of the State" to cover all branches of the Civil Service.
However, during debate on the Scotland Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, opposed the use of the word "State" which he said was ugly and had overtones of separatism. He proposed instead the phrase "Her Majesty's Home Civil Service." This form of words is equally accurate and is precedented in the Civil Service Order in Council of 1969. The Government therefore accepted Lord Selkirk's Amendments on this point to the Scotland Bill and now propose a similar Amendment to the Wales Bill, which I hope noble Lords from every part of the Committee will welcome.
Lord ELTON: I cannot resist the opportunity of saying something agreeable so I will say "Thank you" to the noble Lord.
[Amendment No. 102SB not moved.]
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendments Nos. 102SC and 102SD:
Page 27, line 37, after ("in") insert ("respect of").
Page 28, line 1, after ("service") insert (",their ceasing to serve or their suffering diminution of emoluments").
The noble Lord said: These minor technical Amendments to Clause 65(2) correct the provisions relating to the remuneration of officers and servants of the Assembly. Similar Amendments have already been agreed to the corresponding clause of the Scotland Bill. It would be impossible for the complicated calculations concerning payment of contributions to the Principal Civil Service Superannuation Scheme to be completed within the financial year to which they relate. The payments must therefore be related to the financial year in respect of which they are made, rather than, as the Bill now provides, requiring them to be made within that year. The addition of the words "respect of" in the first Amendment achieves this result.
As it stands, subsection (2) allows the Minister for the Civil Service to calculate the amount due from the Welsh Consolidated Fund in respect of pensions, allowances and gratuities allowable to officers serving the Assembly during the financial year. The second Amendment will enable these calculations to be based not only, as is now provided for, on service during the year; but also, as appropriate, on the ending of service (whether on premature retirement or on loss of office for other reasons) and downgrading. I think these are innocent drafting Amendments and I hope that your Lordships will approve them.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Transfer of property]:
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No. 102T:
Page 28, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and myself is a consequential one concerning forestry. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With the usual reservations, may I say that we accept this Amendment.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Complaints of maladministration]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("additions").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from a commitment given to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. It is another instance of the infinite flexibility of the Government's approach to these Bills.
Clause 68 empowers the making of an Order in Council to provide for the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of allegations of maladministration by or on

1515
behalf of the Assembly. Subsection (2) provides that the Order in Council may apply, with such additions, exceptions and modifications as necessary or expedient, any of the provisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. The Scotland Bill contained a similar provision, although there the Order in Council was only to make interim provision pending the Scottish Assembly making its own arrangements.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, queried whether it would be necessary to make additions to the 1967 Act, as well as modifications and exceptions. The Government have considered this point in relation to both Bills and, on reflection, it seemed unlikely that in applying the 1967 Act to the Welsh Assembly it would be necessary to have a power to make additions to that Act. This Amendment makes that a fact. I beg to move.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Determination of issues as to Assembly's powers]:
9.39 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 29, line 13, leave out from ("institute") to end of line 16 and insert ("against the Assembly proceedings of the kind specified in subsection (2) below notwithstanding that each of them acts on behalf of the Crown.
(2) The proceedings referred to in subsection (1) above are proceedings for a declaration as to—

(a) whether a power conferred or duty imposed by or under any enactment is exercisable or falls to be discharged by the Assembly;

(b) whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers; or

(c) whether the Assembly has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with page 29, line 13, of Clause 70 and I shall quote it.
"The proceedings referred to in subsection 9(1) above are proceedings for a declaration as to—

(a) whether a power conferred or duty imposed by or under any enactment is exercisable or falls to be discharged by the Assembly;

1516

(b) whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers; and

(c) whether the Assembly has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it".

The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has tabled an Amendment to Clause 70, page 29, line 16, which perhaps we might consider at the same time: that is, Amendment No. 104A. The noble Baroness has not yet moved that Amendment but I should like to speak to it and so perhaps we can speak to the two together. The noble Baroness's Amendment reads:
"and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Attorney General and any other person may institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings seeking a determination of any question whether the Assembly is in default in the fulfilment of any duty placed on it or transferred to it by this Act and seeking an order requiring the fulfilment of such duty, provided that no such proceedings shall be instituted by any person other than the Attorney General unless the person is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty."
It is rather unusual for me to quote an Amendment before it has been moved, but it seems to me the most practical way of proceeding.
The Amendment of the noble Baroness is identical to the Commons Committee Amendment No. 342, tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. Its purpose is threefold: to provide a means for bringing before the courts questions as to whether the Assembly has failed to carry out a duty; to give an aggrieved citizen the right to bring such proceedings, and to give the courts power to enforce their orders. For the reasons which I shall give, it is likely that, generally speaking, the third is the most important of these points.
The Government Amendment implements the undertaking given in another place, following discussion of an Amendment which was identical to that to be proposed by the noble Baroness, and I imagine that the reason for setting it down again is that in another place my right honourable and learned friend's undertaking, although generally welcome, did not wholly satisfy those on the Benches opposite him. I think, therefore, that we are not really all that far apart and that there is only one issue of substance between us. I will return to that issue in a moment, but, first, I think I ought to explain what

1517
Clause 70, as we propose it should be amended, seeks to do. This is an important and difficult point, and I shall answer it at length.
The first point to consider is why we need anything like Clause 70 at all. The answer is, as my right honourable and learned friend put it in another place,
"in the ordinary way, when one is dealing with Ministerial powers, one does not have the situation that the Attorney-General has the right to go to the Court in order to question whether the use by Ministers of their powers is a proper use or not".
We are not talking about the established case law, where a citizen has a grievance against a particular act of a Minister. Within a single unitary Government, there is no need to bring such matters before the courts. Ministers are collectively responsible for the discharge of their duties. The Cabinet can seek legal advice as to the nature and extent of these duties from the Attorney-General, who is the legal adviser to the Crown—he is Her Majesty's Attorney-General. Her Majesty appoints someone to give her legal advice in the conduct of her Government; and it would he highly anomalous if that adviser took action against his client. It is, to say the least, doubtful whether the courts would entertain such an action. The creation of a separate Executive in the Welsh Assembly affects this aspect of our Constitution. There will be two arms of the Crown, which may receive conflicting advice as to their duties or the extent of their powers. Moreover, by contrast with Scotland, the Executive in Wales lacks power to introduce legislation amending those powers and duties.
Clause 70 is designed to do the very minimum to take account of this new situation. It is not a clause about the rights and duties of the Assembly in relation to the individual citizen. It is designed to do no more than remove a constitutional difficulty in bringing before the courts issues as to the powers and obligations of the Assembly. The last words of what would become subsection (1) make this point clear:
"notwithstanding that each of them"—
that is, the Attorney-General and the Assembly—
"acts on behalf of the Crown".
In another place it was suggested that the original clause did not cover acts of omission—that is, failure to carry out a duty. This point is brought out again in Amendment No. 104A. The new paragraph (c) in subsection (2) ensures that the clause covers this aspect. In consequence of the express reference to duties, paragraphs (a) and (b) separate out and distinguish between two matters which were previously rolled up together. Paragraph (a) deals with the question as to where a particular power or duty lies. Is it a ministerial power or an Assembly power? In practice, these questions should arise very rarely because the fact that the Assembly is to have only executive competence has enabled the Bill to achieve a precision in this respect which is not possible in the case of the Scottish Executive. Paragraph (b) deals with vires issues: does the Assembly have power to do something which it has done or proposes to do? This issue is one which is already very familiar in our law. When a Minister acts as agent of the Crown, he must abide strictly by the terms of his authority. The Assembly will be in the same position. Subsection (2) will therefore now cover clearly every aspect of the questions which can arise as to the exercise of powers and performance of duties by the Assembly. In this respect, I think that the noble Baroness will agree that we have entirely met the point posed by her Amendment.
The second point raised by Amendment No. 104A is the right of the citizen to bring proceedings. As I have said, the whole object of this clause is to remove a constitutional difficulty. It is in no way relevant to the right of an aggrieved citizen to bring proceedings. As my right honourable and learned friend said in another place, the Government propose to use the powers conferred by Clause 78(2) to make the necessary amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 to ensure that the present law on Crown proceedings applies to the Assembly. My right honourable and learned friend was asked to produce a draft of the proposed Amendments. I regret that we are not in a position to do that; it is a major undertaking which will take time. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Amendments will not and could not change the essential nature of the citizen's rights against the Crown. They will merely

1519
adapt the 1947 Act in the wake of the Bill. I think that I have thus dealt with the second point in Amendment No. 104A.
The third point in Amendment No. 104A is enforcement. The Amendment would give the court a right to order the fulfilment of a duty. The Government Amendment contains no comparable provision. I freely admit that and I would defend most strongly the fact that it does not. This point may be the one point in issue between the noble Baroness and myself and I propose to direct the remainder of my remarks—unfortunately, quite long —to it. It is very important.
It is contrary to the whole basis of our Constitution for the court, which is one arm of the Crown, to order another arm of the Crown to perform a duty at the instance of a third. That is a fundamental principle of administrative law, and even if it were right to change it, which I should very much doubt, it would be wrong to do so in this Bill. Consider just the question of sanctions. What sanction could the court employ? I have heard no answer to this. As long as the law has been clarified, by way of a declaration, then the Crown knows what the relevant law says. That is as far as a court could or should go.
There is another aspect to this. What Government do, by and large, is to make provision, by directions and regulations, within the framework of primary legislation to govern the actions of others. This is the essence of the functions which are being transferred to the Assembly. If the Assembly were to act in breach of the law, as clarified by the courts, how could it expect others to comply with its orders? There are various legal maxims applicable to this situation, but I offer this political maxim instead: the Assembly cannot have its cake and eat it. The Assembly cannot invoke the authority of that law which it disregards.
The Government believe that the Assembly will be composed of reasonable people. We have covered that point several times in our debates. We reject the fears which have sometimes been expressed in our debates that the Assembly will be composed of wild men from the hills. But even if the Government are wrong in their belief, my argument would stand. An Assembly, an arm of the
1520
Crown, which sought to deny the rule of law would be denying itself. The consequences would be grave. But if we believe that we can provide a legislative solution, we are proceeding on a mistaken view of constitutional law.
All this is high constitutional theory—although no less valid for that. The noble Baroness may say that it is all very find in theory but that it ignores practical realities. I do not agree, and I could support my views by examples from throughout the common law system. Instead I will refer to the law of the European Communities, since that legal order was created with the benefit of the accumulated legal wisdom of most of Europe. Your Lordships carried into the Scotland Bill a provision designed to channel references to the European Court of Justice. In dealing with Governments, that court has no power to enforce its decisions. But I know of no case where the Government of a Member State has failed to implement a decision of the European Court.
What the Government's clause does is to enable the courts to give en authoritative ruling as to where a power or duty lies and as to its extent. Before the court rules, there may be room for argument. It is open to the Assembly to say: "Yes, we are happy to comply with the law, but we do not think the law obliges us to to this or that". But once the court has ruled, that argument is no longer available. The Assembly will not be able to deny that they are under a duty to do a particular act or not to do another act. For the reasons I have stated, I see no justification for trying to make a fundamental inroad into constitutional principle by providing for any failure to comply with the law as the court has declared it. The beginning and end of the matter is that the Assembly will be exercising functions on behalf of the Crown, and that every constitutional and legal principle requires us to accept that the Crown will act in accordance with the law once that is made clear. I therefore urge the Committee to accept this Amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will join us and, if she does, that she will not move her subsequent Amendment. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but this is a very difficult, very important point of law, which must be carefully dealt with. It is a good thing that, in spite of the length of my speech and the lateness of

1521
the hour, the record should contain exactly what is the Government's view. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: On behalf of my noble friends I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for a very full and clear statement, not only supporting his Amendment—he has done something which I think is not exactly unconstitutional, but is certainly helpful, in that he almost moved my Amendment for me. I am sorry that he did not end with quite the same words of approval for my Amendment as he did for his own. Nevertheless, he indicated that there were certain areas—at any rate, one area—where we are not in disagreement at all; and from this side of the Committee I express our gratitude to the noble Lord and to the Government that one point at any rate has been met. That is the point contained in subsection (2)(c) concerning the failure by the Assembly to discharge its duty. That is now covered in this Amendment.
There are of course certain other matters which are not quite so clear or so satisfactory from our point of view, or indeed from the citizen's point of view. The points I should like to mention are, first, those which deal with who has the right to bring proceedings. Under this Amendment it still lies within the discretion and the power of the Attorney-General alone. I repeat, this is a purely and absolutely discretionary power to bring proceedings against any body or individual. This means that the Attorney-General has to decide whether it is in the public interest and to take into account other matters before he will act on behalf of either an individual or a body against the Crown.
The noble Lord rightly pointed out the situation that the Attorney-General, who is a member of Her Majesty's Government, will be bringing an action against a body which, as he has said—I am not quite sure of his actual words, but they were to the effect that it was acting in a similar way to a Minister of the Crown. Obviously, a Minister of the Crown is a member of the Cabinet and he shares responsibility with the Government of the day, whereas the Welsh Assembly may even be a completely different political Party from that of the Government,
1522
and undoubtedly that is where there will be some difficulty. There might well be an Attorney-General who would be willing to bring an action against the Welsh Assembly if it were of one political complexion different from that of the Attorney-General whereas he might be less willing to bring an action against the Welsh Assembly if it was of the same political complexion —and of course I am not saying which Parties migh be involved. Obviously such a serious consideration might arise, and if the Bill is left as it is, or if some other measure is not taken to amend some other Act—for instance the Crown Proceedings Act—this would be of grave harm to an individual citizen if there was only to be a political decision as to the protection of his rights from actions of the Welsh Assembly.
I was amused to hear once again the noble Lord putting into our mouths things that I would never have thought of saying, but I am delighted to think that he may think that we think that there may be the wild men from the hills of Wales who will be filling the Welsh Assembly. I would remind him, however, that even Ministers of the Crown have acted outside their powers. Within the last four years there have been at least three cases of that sort, and unless he is saying that his colleagues are also wild men of the hills I fail to see the need to make that kind of reference to the elected body of the Welsh Assembly.
Obviously, this is a matter which is not to do with the quality or the type of person in the Assembly, or, for that matter, an individual who is acting as a Minister of the Crown. There are many reasons why these things happen, but nevertheless they can and do happen. Such a thing may well happen with the Welsh Assembly, just as it has happened with a Minister of the Crown, and undoubtedly may well happen again for some reason or another. For this reason alone, I think that this Amendment is not satisfactory unless some other measure is taken. This was discussed in another place and the noble Lord referred to the fact that there will be an Amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act; but we on this side of the Committee have not really been assured as to the exact form that such an Amendment will take.
I should like to know whether, under such an Amendment, any person aggrieved

1523
will have an automatic right to bring an action against the Welsh Assembly for failure to fulfill a duty or where the Welsh Assembly has acted outside its powers, or where an individual has suffered some wrong by virtue of an act or a failure to act of the Welsh Assembly. This is a matter of vital concern and I think this concern is shared by all Members of your Lordships' House. Wherever there is any form of bureaucracy—I am not relating it only to the Welsh Assembly, but to any form of bureaucracy—the first thing you have to do is to see that, equivalent to the setting up of that bureaucratic machine, there is an equal right of redress by the individual against any act of that bureaucratic machine. In this Bill this is an element which is lacking at the moment. We would like a rather more concrete assurance from the Government setting out the exact terms in which these rights will be protected by an Amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act, as the noble Lord suggested. I understand that is the only way it can be done, and not in this Bill. It is certainly something to which I attach the greatest importance.
The noble Lord mentioned another point where we are not ad idem; that is, the remedies that an individual or a body can obtain under this Amendment. As he rightly says, if the Attorney-General brings proceedings he will only be able to bring proceedings for a declaration of the rights; he cannot demand the enforcement of the remedy. Under the Crown Proceedings Act, of course, the Crown can be sued, both in tort and in contract, and it would, therefore, be much more satisfactory, if such an Amendment is being made to enable a person to bring proceedings against the Crown, if the Government could state what remedies will be available to that individual, whether they can sue for damages or for specific performance, or whether they can claim an injunction.
These are the kind of things we should be told. It is quite useless to the individual citizen to be told (a) that the Attorney-General may bring a case or may not, and (b) even if he does, the citizens' wrongs may not be redressed—he may not get a remedy —because it will lie entirely in the hands of the Welsh Assembly in this case to redress those wrongs. Of course, it is not an analogy to point out that when the European Court makes a declaration, for
1524
instance on an interpretation of Article 177, Governments do implement what the court has stated. There is no parallel between the relationship of the European Court of Justice to a national government and the relationship of the courts of England and Wales to the Welsh Assembly; the relationship is not at all the same. First, a national government is, after all, a Member of the European Community. The Welsh Assembly is not a member of the Government, or of any judicial set-up in this country. Obviously the relationships are totally different. So I do not think the situation is analogous.
Obviously I have not gone into all the points the noble Lord raised. He gave a very long statement on these matters. I have not had time to study them. I should like to have a chance of looking at them more closely. I have tried to raise the points which I thought were essential in differentiating the position between us. Subject to any comment the noble Lord may like to make in reply to what I have said, at any rate I shall not move my Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I should like to reply in exactly the same vein. This is a very difficult matter and I do not think that one wants to deal with it in argument across the Committee. We shall each study what the other has said and communicate either by letter or possibly at the next stage.
[Amendment No. 104A not moved.]
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 [Confirmation by House of Commons of resolutions passed by it but not by House of Lords]:
On Question, Whether Clause 71 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.6.p.m.
Lord ELTON: This clause is headed:
"Confirmation by House of Commons of resolutions passed by it but not by the House of Lords".
This battle was fought in this place at another time. I think that reason carried the day and I trust that the Government

1525
will now, in consistency, accept that this clause should be removed from the Bill at this stage.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Without confirming the fact that reason carried the day, I shall confirm the rest of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged.
Clause 71 disagreed to.
Clause 72 [Reckoning of time for certain purposes]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 29, line 33, leave out ("35 or 71") and insert ("or 35").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 105. This Amendment is consequential upon the last.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: With the usual provisos, we accept it.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Powers of Assembly to make or confirm orders subject to special parliamentary procedure]:
[Amendment No. 105A not moved.]
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 105B:
Page 71, leave out lines 35 to 44.
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 105B. This Amendment is consequential.
Baroness STEDMAN: This is accepted by the Government with the usual provisos.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Modification of enactments requiring the laying of reports before Parliament]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 106: 1526
Page 31, line 5, leave out ("be laid instead before") and insert ("instead be sent to and published by").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 106. This is another of the drafting Amendments improving the English of the Bill which I proposed earlier. We discussed the matter in detail. In this case, the revised wording is applied in the clause which provides for the general conversion of references in existing legislation to the laying of reports before Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 77, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: If the last Amendment has been agreed to, which it has, is it still necessary to retain subsection (2) in the clause? Does it not in fact duplicate it?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord has asked me a question which I do not think I can answer because I cannot find my copy of the Bill. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The last Amendment said,
"instead be sent to and published by".
As I read the clause, subsection (2) deals with publishing. Is this not already covered by this Amendment?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think the answer is, No. The subject in subsection (2) is about a different case.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.