Lords Sitting of 23 June 1978

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

WALES BILL
Lord STRABOLGI: 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.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 78 [Amendment of enactments]:
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 31, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Marquess said: Before I move this Amendment, I should like to say—and I say this in order to avoid having another what I can only describe as a deflowered ululation from the Front Bench of the Government as regards our treatment of the Welsh people—that at the moment I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. I do not see why the people of the Principality should be denied this particular subsection. It cropped up in virtually the same form during the proceedings on the Scotland Bill.
I shall ask virtually the same questions as were asked then and I have no doubt that I shall be given virtually the same answers as were given on that occasion. Depending upon one's feeling at the time, I have no doubt also that the Amendment will then be withdrawn and that we shall all depart feeling either miserable or merry. I should like to ask the Minister about the definition of certain words in subsection (2). First, what is the Government's definition of a "Minister of the Crown?" Secondly, can the Government clearly explain to me, as a simple and rather stupid Scot, what is the definition of the words "necessary" and "expedient"? I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My list of questions is not quite so complete as that of my noble friend, but this clause seems to me to embody the most sweeping powers that I have ever seen in a proposed Act of Parliament. I have not studied the Scotland Bill and I do not know what answers my noble friend expects with regard to the debates which occurred on that Bill. However, it occurs to me, after reading subsection (2) of this clause, that the powers are very sweeping.
"A Minister of the Crown may by order make such amendments in any Act passed before or in the same session as this Act and in any other enactment passed or made before the passing of this Act …".
I leave out the passage about such amendments as appear to the Minister of the Crown to be necessary, because my noble friend has covered this point. Surely this includes any Act passed during the current Session of Parliament, including the Wales Act. By order, the Minister may change the Wales Act. We are now on the sixth day of the Committee stage. We had one day for the Second Reading. Without committing anybody to anything, we shall possibly have three days on Report. In one order, a Minister of the Crown may change this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Turning to subsection (3), I gather, although my knowledge of statute law is very limited, that a Statutory Instrument is to be subject to annulment, which means by a Negative Resolution. I should not have thought that this gave very many safeguards to Parliament. If I am right, to allow a Minister of the Crown to alter this Bill when it becomes an Act by Negative Resolution seems to me to be dangerous, to say the least. I shall be very glad to have the Minister's comments.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I noticed this point. Although I should not be prepared to go into the Division Lobby, because I do not think that that is necessary, in my opinion—although I do not claim to be a professional—the drafting of this subsection appears to mean that in the case of almost any Act passed during this Session, whether horse-racing or anything else, a Minister of the Crown will be allowed to do pretty well what he desires by way of amendment. I know that the safeguard here is the Negative Resolution procedure.

1531
Although I do not wish to delay the Committee, because there is much work to be done today, I came here specially this morning to obtain an interpretation of subsections (2) and (3) of this clause. I believe that the Committee is entitled to that interpretation. Although I should not go into the Division Lobby if the Amendment were pressed, nevertheless I believe that this point needs to be clarified. In my humble opinion, some redrafting is required.
11.13 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): The purpose of subsection (2) is to empower a Minister to tidy up, behind the Wales Act, by making minor, consequential Amendments to other enactments. Such changes could have been made in the Wales Bill itself, but this course would have necessitated a substantial lengthening of the Bill. Furthermore, it is likely that the scale of such an exercise would have made it impossible to complete it accurately within the time scale of this Bill, and I imagine that we would all aim at accuracy and precision in regard to this Bill, above all.
What is involved here is tidying up the Statute Book after a legislative exercise which covers a huge area—probably the biggest for many years. I am sure the noble Marquess will agree that the approach adopted is the right one; namely, to concentrate in the Bill on the principles and to let the minor detail be carried elsewhere. I would commend to your Lordships that this is very much in line with the recommendation of the Renton Report. I will not delay the Committee by quoting from that report although I have a few apposite quotations to hand. So in regard to both this Bill and the companion Bill, which has already been discussed in your Lordships' House, we shall be acting very much in line with an authoritative and weighty report which makes recommendations to deal with this class of legislation and provision in this way.
The noble Marquess asked me to define the phrase "Minister of the Crown". This designation is well precedented in statutes without, I think, further definition.
1532
It is like our old friend "may be" or "reasonable" in so many statutes: it is found "reasonable" not to attempt too close a definition of the word "reasonable". Indeed this point was debated at length on the Scotland Bill when Amendments were tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I would myself say that "a Minister of the Crown" covers those Ministers of whatever designation who are normally concerned with the promotion of legislation. Beyond that I think it would be dangerous for me, or indeed any of my successors, or any other Government, to proceed.
The point is well taken, though. There are a number of definitions that we might look at again, including more than one raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. I ask the Committee to agree with me that we should accept this definition of "Minister of the Crown" as being an operative one in our experience and one which will not cause difficulty in regard to this particular legislation or, I anticipate, future legislation.
The point raised as to the definition of "necessary or expedient" falls into the same category, I fear. I find that in other comparable legislation there appear the words "necessary or proper" with the same purpose. They appeared in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, the Local Government Act 1972a tremendous piece of legislative provision—and a number of others. I gather that the words there were "necessary or proper",which it did not seem to be necessary or proper to define closely at the time, and I would suggest that the terms "necessary" and "expedient", like "necessary or proper" barely relate to the consequences of the Bill and the Act in question. So what is seen to be necessary to be done as a result of the provisions of the Act as it finally emerges, and indeed what is seen to be expedient, shall, under these provisions, be done.
I fear that I cannot go beyond that in the field of definition, always a minefield for any Minister to enter into. However, there was one other point which I felt was well raised, as to whether this particular Bill would be included in the term "Acts in the current Session". My right honourable friend could not change the Wales Act by order. It is "this Act" and cannot be an Act passed in the same

1533
Session as "this Act". That is to say, this Act stands on its own apart from the Acts described as being Acts passed in the current Session or, of course, preceding Sessions.
I hope I have made reasonably clear the attitude of the Government on the points raised. I very much welcome what the noble Marquess has said about what I know to be his desire never to diminish the importance of any provisions made for the Welsh people. I hope that our little exchange the other night has not indicated to him that I take anything like an adversary view on this legislation. I welcome also his constructive attitude that he will not press this Amendment and I hope with these few words of explanation he may feel that he will stick to his intention.
Baroness ELLES: Before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether I may put one or two questions to the Minister concerning this subsection. Clearly, it concerns all Members of your Lordships' House as to its effects and particularly of course in relation to the meaning of the last four or five words of the subsection. I say this deliberately because I do not propose to go into the many long arguments that were entailed in the definition of "a Minister of the Crown". It is quite clear that the Government have not been able to do so and apparently nobody else in your Lordships' House has been able to tell us precisely what a Minister of the Crown is or who are the individuals who will be fulfilling that function in relation to Clause 78(2). I presume that it could be anything from about 40 to 110 people, but who exactly they are it seems to he difficult to discover.
I should like to ask the noble Lord what he meant by "minor consequential Amendments". He informed the Committee that this subsection was a tidying up of the Statute Book. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and I have discussed many issues across this Table, and I do not, of course, wish to be antagonistic in any way; this is merely searching for the truth as to what this means. What is in consequence of this Act could be merely the actual contents of the Act itself and literally a tidying-up process. But, of course, it could also mean all the
1534
consequences that flow from this Act coming into force, and this could be indefinite and very considerable indeed.
I would feel very much more satisfied if there was a limited and restricted definition of what "in consequence of this Act means"; namely, that nothing that flows as a consequence of the Act coming into force should be involved in giving powers to Ministers to change any Act of Parliament. As it is worded, I think justifiably anybody could read this in the normal sense as meaning that any Minister of the Crown may by order make any amendments in any Act. The consequences of this Act must be more clearly defined in order to restrict and limit the actions of Ministers of the Crown.
I think it would be very valuable if the noble Lord would be kind enough to expand on this. If not, we might possibly come up with some kind of drafting to restrict it and reassure all Members of your Lordships' House that this is meant to be a restrictive clause. I do not doubt the noble Lord's words; I believe they repeat the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when this matter was debated during discussion on the Scotland Bill.
The noble Lord did mention the Renton Report, which we debated in your Lordships' House, but I think it is fair to remind your Lordships that that report has never been officially adopted. Although it was debated, and although the contents were admirable and many of us agreed with much that was said, it has no legal status whatever. Although the noble Lord may rightly refer to it, it does not impose any obligations on the Government to fulfill the recommendations set out in that report. I would not accuse the noble Lord of being misleading, but nevertheless the Committee might have been misled by the words he used when he referred to that report. The recommendations in it have never been formally adopted.
The last point I would make is with regard to the question of the form of Statutory Instrument which would follow the order being made by a Minister of the Crown. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has rightly pointed out that this is a Negative Resolution, and I

1535
should have thought that in the circumstances in which any Minister of the Crown may make an order, we would certainly welcome at least an Affirmative Resolution; so that if any matter is raised which seems to be an abuse of the powers of the Minister—it may well not be—an opportunity should be given to both Houses of Parliament at least to debate the issue. I do not say that they will ever be debated, but I think both Houses should at least have that opportunity.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. Once again, as an ignorant Scot I really cannot quite reconcile the words "expedient and proper". I have done an enormous number of improper things in my life and most of them have been expedient. However, if the Minister can assure us that he will look at this again, I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness before the Amendment is withdrawn. I am really most obliged to the noble Marquess, but I do disagree with him profoundly on one point of very important substance, when he refers to himself as an ignorant Scot. There are no ignorant Scots. I take that as a typical piece of Anglo-Saxon pejoration advanced by a typical Scot.
The noble Baroness raised a number of important points. I think I can satisfy her on the first point she raised. I wonder whether in fact I made it absolutely clear—I thought I did—that these words empowered a Minister to tidy-up behind the Wales Act, in the wake of it, by making minor consequential Amendments to other enactments. There will be consequences, none of them very large but all of them quite important, which need to be attended to as other enactments are considered as a result of the passing, as we hope, of this Bill into an Act. It is that class of Amendment, which is really common form, as the noble Baroness and I know, which is referred to in the phrase "minor consequential Amendments to other enactments".
The second point the noble Baroness made was about the Renton Report. I referred to it as a weighty report; I deliberately did not call attention to its
1536
recommendations as being those that have been commended in any way authoritatively by Parliament, or indeed by statements of Ministers. The noble Baroness is quite right; it is a weighty report, which I am sure every Member of your Lordships' House has read word by word. I certainly have had opportunity in relation to this Amendment to look at the Renton Report, about which I had heard, and I do find in it a great deal of very useful indication as to how we might more officially in the future relate our proceedings on legislation of this category.
The third point the noble Baroness raised was on the question of the affirmative as opposed to the negative Statutory Instrument. In view of the noble Marquess's decision to withdraw this Amendment, I will certainly take that point for further consideration. I cannot, of course, give the slightest commitment on this, but I do not propose today to argue the case for negativity as opposed to affirmativity. I think—and here I agree with my noble friend—that this constantly needs to be looked at, indeed during the stages of a Bill and in between Bills. It is always a question of the utmost importance. With that indication, but without the slightest commitment, I will indeed call attention to the point made by a number of noble Lords on this. I hope we may be able to accept the noble Marquess's motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Interpretation]:
11.28 a.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 106B:
Page 31, line 39, leave out ("or hydraulic power") and insert ("hydraulic power or water").
The noble Baroness said: I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee debating the issue of water again; it was very fully debated yesterday and indeed before that. I think it should be pointed out to the Committee that the general definition of "excepted statutory undertakers" in the Town and Country Planning Act includes, in Section 290, a good many statutory bodies which are not included in the interpretation clause of the Wales Bill; in particular, water transport, canal, inland navigation and water. I think it should be

1537
drawn to the attention of the general public that it is the intention of the Government to devolve the powers of water authorities to Wales, and that these water authorities control resources which are of extreme importance and need to other parts of the country besides Wales. I will not elaborate on this theme, but I would like to make this point so that people should be aware that in the interpretation clause of this Bill water authorities of every kind in so far as Wales is concerned are excluded, and that this is going to affect the water resources of England as well as Wales. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, agreed with me the other night that I have a suspicious mind. Perhaps that is not a bad thing when in Opposition, although it maybe more damaging were I sitting on his side of the House—I hasten to add behind him! I go a little further than my noble friend Lady Elles and wonder whether there is any ulterior motive behind the Government leaving out the statutory water companies under this paragraph.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Is the noble Lord thinking of something like the Severn Barrage being influenced by this?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is possible, but I was not thinking of that specifically.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I do not want to intervene unduly between the two noble Lords about the Severn Barrage because I might find myself drowning in between them! As the Lord Chairman may recall, the Severn Barrage has always been somewhat of a topic in Wales and I have no doubt in the Welsh Marches as well. I welcome the tone and content of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in formally moving the Amendment. It is true that we have fully debated the issues raised by the Amendment. She has once more quite properly voiced apprehensions—if that is not too strong a word to use—or, perhaps, hopes that the operations of the water authorities concerned will in the future, as they are now, be in the interests of both Wales and England. I have always felt that both countries have an interest in an amicable arrangement about water, the
1538
source of which is in Wales and many of the users of which are in England. That is the basis on which I think that the very constructive arrangements whereby the two authorities co-operate have gone a great distance to solve what has been a very difficult question in Wales, as many noble Lords and the noble Baroness know. Indeed, I am tempted to say that water in Wales has, in the past at least, been as inflammable as oil in Scotland. One would commend successive Secretaries of State and Governments in dealing with this matter in a constructive way with the result that we have the present arrangements which I need not go into.
The definition of "excepted statutory undertakers" is purely consequential upon what has been determined elsewhere in the Bill. Indeed, the noble Baroness described very succinctly what has been done in the Bill in this regard. The addition of water authorities is, I suggest, clearly inappropriate because ministerial responsibility for their operations in Wales is devolved in the Bill. I think that the Amendment, if it were pressed—I take leave to regard it as a very proper way of reminding the Committee of certain concerns about which I have no complaint—would confuse the division of responsibility between the Assembly and the Government, by involving the Secretary of State in matters for which the Assembly rightly, through the Bill, has full responsibility in other contexts. It would create an additional tier of Government for the matter concerned, and would, I think, inevitably risk friction between the Assembly and the Government.
However, I shall resist, if it is necessary, the Amendment, but I do not object to it at all. Indeed, I think that it is right that we should from time to time remind ourselves as regards the question of water that where the source is in one country of the United Kingdom and a good deal of its use takes place in another, then arrangements must be made to safeguard the interests and the position in both countries.
Speaking as one who lives in Wales and who has lived with this problem all his life, I am very confident that the arrangements that we have evolved over the years in regard to water resources in Wales, their distribution and use, have gone a long distance towards solving what used to be a quite intractable problem.
Baroness ELLES: I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, because he has confirmed exactly what I believed; namely, that the existing arrangements are working not too badly. It is precisely for that reason that I am concerned that the arrangements which are at present under the authorities will be devolved to the control of the Welsh Assembly. I do not think that that was what the noble Lord meant to say, but I am particularly worried because concern has been expressed by my noble friends about changing what has already been achieved over a considerable number of years.
As the noble Lord has said, this is a difficult and delicate subject which could concern friction between Border lines—I shall not call them different countries because I consider that Wales and England are part of the United Kingdom, and I do not like the thought of dividing the United Kingdom into specific areas quite so much as the noble Lord, who will rightly feel on his side, that he would like to call them countries. Nevertheless, I am glad that the matter has been raised.
As the noble Lord rightly guessed, I do not intend to press the Amendment. However, I express a reservation and regret that the good co-operation that has been evolved over the years on this subject should now be put again into the political field and possibly be used as a political football between the two neighbouring and adjacent territories. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am sure that we would all agree with the general tenor of what the noble Baroness has said. However, I wish to insert a caveat: nothing immediately would recreate the acerbity of this issue more than to take away this provision from the Assembly and give it back to the Secretary of State. There may be arguments such as the ones which the noble Baroness has advanced, but I would, in a bypassing manner, strongly advise against any such move being made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Referendum]:
11.38 a.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 32, line 43, at end insert—
("(4) If a resolution under section 80(4) above has been moved in each House of Parliament, but has not been passed by both Houses, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 81 relates to the referendum and the machinery that is to be put into operation according to whether the referendum gives one answer or another. The effect of the clause as it stands is that if a resolution were moved under Section 80(4), but not passed, the terms of this Bill—or this Act as it then would be—would not be put into effect, but the Act (as it then would be) would remain on the Statute Book. Therefore, this is not an Amendment of profound importance in terms of the political effects that it would have after a referendum. But it is a Parliamentary housekeeping and tidying-up operation to remove from the larder, as it were, food which became so stale that it was inedible. The Statute Book is already too full and anything that we can do to thin out the contents of the pages would in my view be welcome. I beg to move.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: An almost identical official Opposition Amendment to the Scotland Bill was carried on a Division against the Government's advice during the House of Lords Committee stage. We accept that this House has already decided in a Division that a similar provision should be inserted in the Scotland Bill. Therefore, we are ready to accept this Amendment, so far as this House is concerned.
Lord ELTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that concession. Of course, I know that he always has to make these sad reservations. It is nice when is he able to make an acceptance wholeheartedly. None the less, we are glad to be able to press this Amendment without a Division.
Lord WIGG: I should like to express my pleasure at the Government having accepted this Amendment because perhaps it shows the way in which the wind blows. When the Scotland and Wales Bills are returned to another place, I hope that

1541
another place will accept a great deal of what this House has done.
I should like to express the view that, although both Bills are not had Bills, they are unworkable Bills. They will create more trouble before we have finished. But I am a democrat and therefore will accept the decision that is taken. However, equally, the Government should be willing to accept the democratic process. I am delighted that if the referendum goes against them, the body will not be left about unburied; that they will then accept this and the slate will be wiped clean. I do not suppose that one can wipe slates clean with bodies, but the noble Lord will know exactly what I mean. I am grateful to the Government for accepting this, but I am even more grateful because I think it shows that the Government have learned a great deal during the passage of these two Bills through this House, and that perhaps is a good thing.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 81, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
11.43 a.m.
Lord ELTON: I should like to slip in an observation here, although I am not absolutely certain whether I am doing it at the right place. There has been a discussion on the Scotland Bill about the date of the referendum and the desire that there is, I think on both sides of the Committee—certainly on this side of the Committee—that the referendum for Scotland should be held on the same day as that for Wales. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, shows an unexpected reluctance to take the point that I am making, I do not think it will be necessary for me to elaborate the reasons for that. I think that it would be fairly apparent on reflection by your Lordships that it would be a mistake to have the referenda consecutively and, what is more, very difficult to decide which should be held first. Those who are in favour of devolution would favour one order of batting and those who are against it would no doubt favour another, hoping that whatever result they expected in one forum would influence that in the other.
1542
As I understand it, the argument at this point in the Scotland Bill resolved itself upon the point that we cannot include in one statute a provision which is dependent upon the passage of another. That is to say, in this Bill we could not place a requirement that anything to be done under this Bill should be done at the same time as something was done under another Bill, when that Bill is a Bill and not an Act, because it is assuming what we all, in fact, take as a valid assumption—that both Bills will be enacted. However, that is an assumption which I understand the legislative conventions of this country deny us. If that is the case—and the noble Lord will confirm, no doubt, whether or not it is—it would be very useful for those of us involved in this debate and not in the other to have from him now or at a suitable later stage—preferably now, if it is possible—an assurance that it is the Government's intention to hold the referenda or referendums (I am never sure which is the correct usage) on the same day.
One could embark upon various stratagems which would allow the time elapsing between, let us say, the Parliamentary vote, and the passing of an order to he the same in each case. But whichever way one tries to do it, there is always what I would call a "slippage" if one is not allowed to refer to the other Act. I should have thought that we would be much better advised to rely upon the good faith of the Government if they are prepared to give an undertaking on this during the passage of this Bill.
Lord WIGG: I support the point of view put from the Opposition Front Bench. The argument used on the Scotland Bill was that the Government could not accept it because they could not be quite sure that the Wales Bill would be passed. But now that it is reasonably certain that both Bills will reach the Statute Book, I should have thought that the Government's categorical assurance on this point—that so far as possible the referenda will in fact be held on the same date—would be wholly satisfactory.
Perhaps the Minister will allow me 30 seconds to put what might happen if for some reason the referenda were taken on different days. Obviously, the result

1543
of the first must influence that of the second. Therefore, from every point of view, I should have thought that the Government would wish to be fair and would wish to be seen to be playing fair. I would accept an assurance given from that Dispatch Box that that will happen, which would be wholly satisfactory.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: On the point of the referenda, particularly the referendum as it pertains to the Wales Bill, can the Government either confirm or deny a report in the Western Mail earlier this week which suggested that an up-to-date register of electors would not be available until mid-February? That report suggests that an up-to-date register would be absolutely essential in order to get a true reflection of the 40 per cent. figure.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The central point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and, if I may say so, powerfully reinforced by my noble friend Lord Wigg, was on the question whether the referenda—and whatever the correspondence columns of The Times may say, the noble Lord, my noble friend and I are quite right in referring to them, in the plural, as "referenda"; we can argue about the respective merits of gerunds and participles later—would be held on the same day. It is the Government's intention that both referenda should be held on the same day. Indeed, the arguments for this have been very succinctly put by my noble friend Lord Wigg. It is not necessary—indeed, it may be inexpedient—to make statutory provision on this point. However, as my noble friend said that he—and I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Elton—would accept the Government's assurance on this point, I am able to give the assurance that the referenda will be held on the same day. I cannot conceive of circumstances—except the failure of the passage of one Bill or its delay, which, as my noble friend has pointed out, hopefully, and I believe precisely, will not happen—that would in fact interfere with that intention.
As to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I think that to some extent it was a repetition of that point. I hope that I have covered the nuance of what he raised; if not, perhaps he would repeat his point.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: No, I do not think quite so. I understand that the register of electors is not precisely up to date and that a new register will not be ready until next February. A new register is apparently essential for calculating the effects of the 40 per cent. figure which is referred to elsewhere in the Bill. Could the Government either confirm or deny this fact?
Lord LEATHERLAND: As one who has had a very great deal to do with electioneering and the organisation of elections, I think there is a good deal in the point which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has made. The new register, which will be canvassed in October, will not be printed or come into operation until about the middle of February—that is the usual thing. If, unfortunately, we use the old register, we frequently find that 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of those on the old register have died, emigrated or moved to another part of the country. Therefore, to have a poll of any kind, or referendum, before the middle of February would be very unreal and dangerous indeed.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I apologise to the noble Lord for not having replied to him. Frankly, I could not read my own handwriting. It is the normal Parliamentary register of electors which will be used for the referenda. If the referenda are held before February 1979 the February 1978 register will be used. This is normal practice in elections, including General Elections, and indeed by-elections. To some extent it is possible for Governments, without being offensive to regulations or to public opinion, to time elections in order to put them as close as possible to the effective, fullest, most comprehensive register, but it is not always possible, as we all know in all Parties. I am afraid there is no way in which we can manage this one. The last effective register would be used for this purpose. I take note of what my noble friend Lord Leatherland has said. He has experience of these things, and I agree with the general purport of what he said. Nevertheless, this is the situation. We have to proceed as we do with other voting processes on the basis of the last effective registration.

1545
Reference was made to that excellent daily newspaper the Western Mail; that it carried a report to the effect that we heard. I almost always read that the Mail has to say with great pleasure and the fullest credulity, but sometimes, as I said the other day, even the Welsh Homer nods. I am not saying that this happened in the case of the Western Mail. I think that is a fair point. They were canvassing the need to bear in mind that the more recent the register is, the more effective and the more comprehensive the expression of opinion can be. But I am afraid that we cannot help in this matter because of the circumstances I have described.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: Might I ask the Government to think again? The noble Lord is treating this as a matter of a General Election. This is not a General Election, this is a major constitutional change. It is absurd to me that it should be treated as a normal election, and that we should take a chance on whether the old register is going or not. This is a case where we want to make it right up to date, and I wholeheartedly support my noble friend.
Lord ROBBINS: Might I add a footnote to what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said. It seems to me that the requirement as regards the percentage of the electorate removes referenda of this sort from the logic which is applicable to General Elections.
Lord WIGG: Surely it is not a question of using logic; it is in fact a question of mechanics. Those of us who have engaged in a number of elections—and, for my benefit, I have—know only too well the splendid work which is done by the registration officers throughout the length and breadth of these islands, but it is not an easy task. It makes a great demand upon the registration officers' staff. The idea that this measure could reach the Statute Book by the end of July, and that the machinery could then be devised—I think it would require legislation, in any case—and that you could compile a new register for the specific purpose of the referenda, seems to me not really "on".
1546
What we are discussing on this Amendment is not the actual mechanics associated with the preparation of the register; we are discussing the simple point that the referenda should be held in Scotland and Wales on the same day. That is very important. We have an assurance from the Government on that point. Let us he satisfied with that. If there are noble Lords who think that the Government should be directed to hold the referenda immediately the new register comes into operation, that would be an Amendment that could be considered on Report, hut it is not applicable to the matter we are now discussing.
Lord ELTON: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who has been most helpful in this debate, we are not discussing an Amendment at the moment but whether the clause shall stand part, and therefore we can range as we wish. He has suggested a way out of the difficulty which could be put in concrete terms at Report stage. I am obliged for that thought, and we might pick it up. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord de Clifford that this is a matter of considerable importance, and I would much deplore any tactics, or decision, by the Government which would lead to this referendum campaign being directly analogous to an election campaign. It should not be an issue between the Parties as they are aligned on other matters, but between the Parties as they are aligned on the specific matter of devolution.
There is a large area of coincidence with the Party main line policy, it is true, but I think that if that were to lead us into a sort of electioneering approach in I which the "Ins" took one view and the "Outs" took another as a result of the fact that this House and another place are constructed in such a way that that is almost the only way the argument can be conducted while we are discussing what should go on the Statute Book, that would be a great pity. If this is the intention of the Government—and I must say that some of the events occurring in Wales at the moment lead me to suppose that it may be so—the use of the media seems to he geared to a political approach directly in line with Party alignment. This may, or may not, be inevitable. I hope that is it not.

1547
It leads me to mention to your Lordships another matter which has of late concerned my noble friends and myself increasingly, and that is the lack of an assurance when it was sought on the Scotland Bill that the very large resources of the Government in terms of Civil Service manpower, printing, publication, and so on, would not be used in order either to advance or oppose the cause of devolution. At some stage in our debates on this Bill we should like from the Government a statement as to whether or not they are going to go into Wales bearing the Act in one hand and a Manifesto in the other seeking people to vote for it, and using all the engines at their disposal, as Her Majesty's Government, in order to do so; because that would put an entirely different complexion on the debates we are having now, and we ought to have notice of it before we conclude the process on this Bill.
Lord WIGG: I do not disagree with one single word of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, except to correct him on one point. I was not replying to noble Lords on the other side of the Committee in terms of points of order. What I was anxious to establish is that he has got something; and I am glad he has got it, and I pay tribute to him for getting it; but having got it I do not want it to get hidden away by this discussion of another fundamentally important subject. I took exactly the same line as he did. I am doubtful about the media, and indeed I have my doubts about the Government. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts does not want me to defend him, but he was making a point in comparison with a General Election—that, whether this House or another place like it or not, the mechanics connected with the preparation of the register are such that it has to be fought on the same register on which a General Election would be fought for precisely the same reasons, because there is no alternative.
With respect, the suggestion that I make to noble Lords opposite is that, if they wish to tie up the Government—for which they would certainly have my support, for what use it would be—let us put down an Amendment at Report stage to insist that the Government call the referendum, say, within reasonable time of the coming into force of the new
1548
register. That is the only way that it can he done. It cannot be done the other way round. One cannot imagine that at this stage in the game the Government can be forced—even if they had the will, which I doubt; and to say nothing of the expense involved—to institute proceedings to draw up a new register. That cannot be done. Therefore, let us take what we have and be grateful for it, and let us return to this matter at the Report stage, not necessarily on the lines I suggest, but in a way which we think would be practical.
Lord LEATHERLAND: This seems to be leading into a lengthy debate. The real point at issue was whether the referendum would be conducted on an up-to-date register, or on a register which was 11 months out of date, and which consequently would contain the names of a large number of people who had died, or who had removed. Having, like the noble Lord opposite, read the newspapers, it occurs to me that this matter may probably settle itself. The referendum is not to be held until three months after the General Election. The new register will be out by about the middle of February. We understand that the General Election will he held in October—perhaps my noble friend can confirm that. If three months are to elapse after the General Election in October, that would leave several weeks before the new register would come into operation, and therefore the referendum would be conducted on the new register which would be issued in the middle of February.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I do not know whether the Minister wishes to answer at this stage, or whether I am allowed to put a further point. It seems to me that one cannot consider legislation on the assumption of a General Election, and therefore I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is perhaps to be discounted. The point I was trying to get at—and which I do not think has been raised at all—is that the population of Wales is, I understand, approximately 2½ million. I would guess that of that total about 1½ million, or 1¼ million, are on the current electoral register.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, with his great experience, has said that there may well be a difference of 30 per

1549
cent. one way or the other between a new register and an old one. If less than 40 per cent. of the electorate—on whichever register is chosen, and which happens to be in force at the time of the referendum—fail to vote in favour, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of the Bill, after it has become an Act. If there is an out-of-date register of electors, surely from that point on there will be tremendous arguments in Wales as to whether in fact the referendum gave a fair answer to the question that was posed. Therefore, in my submission there must be a register of electors which the Welsh people will see to be fair at that particular time. If there is an out-of-date register—even if it is only slightly out-of-date—the Welsh people will not see it as being fair, and they would be arguing from then until the next time that devolution is raised in a Bill in this House or in the other place.
Lord CROOK: I should like to suggest that we discuss this matter at the right time and the right place, which is in relation to Schedule 12, when we get to it.
Lord COLLISON: I wish to say what I thought the noble Lord opposite was going to say, because I think that this ought to be said. If the referendum is carried out on the basis of the old register, and 20 per cent. of the people are no longer on it, then, if my mental mathematics are right, instead of requiring a figure of 40 per cent. of the total electorate one would be requiring 50 per cent. I felt that I should make this point, not to argue it one way or the other, but merely to enable it to be considered.
Lord PARGITER: I believe that this question could be fairly easily settled if someone was to propose a particular date. The date 1st March could be proposed, if wished. There is no reason why that should not be inserted in this Bill or in the Scotland Bill.
12.6 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: As the noble Lord opposite mentioned, this is a general discussion, and so anything goes which is relevant to the provisions we are considering. I am once more
1550
most obliged to my noble friend Lord Wigg for putting the matter so well. There is no intention to equate this voting process—and I believe that I earlier used the phrase "voting process", as well as "elections"—with any election, even a General Election. However, the comparison, in general terms, for the purposes of explaining the difficulties of the mechanics involved, is I believe apposite. Therefore, to raise a great heat about whether we are to treat this as a general Election is a little misplaced. There is no intention to treat the referendum as an election. It is not an election; it is a test of opinion. As to its becoming an adversarial contest between the Parties, —and by now I know Wales almost as well as the Opposition Front Bench—I submit that every Party is split, to some degree or other. My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who knows Wales so well, would agree with me. I have met members of Plaid Cymru—the Welsh Nationalist Party—who have said that they propose to vote against the Act in the referendum. Thus, to some degree or another, all Parties are split on this question, as, to a very great degree, all Parties were, I think, split on the question of our retaining membership of the European Economic Community.
Therefore, I see no likelihood of the usual kind of partisan acerbity about this. There will be great argument; there will also be argument within Parties. But the Government's position is clear. This is part of our Manifesto, part of Government policy. We have gone to great lengths to keep our pledge to the people of Scotland and Wales that we would introduce devolution Bills. First, we brought in a Bill covering both countries, and in the light of Parliamentary comment and experience we divided this into two. In so doing we have—whether rightly or wrongly is a matter of Parliamentary opinion—devoted much time and energy to implementing the pledge that we would produce devolutionary measures. We have done so; here they are. They are to be put to the Welsh and the Scottish people for a test of their opinion, which Parliament, by means of the processes described in the proposed legislation, will then consider. The processes which will follow after that are well known to your Lordships.

1551
With regard to how that test of opinion can best be held, I agree that it should he conducted as soon as possible after the latest, most effective register is available. There is a law of diminishing returns about this. My noble friend Lord Wigg spelled it out. There is this fact of life in connection with any voting procedure, whether one describes it as an election or a referendum. Unless provision is to be made for the preparation of a special register because of one situation which is deemed to be special—and once there is one special case, everything becomes special—then it is necessary to organise it in the best way possible, as is done with other processes of voting. If the word "election" is obnoxious I shall not use it. As I said, this must be organised in the best way possible, as is done on other comparable, though not identical, occasions in relation to the best, the latest, and the most comprehensive register available.
The noble Lord is again right; there are stages still awaiting this measure at which some Amendments may be made. I cannot say that the kind of Amendments which I think may be made will receive more practical favour—and it is a matter of practicality more than anything else—than I have indicated in the tone of my remarks; but Parliament is free to do this. Your Lordships' House is free and the other place is free to consider at some stage whether they would put down such an Amendment, or indeed the kind of Amendment we have heard suggested by my noble friends who have taken part in this debate. This is a matter for Members of either House or both. Houses to consider, and it will be a matter for the Government to decide their attitude if such an Amendment is tabled.
I pass now very quickly to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who asked me to give assurances on certain matters. I can assure him that it is not the intention of the Government on this occasion, differently from the occasion of the test of opinion on the permanency of our membership of the Community, to put out publicity material. This, I think, was made clear in the debates on the Scotland Bill; and there are no plans for an explanatory leaflet. I do not know; there may be views about this which may well be expressed, but that is the Government's
1552
position. I have reminded the Committee that it is a manifesto pledge, and therefore the Government, despite the fact that not all their supporters in Wales or Scotland may agree with them on this point, will of course put forward clearly and strongly their view as a Government, very much as they will put forward their view on other appropriate occasions about their support for their Budgetary proposals, or any other proposals.
Lord ELTON: It might help if I asked for clarification at this point. I do not quite follow the congruence of the two statements: one, that there will be no commitment of Government resources to persuading the electorate any more than there was on the European referendum; the other, that the Government would give all their energies to persuading the electorate that they ought to support the Act that they have brought on to the Statute Book. That is how I heard the noble Lord; I may have got it wrong.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: If I may make it perfectly clear, we shall campaign for it as a Government mindful of the fact that not all of our supporters in either country support this. The great majority do, but that is another matter. What I said was that we have no plans for an explanatory leaflet anal3gous to the one which was issued by the Government in relation to the Community referendum. Nor do we intend to put out publicity material on those lines. In fact, the Government will campaign (once more I have to use the analogy of an Election) as if it were an Election; that is, they will advocate this, he in favour of it, very much as they would advocate the adoption of the fiscal Bill on Budgetary matters, or any other.
Perhaps I can help a little further if I say that we shall not make funds available, as we did in the referendum on the Community, for campaigning organisations. There may be varying views about this; there were at the time when we discussed this provision for campaigning organisations for the purposes of the Community referendum. We shall not do it in this case; and I see no evidence of a proposal to make this provision by Amendment to the extant Bill, either in this House or, so far as I know, in the

1553
other place. That is as far as I can go today on the assurances to the noble Lord. It may well be that what I have said can be amplified or further reinforced at a later stage, but it is enough to go on with, I hope.
As to the point made about the media—and here I would listen with particular respect to my noble friend and, indeed, to the noble Lord—it is to he expected confidently that the media (the Press and the broadcasting authorities, both the BBC and the IBA) will themselves seek to make such arrangements that give equal, full opportunity for all views, all substantial views, to be expressed. It cannot, of course, provide for endless eccentricity, but there are definable attitudes within the noble Lord's Party—some very interesting ones, about which I personally, as an assiduous listener and viewer when I get the chance, would like to hear more. It is for the authorities, without too much formalisation from on high, to make these arrangements. We shall be told of the arrangements, and no doubt noble Lords and others who know a good deal about this will be watching how these arrangements emerge. There will be plenty of opportunity to check, to comment and to urge, perhaps, adjustment and improvement. I think I have covered most, if not all, of the points which have been raised in this rather Second Reading debate, which I welcomed. If I have missed out any point of substance, I am sure the Committee will allow me to write to the noble Lord concerned upon that point.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Referendum]:
12.15 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 86, line 30, after ("day") insert (" , not less than six weeks after the making of the Order,")
The noble Lord said: My own print, unfortunately, does not carry Amendment No. 107A, and therefore your Lordships will bear with me a moment while I repeat the contents thereof, which refer to page 86 of the Bill and the insertion in line 30, after the word "day", of the words, "not less than six weeks after the making of the Order". The purpose of
1554
this Amendment is to establish what is in fact to be the length of the campaign. I am sorry to have taken so long to specify what was the purpose behind the Amendment, which must have been clear to the noble Lord before I actually spoke to it. I beg to move.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: We are in the mood of concession today—reluctant, but nevertheless effective concession. This Amendment is identical to one made earlier this week to the Scotland Bill, of course. The Government believe that the Amendment is unnecessary and introduces an unnecessary degree of inflexibility; but, as your Lordships have seen fit to write the provision into the Scotland Bill, we are willing to accept it in the Wales Bill so far as your Lordships' House is concerned.
Lord ELTON: I have observed before the frequence of the qualification of the noble Lord's generosity. I noticed that it was absent, when we conducted the whole of our exchanges on the Question, Whether the last clause shall stand part, as to the possibility of his Government not being in office to honour the pledges that he was giving. But, of course, that is only a gibe at the noble Lord. I am grateful to him, none the less.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.17 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 58, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—
("Mae'r Senedd wedi penderfynnu ymgynghori gyda etholwyr Cymru ynglyn a ddylid gweithredu Deddf Cymru 1978.

A YDYCH AM I DDEDDF CYMRU 1978 GAEL EI GWEITHREDU?
Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box Rhowch groes (X) yn y blwch pwrpasol

YES YDWYF

NO NAC YDWYF

").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is marred by one defect, and that is that it contains a small printing error. Your

1555
Lordships might think that my minimal knowledge of the Welsh language would make it impossible for me to draw attention to it, but it so happens that it occurs in the letter "a" where it stands on its own in the second line of the Amendment. It should be marked with a circumflex, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will have already realised.
I will not attempt to read out the Amendment. There are other noble Lords who will be able to do that for us. I do not wish to give the noble Lord the satisfaction of hearing me struggling, with increasing perplexity, with something which is beyond me. What I do wish to tell your Lordships is that this Amendment has the effect of requiring that the ballot paper presented to the Welsh people to decide their own destiny, recognising that these people are very sensitive about their language, shall be printed in both English and Welsh.
I daresay that I shall be told that if this Amendment were not in the Bill it would none the less be printed bi-lingually as a result of the effects of the Welsh Language Act or other legislation. However, it seems to me that to put it into plain English in this Bill, throughout the whole document, lacks a sense of occasion We have to drag our feet on the passage of the Bill, for reasons which I have tried to explain somewhat ineffectively and noble Lords opposite have managed to exploit somewhat effectively. We must be in a position of opposition at every stage so as to elicit the ground the Government stand on when they make a provision in the Bill. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not. But, at bottom, this is a great historical occasion, a great question to be put to a great people. If they answer, "No", the occasion will die away in echoes in the history books If they answer, "Yes", it will become a very principal document—not exactly a Magna Carta but a document which marks the opening of a new constitutional stage in the history of the Welsh people. It seems to me to lack a sense of theatre not to put the question in the Bill in the language which the Bill is principally concerned to defend. I beg to move.
Lord SEGAL: As one who is wholly in sympathy with the terms of this Amendment, I confess that I find myself in some-
1556
what of a difficulty as regards the form of the voting paper. The voters are asked to say, "Yes", which in Welsh is, I suppose, Ydwyf. But for "No", they are asked to vote Nac Ydwyf, which means "Not yes". Surely there must be an enormous area between "Not Yes" and "No". Although I, too, confess to a minimal knowledge of the Welsh language—it is certainly an easier language than Chinese, but I believe, rather more difficult than Greek or Arabic—I simply ask this in a desire for enlightenment: "Not Yes" could conceivably include a wide category of the "Don't knows". Certainly, it is totally different from saying an absolute "No".
Are not the Government or the movers of the Amendment finding themselves in the predicament of the girl in the adage: "She wouldn't say 'Yes': she wouldn't say, No?—and all that she did say was "Not Yes!". Is the Welsh language, with its mellifluous and musical lilt and beautifiul flexibility, not capable of declaring—I ask out of complete ignorance—a very emphatic and categorical "'Molotov' No!". So that the voters will have no doubt in their minds as to which direction they intend to declare their voices on this major issue?
Lord ELTON: On this important point, this is the way in which the Welsh declare a categorical "No"! It is just as categorical—and I see that the noble Lord opposite is about to correct me. I understand that Nac Ydwyf is how you say "No". It is so in my elementary textbook and appears to be satisfactory to the very literate people whom I have consulted and who had vetted what appears on the Marshalled List. If the noble Lord thinks there is an area of indecision here, I would ask him to reflect on the area of indecision which must rest on him and his colleagues if they choose to go into the "Not Content" Lobby; for we express ourselves in this House in precisely the same way as the Welsh, without any difficulty at all, and we all know what we mean.
Lord SEGAL: Certainly, we enjoy a more decided advantage than the unfortunate voters who have to decide one way or another—or even the people in the other House.
12.26 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: May I at once make the point that, as in the case of the Community referendum, which provided for a ballot paper and for a Welsh variant of the question in this way, it was not necessary then to include it in the actual Bill but rather, because of the availability of Section 2(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1967—in the preparation of which I had some small part—the thing flowed naturally in regard to the referendum procedure in 1976; and this is the way it will happen in regard to the referendum on the contents of this Bill in Wales.
I appreciate the purpose of the Amendments, and everybody in Wales will commend the noble Lord and his colleagues for their practical concern in providing that this question—"a great question put to a great people", as he put it so felicitously—shall be in both languages. Some quarter of us- some half a million or more—regard the language as the normal language of our thoughts and decisions in many areas, and this is a necessary provision. But it should be made, I think, through the processes we have already used in regard to the only other referendum that I can call to mind since the Welsh Language Act was passed in 1967; that is, the Community referendum. The Welsh Office are in the process of preparing a rendition of this kind which comes very close indeed to that proposed by the noble Lord. We are overwhelmed by this evidence of Celtic erudition and enthusiasm, and we shall certainly make full avail of it.
As to the point raised by my noble friend, I think he is quite wrong about this. He made quite a long speech based on his own translation of the negative proposed in the formalution moved by the noble Lord: that it means "Not Yes". It is nothing of the sort. The affirmative in Welsh, "Ydwyf", means "I do". It is a clear affirmative: "Do you?—I do". I am beset by erudition from both sides of the House. The negative is "Nac Ydwyf"— "I do not". What could be clearer than that. "I do—I do not". Indeed, it is the alternative formulation to the answer to perhaps the greatest question ever put in our lives to those of us who are married: "I do!" or, very
1558
rarely, "I do not!". It is clear, it is definite. I cannot imagine anything more un-Welsh than what my noble friend suggests: "Not Yes". This is new to me, in either English or Welsh.
I belong to a race which has somehow survived: always outnumbered, never outmanoeuvred. One reason is that we have always known how to say "No!". If the "No!" is not understood in Welsh, we have learned a little English to say it in English as well. Having given an "A" for effort to the Benches opposite for this excellent attempt—although there are one or two deficiencies; but I will not make too much of that—and, indeed, an "A+" to the Welsh Office for their attempt, I propose personally to consider both offerings and give my own view, hopefully marrying the virtues of both and abandoning the deficiencies of both.
12.30 p.m.
Lord ELTON: That was most elegantly done and, if there was a patronising element, it was so wrapped in courtesy that I do not resent it. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord is going to do when he has looked into the "Nobel prize competition" and marked the papers. He has said what the result will be, in that the first prize will go to the Welsh Office, who have certain advantages in this, one must admit. But can we not get together over this? The noble Lord declined to reveal the "deficiencies", as he put it—and that is a hurtful word. He spared the Committee the deficiencies but I suppose that would lead us into lengthy discussions on linguistics. If the two formulae are so similar, will he allow me to get together with the Welsh Office, absorb their version and put down an Amendment on Report stage? It would be nice to do something together to express good will across this Table. There has been acrimony. It would be a nice way to bury the hatchet, would it not? Could he not meet us in some way?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course we can get together and agree a version. I hope that the noble Lord, from the point of view of his knowledge of the Welsh language, will not assert for himself the right of veto at any point. Of course we can get together on this. But is it necessary to put it into the Bill when in the only example of a test of

1559
opinion since the Welsh Language Act was passed in 1967 we did not do it? That too was a great question put to a great people: the question of our permanent membership of the Community. This was not the procedure used then.
I suggest that the Welsh Language Act of 1967—which was a seminal Act—should not be lightly laid aside. It should continue to be used as the central matrix of any procedure of this kind that becomes necessary from time to time Let us have discussions and, in the light of those discussions, perhaps the noble Lord may wish to put down an Amendment I hope he does not, but certainly I will discuss this with him When I say that "A" for effort applies to him, I have not read the papers over again. It may well be that his effort may supersede the other one.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord is very kind. He says that it is not necessary; I think it is fitting. I take the point that it should be gone through with a toothcomb and we shall return to the matter later. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness GAITSKELL: If the Minister will put everything in this Bill which is nice but not necessary it will be twice as long as it is already.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Short Title]:
On Question, Whether the Clause 83 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of BALFOUR: I should like to make a few comments on this final clause. I know it is not one to which reference is normally made. I particularly ask your Lordships to consider how far this Act should extend. Clause 83 is perfectly all right as it reads:
"This Act may be cited as the Wales Act 1978".
I should like to refer to the equivalent clause in two other Bills that are before your Lordships' House at the moment. May I take the Electricity Bill as an example? It states:

"(1) This Act may be cited as the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1978.

1560

(2) Subject to subsection (3) this Act extends to Scotland only.

(3) Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 3 shall extend to England and Wales.

(4) This Act shall come into force on the expiry of a period of one month beginning on the date of its passing".

Taking the same point, the National Health (Scotland) Act provides:

"(1) This Act may be cited as the National Health (Scotland) Act 1978.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) this Act extends only to Scotland.

(3) Paragraph (3) of Schedule 10 extends to other parts of the United Kingdom.

(4) This Act shall come into force on 1st January 1979".

I think that the people of the United Kingdom should be aware how far the Wales and the Scotland Bills extend to cover the whole of the United Kingdom or otherwise. I leave this to the Government to decide. While I am on this point—and not wishing to delay your Lordships at this late stage on a Friday afternoon—I should like to take in one other point. Would your Lordships please turn to page 31, line 31 of the Wales Bill. This is in Clause 79(1). The line reads:
"Act 1974, a Scottish Assembly Act, any instrument".
I do not think that I need to go any further. Exactly the same words appear in the Scotland Bill as amended at its Report stage in this House. I suggest to noble Ministers that either they leave out the word "Scottish" and insert the word "Welsh", or come forward with an appropriate Amendment at Third Reading of the Scotland Bill and substitute in the appropriate place "Welsh" for "Scottish". The wording is exactly the same on page 37, line 31 of the Scotland Bill. It also reads:
"Act 1974, a Scottish Assembly Act, any instrument".
Leave out the word "Scottish" in the Scotland Bill and insert the word "Welsh" so the provision reads, "a Welsh Assembly Act". They cannot both be right. I realise that this is a late time on a Friday afternoon. I do not intend to press the matter any further and I hope that your Lordships will have an enjoyable week-end.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The noble Earl has made a point on which I think I can now satisfy him. There is absolutely no need for an extent provision here. One puts in one as necessary to

1561
clarify whether or not Scotland is covered. This is clearly an England and Wales Bill, and no provision is needed. What the noble Earl has said in regard to other provisions of the Bill—notably Clause 79 — is apposite to that clause and not to this one. I confine myself for the moment to the point of clarification that there is no need for an extent provision in the Short Title clause in this Bill. He will wish to consider what I have said between now and later stages. I must indicate now that the attitude of the Government on firm advice is as I have put it to the House.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am afraid that I must go a little further: as this Bill reads now, it appears to me that the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies could combine together within their devolved powers and introduce legislation which might affect other citizens within the United Kingdom who might not have a chance to say anything about it. I shall say no more.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: That, to say the least, is not just improbable but I would say also impossible. The Bill as a whole makes provision for executive action in Wales and confines it, first, to the nature of the action and, secondly, to the areas covered by the clauses and Schedules. So in any case it would be impossible for this Bill to be used and therefore for the Assembly to be used in the way the noble Earl has suggested.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Amendments of enactments].
12.41 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 108D:
Page 72, line 36, at end insert—
("THE EDUCATION ACT 1944
( ) At the end of section 13(4) of the Education Act 1944 there shall be inserted the following new subsections:
"(4A) (a) The Secretary of State shall give public notice of his decision to approve the proposals made under this section, with or without modification, or to withhold that approval; and
(b) if that decision is a decision to approve the proposals with modifications the notice shall include a statement of those modifications; but,
(c) where the functions of the Secretary of State under this section have been discharged by the Welsh Assembly, that approval shall remain provisional until either
1562

(i) the expiry of the period for the submission of objections against that approval laid down under subsection (4B) of this section or,

(ii) where an objection has been submitted during that period, the giving of public notice under subsection (4B) of this section.

(4B) Where the functions of the Secretary of State under subsections (4) and (4A) of this section have been discharged by the Welsh Assembly:

(a) those persons entitled under subsection (3) of this section to submit objections may, within two months of public notice being given under subsection (4B) of this section submit objections to the Secretary of State; and

(b) the Secretary of State may approve the proposals against which the objections have been submitted after making such modifications therein, if any, as appear to him to be desirable; and

(c) the Secretary of State shall give public notice of his decision to approve the proposals, with or without amendment."").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon one that was carried earlier relating to Schedule 2. I shall not delay your Lordships by speaking to it, but this may be a suitable opportunity to raise one technical matter which, regrettably, we must have clear before Report state. I could do it by moving another Amendment, which at present I do not intend to; so perhaps it would be quicker to do it here.
Your Lordships will remember the paving Amendment to this Amendment, which was one which excepted this Amendment, when it is in the Bill, from the operation of Schedule 2. As I understood it, the function of Schedule 2 was to devolve to the Welsh Assembly the powers listed under the Acts on the left-hand side, and not excluded with the exclusions on the right-hand side of the relevant page in Schedule 2. By introducing a new power and not getting it printed in the right-hand column, one would be bringing it automatically into the scope of the Education Acts 1944 to 1975, I think, and thus exposing it to the effect of devolution. As the intention of the Amendment is to reserve to the Secretary of State the right of appeal in particular cases, it would seem to me, on a layman's reading, that that power also would be devolved and therefore negated, because the power of appeal from the

1563
Assembly would in fact be devolved to the Assembly.
The noble Lord was kind enough to send me a most illuminating and helpful document, explaining the philosophy behind the drafting, which I received only three minutes before I came into the Chamber. That has done a good deal to explain to me what has hitherto been obscure. Indeed, it might be a useful precedent in connection with future Bills of a technical nature if a document of this sort could be made available earlier. I am not criticising the noble Lord for not sending it earlier, because so far as I know this has never been done before. However, it strikes me as being a very useful precedent.
It became clear to me on a first reading that certain assumptions were implicit in the drafting of the Bill, and that on some occasions the operation which I imputed to Schedule 2 was effective and on some it was not. I raise this now because, if the paving Amendment to this Amendment is the solitary exception to the principle which is adduced as that which informs the courts when they look at the Bill and decide whether or not Schedule 2 operates, it may be that this exception will invalidate the assumption on which the interpretation of the remainder of the Bill will rest. I hope I have made that clear.
It seems to me that even if this "paver" is superfluous, in the noble Lord's view, it might be more than superfluous if it led to a different decision in the courts on an analogous case where the "paver" was absent. Having expressed the same thing twice in two different ways, I do not expect the noble Lord to leap up and give an instant reply, because I think the answer to this will have to flow from the same pen that penned the words above his signature on the document which the noble Lord sent to me. However, I think we need to get this right before Report stage.
There is also the technically interesting feature that it would be open to me to move all the Amendments consequent upon the paving Amendments which I did not press earlier because, if the paving Amendments are not necessary, there is no obstacle to placing these Amendments, which are the principal ones, in the Bill at this stage. However, I shall not suspend
1564
that sword of Damocles over the Committee any longer: I do not intend to move that sequence, though there are among them one or two minor Amendments I should like to speak to.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): Of course, the Government must accept this Amendment, as it is consequential upon the defeat of the Government caused by noble Lords some time last week. On the general question raised by the noble Lord, I think the document I have sent to him contains the answers to his worries; but I, too, have only had the chance to go through it once. We shall both have the opportunity to study it, and if the noble Lord is not satisfied he can come back to me on Report. In accepting this Amendment, the Government would like to point out that we think there is some rather "dicey" drafting in it and it will probably have to be looked at again. In principle, we accept the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. As I drafted the Amendment myself, I expected criticism: indeed, I am only surprised it was not more trenchant. I will also take the opportunity of putting it right at Report stage, possibly with the advice of his helpers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 108B, 108F, 108G, 108H, 108J and 108K not moved.]
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108L:
Page 72, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) After section 68 of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31) there shall be added the following new section:
"68AA. Where the Secretary of State is satisfied, upon a complaint by a local Education Authority in Wales, that the Welsh Assembly have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably towards them with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the Assembly, give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient and in this section references to a local Education Authority shall be construed as laid down in section 68 of this Act."").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord shakes his head, and my instinct is to rise to my feet! I think the only purpose in so doing is to remind your Lordships that this Amendment, together with Amendment 108K, relates to the specific provision in the Education Act 1944 for guarding against the unreasonable use of powers. It was necessary for me to point out with some force in a previous debate which finished in the early hours of yesterday morning, that it was perfectly normal to guard against the unreasonable use of powers by an elected body such as the Assembly or a local authority.
Both the Amendments I have referred to are dependent on clauses which do that, and I merely say this in vindication of all I said before. Unless the noble Lord wishes to come back at me, I shall not move this Amendment. He shakes his head. I shall not move the Amendment.
12.48 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 108M:
Page 72, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) At the end of subsection 77(2) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(2A) Where the duty laid upon the Secretary of State by subsection (2) of this section is performed by the Welsh Assembly a copy of each report made by Her Majesty's Inspectors shall be sent by them to the Secretary of State as soon as it has been made."").
The noble Lord said: Very briefly, in moving this Amendment I want to take the opportunity to ask the noble Lord two questions. I think I may have taken the noble Lord by surprise by moving this Amendment and so I will explain at a little more length. It relates to Section 77(2) of the Education Act 1944 and is a question of the reporting by Her Majesty's inspectors to the Secretary of State when they inspect a school. The inspectors will still be appointed, owing to a reservation in Schedule 2, on the advice of the Secretary of State to Her Majesty. That will not be in the hands of the Assembly, and therefore to that extent the Inspectorate will be responsible to the Secretary of State. However, all the product of their labours at present is intended to go to the Assembly, and I think that may well be proper, because the Assembly is in charge of education.
1566
However, one then wonders how they will discharge their responsibilities to the Secretary of State. One has the subsidiary wonder or speculation as to what the people in the Welsh Office, who have recently taken on the functions concerning education in Wales, will be engaged upon if they do not receive these reports, and to what extent the Secretary of State for Wales will be kept informed of education matters within Wales, if he is to discharge any responsibilities towards Wales in this area in the Cabinet.
It seems to me he must be kept informed, and therefore there are two questions here. The first is: Is there going to be any surviving formal link between the educational system in Wales and the Secretary of State for Wales? The other one, which I suppose in a sense is dependent upon it and relates once more to the staffing under the new arrangements, is: Will there be a general posting of civil servants at present in the Welsh Office to work for the Assembly, or will there not? If there is not, what will the remaining civil servants be doing? I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: This Amendment is one of the Amendments which the noble Lord said he would not move, because he did not move the paving Amendments earlier on. I make no complaint about that, but it means that I have given rather less thought to it than I otherwise should. What it does is to require a copy of an inspector's report to be sent to the Secretary of State, which is a perfectly sensible idea, no doubt providing him with some of the material he needs for the policing of the Assembly's actions—a task placed upon him by a number of the noble Lord's Amendments.
The Government reject any suggestion that the Secretary of State should have such a role. The Assembly must have full responsibility for the education system, if it is to have any power at all in this field. This scheme creates another tier in the administration of education, and creates the right atmosphere for great conflict between the elected Assembly and the Government at Westminster.
The noble Lord asked about civil servants. Clearly, the Bill will not lay down what movement of civil servants

1567
there will be, and it would be very odd indeed if there were not some movement towards the Assembly by civil servants working in the Welsh Office. But this is not something which is in the Bill, or which ought to be in the Bill.
Lord ELTON: I apologise, first. I had not realised that there was a "paver" to this one. But, of course, there must have been. No, I think that I am innocent, unless the receipt of information is a function under the terms of the Act. But, in any case, I apologise for misleading the noble Lord into making that very defensive statement, because I am not intending to press this Amendment; nor am I regarding it as an aspect of policing, as the noble Lord rather emotively put it, of the Assembly. I wanted to establish what would be the relationship in the defensive role of the Secretary of State, if he was called in aid in the Cabinet—because I understand that he is to be a Cabinet Minister. He must be doing something for the Welsh, and he cannot do it if he acts in darkness.
But it is clearly not right to pursue the matter, when the noble Lord is briefed to the effect that I had something else in mind, which was largely my fault, so I shall not press this Amendment. I have a few words to say on Amendments Nos. 108P and 108Q, which are not of great importance; certainly, the first one is not. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108N not moved.]
12.53 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 108P:
Page 72, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) In section 94(1) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31) for the words ("two shillings") there shall be substituted the words ("75 pence").").
The noble Lord said: This is rather like a housewife going through the drawing-room with a duster in her hand, and seeing a cigarette in the ashtray. It seems silly not to point out that the regulations dependent on Section 94(1) of the Education Act charge the very small sum of 75p for certain services, yet the parent Act still has the words, "two shillings". The noble
1568
Lord can put £50 in the brackets if he likes, but it seems silly to go past and not use the duster. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think we can deal with this as quickly as with the cigarette end. The fee was increased to 75p by the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees) Order 1975; that is, Statutory Instrument 1975 No. 1291. Even if that had not been the case, this Amendment, because it seeks to increase the fee generally and not in connection with the devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly, would not be within the Long Title of the Bill. But, in fact, it is unnecessary, because the alteration already exists outside the Bill.
Lord ELTON: The cigarette was obviously trompe d'oeil. I shall not press the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 108Q:
Page 72, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) In section 94(3) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31) after the word ("crown") insert the words ("or, where the functions of the Secretary of State under this section have been discharged by the Welsh Assembly, to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.")").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to elicit a view on the question of the management of funds, and I suspect that the answer will again be fairly short. I have to tell your Lordships that I regret I am looking at the last print of the Marhsalled List, and I notified a misprint to the Table last night. It relates to Section 99(3). Is that what the noble Lord has in mind? I see that it is. It appears as Section 94(3) on my copy which does not make sense. Section 99(3) relates to the payment for functions discharged by the Secretary of State, in default of their discharge by managers or governors of schools. It lays down that the debts incurred by this means shall be regarded as debts "due to the Crown".
This is, therefore, a drafting point to know whether, when the function under this section is devolved, the words "due to the Crown" are correct. Presumably, the repayment will be due to the Welsh Assembly and will have to be paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I do not

1569
know whether the words, "a debt due to the Crown" include a debt to the Welsh Assembly or to the Welsh Consolidated Fund. It is for the Government to redraw the Bill as appropriate rather than for me, but this is a means of drawing their attention to what may be a defect. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): Amendment proposed, page 72, line 36, after the words last inserted, insert the words as printed, with the amendment of Section 94(3) to Section 99(3).
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: As the noble Lord suspects, the Amendment is unnecessary. As the Assembly acts on behalf of the Crown, the present wording covers the recovery of a debt owing to it, and any payments it obtains under this provision will, in any case, be payable into the Welsh Consolidated Fund under Clause 42(3) of the Bill. I think that that is a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: It is entirely satisfactory, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108R not moved.]
12.57 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 108S:
Page 72, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection 105(1) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31) there shall be inserted the following new subsection—
("(1A) Where a loan is made under subsection (1) of this section by the Welsh Assembly the consent of the Treasury to the making of that loan shall not be required.".").
The noble Lord said: This is not quite an analagous point, but it is an interesting one. It also relates to funds. Under the 1944 Act, there is provision in Section 105(1) for the making of loans for certain purposes, such as the rapid expansion or alteration of the nature of schools. I imagine that this section has been fairly widely used during the comprehensive reorganisation. So long as the Secretary of State was authorising the loans, it was necessary for him to have the concurrence and approval of the Treasury. Noble
1570
Lords are always accusing us, in a full House, of producing policemen and apron-strings, and the House is miraculously empty when I suggest that they are producing too many policemen and apron-strings as well. So that, perhaps to this select audience, the noble Lord can justify the policemen, the truncheon and the apron-strings. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am not certain about the relevance of what I have to say, and I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech. But at this juncture, because there are a number of probing Amendments, I should like to make a statement which also probes and it is in reference to loans. I am concerned about higher education in Wales and the university grants system. I am not sure how the grants system for the University of Wales will be related to the Assembly.
The Welsh may have very funny ideas about education, and the system may be slightly different and need more money. In the 'thirties, and in the old days of the Depression, most children living in Welsh counties had a better chance of secondary or university education than many in the richest parts of England, because of the gracious and great grants that were made in order for worthy children to get to university. I do not expect an answer now, but I hope that there will be some clarification of the relationship between the Assembly and university education and medical schools. At Cardiff University there is a wish to extend the medical school in relation to the university. I believe that the Chairman of Committees would rule me out of order if I went further. Consequently, I shall not trespass further on the time of the Committee.
1 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I can give the noble Lord a very clear answer about universities. Universities are not devolved. After devolution, they will depend upon the University Grants Committee, as they do now.
Turning to the noble Lord's Amendment, the effect of the Wales Bill, as drafted, is to remove the need for Treasury consent when a loan is to be made by the Assembly. The Bill devolves ministerial powers in relation to the enactments

1571
listed in Schedule 2. Where an existing provision requires the Minister to act with the consent of another or of the Treasury, then in effect the consent requirement disappears. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, may feel satisfied that his Amendment is not necessary.
Lord ELTON: I am, of course, satisfied with the noble Lord telling me that this is the effect of the Bill. As we are getting well into Friday afternoon, I shall not ask him how the Bill arrives at this effect, though I should like to know. However, I do not wish to tempt the Minister to his feet again. Looking at his words over the weekend, I shall probably work it out for myself. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108T not moved.]
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 108U:
Page 73, line 2, at end insert:
("THE. EDUCATION ACT 1946
( ) In section 15 of the Education Act 1946 there shall be inserted after the word "expenses"—
"(1)" and at the end of that section of that Act there shall be added"; but
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions under subsection (1) of this section any such increases incurred by the Welsh Assembly shall be defrayed out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund."").
The noble Lord said: Again I am in quest of information. Section 15 of the Education Act 1946 is very short. It merely lays down that:
"Any increase attributable to the passing of this Act in the expenditure of the Minister under the enactments relating to education shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament".
It is possible that this point was covered during our debates on the financial provisions. However, when we come to Wales I do not know what exactly are the "moneys provided by Parliament". Does this mean that the expenses will automatically be defrayed out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund or the Welsh Loan Fund? If so, I have nothing further to say. If not, then somebody ought to be aware of it. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The answer to the noble Lord's
1572
question is, Yes. The Assembly will assume ministerial functions under the Education Act 1946 by way of Part III of Schedule 2. Clause 55(1)(c) effects the necessary conversion—which I think is the point at issue—of the references to the Secretary of State and moneys provided by Parliament into a reference to moneys paid out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. Therefore the Bill already achieves the effect sought by the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. May I ask him whether the reference was to Clause 55(3)?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: No, to Clause 55(1)(c).
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged. I shall not press the Amendment further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 108A:
Page 74, line 39, leave out second ("and") and insert ("(2)").
The noble Baroness said: This is another in the series of Amendments which deal with the making of statutory reports to the Assembly and their publication by it. In this case, the Amendment is concerned with the provision of abstracts relating to the registrations by the Registrar-General and their publication by the Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: If I may make a very small drafting point, I do not see how we can start with a "2" unless we have a "1" inserted before it.
Baroness STEDMAN: It seems to me to be a good point. We shall have a look at it.
Lord ELTON: If I am right, this may well be a point which could be dealt with by the clerks. It is only a question of numbering the introduction in the right sequence. I should be happy if that were done.
Baroness STEDMAN: We shall certainly have a look at the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 108B:
Page 74, line 42, at end add ("; but the Assembly shall publish every abstract that it receives under that section").
The noble Baroness said: The same remarks apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 108C:
Page 75, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) The expenses referred to in section 7 of that Act do not include expenses incurred by the Assembly.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical Amendment to put it beyond doubt that the Welsh Assembly will have no access to the National Land Fund under Section 7 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Schedule 3 to the Bill provides that both the Assembly and the Secretary of State will have powers under Sections 4 to 6 of the 1975 Act to purchase and maintain historic buildings and to provide grants for their purchase and maintenance.
As the Assembly will be financed purely from the block fund, it is intended that any expenses incurred by it under Sections 4 to 6 should be financed from that fund and not from the National Land Fund. However, the Secretary of State will be able to use moneys from the National Land Fund if he exercises his concurrent powers under Sections 4 to 6. Thus, Wales will continue to be able to benefit from the National Land Fund in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. Provision for drawing money from the National Land Fund is made in Section 7 of the 1953 Act. The powers under this section are reserved in Schedule 2, but the wording of Section 7 is such that it is not clear whether this is sufficient to deny the Assembly access to the Fund. The proposed Amendment alters the wording of Section 7 so as to remove any doubts. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: May I urge my noble friend to read the current number of Country Life which contains a leading article on the National Land Fund. There is a report now before the House on that Fund. This Fund is almost completely under the control of the
1574
Treasury. That should not be so. Wales is concerned about control over the National Land Fund. This is an important point. It should be on the record that action ought to be taken to lessen the powers of the Treasury over the National Land Fund. May I urge Members to read the latest number of Country Life and the Select Committee's Report on the National Land Fund.
Baroness ELLES: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I remind her of the remarks I made yesterday in connection with Schedule 9, which would have put listed buildings under Part I of that Schedule, thus enabling the Secretary of State to intervene and hold a public inquiry on precisely this kind of matter. This Amendment reinforces my point that as the Bill stands at the moment the Welsh Assembly will not have direct access to the National Land Fund. If the Secretary of State were to be given the power to intervene in the case of a building or monument of historic importance not only to Wales but to the nation as a whole and to hold a public inquiry, obtain public support and force the Treasury to release money from the National Land Fund, the hand of Wales would be strengthened, not weakened. That would be the result if the Amendment which I suggested yesterday were to be included. I think that what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said reinforces my argument.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, we shall certainly look at that point. So far as the new report on the National Land Fund is concerned, that is not within the purview of this Bill. I am sure that when they look at it the Government will bear in mind the comments which have been made both here and in another place. Without advertising, I can give my noble friend an assurance that I shall have a look at the article in Country Life, which is on my desk but which I have not yet had time to read.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 108V not moved].
1.10 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 108W:
Page 75, line 29, at end insert—
("THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959
21A. In section 28(2) of the Mental Health Act 1959 after the words "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted the words "or the Welsh Assembly".").
The noble Baroness said: This is another Amendment by the Government to the Mental Health Act 1959. When we discussed the Amendment to the entry for the Act in Schedule 2 we agreed to withdraw it to allow for further discussion at a later stage. In the circumstances I think it better not to move this Amendment. but to deal with that also at a later stage.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 76, leave out lines 9 to 30.
The noble Marquess said: This is another Amendment on forestry and is consequential on a previous Amendment. beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Government accept this Amendment as a consequence of the earlier decision to delete forestry from Schedule 2, and it is of course without prejudice to the possibility of the restoration of it after the Bill returns from another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109B not moved.]
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 79, line 7, at end insert—
"THE LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ACT 1972
39A.—(1) In relation to a development area or intermediate area in Wales, subsection (1) of section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972 shall have effect as if—

(a) for the words "the Minister in charge of any Government department" there were substituted the words "a Minister of the Crown"; and

(b) the words "for which the department is responsible" were omitted.

(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where it appears to the Welsh Assembly that adequate provision has not been made for the needs of any development area or intermediate area in Wales in respect of a basic service for which the Assembly is responsible, and that it is expedient with a view to contributing to the development of industry in that area that the service should be improved, the Assembly may make grants or loans towards the cost of improving it to such persons and in such manner as appear to the Assembly appropriate".
(3) In subsection (3) of that section after the words "Minister of the Crown" there shall be inserted the words "or of the Welsh Assembly".").
The noble Baroness said: I heralded this Amendment when proposing an earlier paving Amendment to Schedule 3. I explained that for technical reasons it is necessary to provide for Section 7 of the Local Employment Act 1972 in Schedule 11 to the Bill rather than in Schedules 2 and 3 as previously proposed. Section 7 of the Local Employment Act enables Ministers in charge of Government Departments to make grants and loans in respect of "basic infrastructure services" in development and intermediate areas. Our intention is that Ministers should continue to be able to do so after devolution in respect of the full range of infrastructure services. This reflects their continuing responsibility for industrial and regional policy. It is also our intention that the Assembly should have a concurrent power in respect of those particular services for which it will be responsible in other contexts (roads, sewers and water are examples). As the power is simply one to pay grants or loans, concurrency should not lead to conflict. For other services (such as gas and electricity) only the Government would be able to exercise powers.
The difficulty is that Section 7 is in such terms that it only confers power on a Minister in charge of the Department responsible for the service in respect of which the grant or loan is to be made. After devolution the Assembly, and not Government Departments, will be responsible for services such as roads and sewers. Thus the Government would, it appears, not be able to make grants or loans in respect of these services unless we broaden the terms of Section 7 so far as Wales is concerned. That is what is achieved by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I was slightly distracted at the beginning of what the noble Baroness said and I am not certain whether she said that this Amendment would keep this Bill in step with the Scotland Bill. If so, the move to bring this in was initiated by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, to whom I now express thanks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 109F to 109J:
Page 80, line 41, at end insert ("any order establishing or varying the constitution of the Welsh authority").
Page 80, line 42, leave out ("five") and insert ("twenty-one")
Page 81, line 1, leave out ("five") and insert ("twenty-one")
Page 81, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) the county council of each county in Wales;
( ) the councils of the districts within each county in Wales;").
The noble Lord said: We now return to the matter of the powers of appointment of county councils to various water-type authorities. I think it will be to the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendments Nos. 109F to 109J en bloc and leave Amendment No. 110A to stand alone. These first four Amendments concern the powers of appointment by the county councils to the Welsh Water Authority. I think perhaps we have covered a lot of this ground already, but it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion. He said:
"The net effect for the Welsh Water Authority is that the Assembly order reconstituting the Authority … must provide for one member to be appointed by the Government, and four by local authorities in England. The appointment of the remainder will be a matter for the Assembly to decide—a power resting with the Assembly—but it may wish to continue"—
"It may wish," I repeat, "to continue"—
"the present arrangements whereby a number of appointments are made by the Welsh local authorities".—[Official Report; 15/6/78, col. 661.]
Obviously one quite understands that the noble Lord can give no commitment as to what the Assembly may or may not decide in the future, but he is absolutely clear in this matter that there will not necessarily be any representation from the Welsh county councils on the Welsh Water Authority and these Amendments are designed to ensure that there will continue to be the representation that we have at the moment.
These Amendments are intended to protect the Welsh local authorities' right to direct representation on the Water Authority. They are based on the same formula as that set out in Section 3(6)(b) of the Water Act 1973 and the Welsh
1578
National Water Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1973. They would provide for a total of 16 members to be appointed by Welsh local authorities, one from each county in Wales and one to be appointed jointly by all the districts in each county. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I think these are worthy Amendments, which extend the democratic control. I do not know whether my noble friend will accept them or what answer she will give but nevertheless I think it is a constructive effort to give local authorities and others a say in water affairs. I shall welcome them if they are accepted.
Viscount AMORY: I hope I may be allowed strongly to support what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has said. Two or three times in the course of the debate on this Bill I have called attention to statements by Ministers giving assurances that nothing in this Bill will change or detract from the rights and responsibilities of existing local authorities but here we surely have precisely that taking place.
At present, the local authorities have the right to appoint members of these Water Authorities. It is now proposed that, instead of that, they should lose that right of appointment, as I understand it, but the Assembly should have that right. The Assembly then will have more power in this matter than Ministers have now, but water and land drainage—which we shall be discussing later—are two matters of the greatest interest to local authorities, and, in view of what Ministers have said, I think it is wholly wrong that these rights and responsibilities for appointment should in spite of what has been said, now be transferred to the Assembly.
I hope the noble Baroness will tell us that she appreciates this and that this matter will be looked into again. Otherwise, I hope my noble friend will press this matter to a Division because it is a great discouragement to the local authorities involved and conflicts with assurances which have been given on a number of occasions in the discussions on this Bill.
Lord ELTON: I should like to associate the Front Bench on this side with the remarks made by my two noble friends.

1579
They have been made concisely and eloquently and I need not add to them except to say that I agree with all they have said, as I do with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am obviously being assailed both from in front and behind. The Government consider that water is an important domestic concern to people who live in Wales, and therefore they have given the Assembly quite substantial powers. An essential part of the proposals is that the water authorities should be fully accountable to the Assembly over their activities in Wales. The Bill provides for the Assembly to exercise the powers to constitute the Welsh Authority Water. But since the Authority's area, as defined by the Water Act of 1973, includes parts of England, paragraph 53 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, with which these Amendments are concerned, ensures that those English interests must continue to be represented on the water authority. The Government take the view that this essential safeguard of English representation does not justify fettering the discretion given by the Water Act in relation to the remaining Welsh appointments, and that it should be for the Assembly, as it is now for the Secretary of State, to decide what is the appropriate balance of Welsh representation.
This does not mean that local authority representation will be excluded. Surely it will be no less apparent to the Assembly than it is to the Secretary of State now that the Welsh local authorities have had significant experience and have a lot to contribute in this area. Knowing the Welsh authorities, at least from a county council point of view, I think they are very unlikely to remain silent if they feel that the Assembly is not treating them fairly. But devolution means leaving decisions of this kind to the Assembly. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject these Amendments.
Viscount AMORY: May I ask the noble Baroness one question? She did not reply to what I had said, I hope not too offensively, about the assurances Ministers have given that existing powers and responsibilities of local authorities would not be diminished by this Bill. It seems to me that this is exactly what is going to
1580
happen if this is done. She says that the Assembly may realise the value of local authority representation, but that is a hope expressed. Would the noble Baroness say whether I am right in thinking that it is difficult to reconcile this proposal with the assurances that Ministers have given?
Lord ELTON: What the noble Baroness has just said is immensely important and helpful. It has done what we have been trying to do for a very long time; it has revealed the attitude of the Government as between the Assembly and local authorities. They have claimed from the housetops that what they want to do is to make government more local. But when we now say, "Let us have local voices in decisions on really important matters like water", and others we are now discussing, they say, "No, these must go to the Assembly". Which is closer to the voter, the chap who turns on the tap, the local authority or the Assembly? The answer is obvious. This is not devolution downwards, it is absorption of power upwards. It is the reverse of what the Government have been claiming throughout is the purpose of this Bill. It reveals everything. It was a very valuable speech and I am glad the noble Baroness made it.
Baroness STEDMAN: We are not deviating from the line we have taken right through this Bill. Where the position has been that the Secretary of State has power to do certain things those powers are transferred to the Assembly. What we are saying is that we do not dictate to the Assembly that they must have certain number of local authority representatives on the Welsh Water Authority. But we are equally certain that the Assembly, which will be constituted of people who are concerned about what happens in Wales and concerned about the administration, who know the valuable work the local authority members on the Welsh Water Authority have done, will be careful of this and will ensure that the local authorities are represented. But we cannot dictate and we should not dictate to them how many local authority members ought to be appointed.
Viscount AMORY: Surely the noble Baroness is not quite right when she says that it is only a question of transferring

1581
responsibilities at present exercised by the Minister. Surely in this case more than that is being transferred to the Assembly. As I understand it, at present local authorities have the right themselves to appoint these members. That right is not exercisable by the Minister but by the local authorities themselves. It is now being transferred, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, upwards to the Assembly, which I think is an awfully bad thing to do and, to my mind, does not seem to fit in with any of the assurances we have had. When somebody has suggested this before, transference upwards, Ministers have said, "No, we have to intention of having responsibilities transferred upwards, only downwards from the Minister". That is where I think this proposal conflicts rather dangerously with the principles on which Ministers have advocated the Assembly's responsibilities should be allocated.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am always afraid of bureaucracy, never mind whether it is Welsh, Scots or English. Where we can get the devolution of power and where we can undermine bureaucracy, there I think we increase democracy. Local Government in Wales is noted particularly for the assiduity with which local councillors attend to their jobs and master the committees on which they sit. While I would not like the noble Lord to press this Amendment to a Division, nevertheless I do believe you could not have local democracy without first-class local representation, particularly in these two questions of water services and land drainage. The apt illustration was given by the noble Lord Lord Elton; where the person turns the tap on there he wishes to get immediately some quick answer to his problem—such as damage while on holiday, plumbing, stopping of water: all these things are of vital importance to the happiness of people living under local authorities. If you move upwards, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, there is a danger. Although we have spent a little time on this it is time well spent to show that we are watching that, whether we get an Assembly or not, we want to keep alive democracy in local government, whether it is English, Scottish or Welsh.
Lord ELTON: I think it would be better spent if we find that other noble Lords
1582
agree with us. I do think this is an essential point. I leave the decision to my noble friend, but it seems to me an important matter.
Baroness STEDMAN: We are not transferring any powers upwards. The constitution of the water authority is not laid down in the Act; it is laid down in an order. The order is at present made by the Secretary of State and it will in future be made by the Welsh Assembly. We have no reason to believe that the Welsh Assembly will not lay down in such an order that there shall be a certain number of local authority representatives. We are not trying to move anything upwards or take anything away from the local authorities. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek said, everyone in Wales knows the tremendous way in which local councillors at all levels have served Wales, and I am sure the Assembly will be aware of that. If they are not aware of it, I am equally certain we can rely on the Welsh authorities to tell them how good they are.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It seems to me that the main platform of the Government throughout this Bill has been that its purpose is to transfer powers from the Secretary of State. Nothing the noble Baroness has said on this occasion convinces me that the powers were with the Secretary of State. They have never been with the Secretary of State. It is laid down in an Act of Parliament that these appointments shall be from the local councils. I do not regard this as a water issue at all. I agree very much with the noble Baroness on many points she has raised regarding the central water issue, but I do not regard this as a water issue; I regard it simply as a county council matter, a matter of direct representation to, as it happens, a water authority, by local people. I think everybody must accept that the Assembly is going to be that much further away from the local people, the man or woman who turns on the tap, as my noble friend said. I really believe that this is the crucial issue and I should very much like to have the opinion of your Lordships on this matter.
Baroness STEDMAN: I rise on a point of correction. The noble Lord must have misheard me or I did not make myself plain. The Act does not lay down

1583
what shall be the constitution of the water authority. The duty which the Act lays is on the Secretary of State, by order, to say what the constitution will be. It will be for the Welsh Assembly, by order, to do it in future.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.38 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 109G:
Page 80, line 42, leave out ("five") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 109H:
Page 81, line 1, leave out ("five") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 109J:
Page 81, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) the county council of each county in Wales;
1.30 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 32.
( ) the councils of the districts within each county in Wales;").

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour, E.

George-Brown, L.

Sandford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, E.

de Clifford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Tweeddale, M. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Lyell, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Mancroft, L.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Samuel, V.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Segal, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Stone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Henderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (109F) be agreed to.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109C not moved.]
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 109D:
Page 84, leave out lines 13 to 28.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 84, line 28, at end insert—
("(3) The Welsh Assembly shall publish each report received by it under this paragraph.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a further Amendment for the sending of statutory reports to the Assembly and their publication by it. Paragraph 87 of Schedule 11 provides for the Welsh

1585
Development Agency to make reports to the Assembly and to the Secretary of State on different aspects of its work and for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the reports which he receives. This Amendment fills a gap by requiring the Assembly to publish the reports which it receives. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: May I refer to the previous Amendment, which left out lines 13 to 28, which was consequent on a Division we had earlier in the Committee proceedings? I quite see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may wish to produce this Amendment at a later stage of the Bill, but as it stands lines 13 to 28 have, in fact, been removed by the previous Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.41 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 84, leave out lines 30 to 32.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not quite the same as the last Amendments to which I spoke in that it concerns the Welsh regional land drainage committees. As lines 30 to 42 stand, they have the effect of removing the Welsh local authorities representation on the land drainage committees. There is a considerable interest, both of district and counties, in land drainage which is implicit in the constitution of the regional committees prescribed by the 1976 Act. My noble friends and I believe that Welsh local authorities must continue to be represented.
The effect of paragraph 88 of the Schedule would be that although in England local authorities continue to have a majority representation on land drainage committees, in Wales they will have no such representation at all, despite the fact that their interest in land drainage is not changed one iota by the Bill. The Amendment that I have tabled would have the effect of preserving the status quo whereby Welsh local authorities would continue to have a right of appointment. Other members,
1586
who are at present appointed by the Minister, would in future be appointed by the Assembly as that power of appointment under Section 2 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 is devolved by Part X1 of Schedule 2 to this Bill.
I take what the noble Baroness said when I moved the last Amendment, but it still seems to me that Ministers have to accept appointments made by English local authorities, whereas in Wales the Assembly is to be given overall power to make all appointments. I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: I should like strongly to support what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has said, for the same reason as I supported him when he moved the Amendment on which we divided just now. It seems to me that here we are taking away from the local authorities a right which they have held, and we ought to maintain the status quo as far as we possibly can.
Baroness STEDMAN: If I were to reply in detail to what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, it would, in great part, merely be to repeat the arguments of last time. I recognise the view which the Committee has just come to, but I would ask the noble Lord to consider this, that due to the very difficult situation which this Amendment would leave in relation to the Severn-Trent Regional Land Drainage Committee, it should not be pressed at this stage. We can all reconsider the position, perhaps get together on it and come back to it on Report.
Lord ELTON: While we are gathering our wits—because things have moved so fast and also the order of the Amendments is different on the Marshalled List that the noble Baroness is using from the one I have been working from—I understood her to say something which sounds very much as though she might meet us on Report if we were prepared to wait until the Report stage; or is she saying that she expects to convince us between now and the Report stage? There is a difference, and we should like to know.
Baroness STEDMAN: At this stage I am not saying either. I am saying: can we get together, give further consideration to the position in which we

1587
are now left and perhaps come back to it again at the Report stage, either with an agreed Amendment or with something on which the noble Lord would prefer to go alone?
Lord ELTON: The decision rests with my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, but from our point of view that sounds like a very reasonable offer. We would not commit ourselves to abandoning this point by any means. If the noble Baroness thinks that something can be done between now and the Report stage to make it different, I think that my noble friend would wish to listen to it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Perhaps I can quote the noble Baroness back at her: I think that we reserve our position without prejudice. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): I must warn the Committee that if Amendment No. 109E is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 111 and 112.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 109E:
Page 85, leave out lines 12 to 31.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is consequential and I think that the same situation arises as arose in the previous couple of Amendments.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Government are happy to accept this, again without prejudice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 112B is carried, I do not think that I can call Amendment No. 112C.
1.47 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 112B:
Page 85, leave out lines 44 to 47.
The noble Lord said: I hope that I may be permitted to help the Lord Chairman out of a little difficulty here. Amendments Nos. 112B and 112C are co-ordinated together, but Amendment No. 112A cannot be called should Amendment No. 112B be proceeded with. If I may refer to Amendments Nos. 112B and 112C together, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee.
We are in some difficulty in this particular situation because it seems some long time ago that the Government moved Amendment No. 47B, which sought to devolve Sections 8(1)(b), 29 and 34 to 43 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to the Welsh Assembly. In Schedule 11 they wish to empower the Secretary of State to tell the Assembly what to do and how to manage a group of affairs through giving directions. We, on these Benches, believe that the Government are under a misapprehension here, and there are a variety of reasons for this.
First, the Government are looking upon the situation of doctors, dentists and others involved in the medical services, as an industrial situation—the scene in which there is an employer-employee relationship. Although to some limited extent that may be true, there is no management function in general practice in this situation. Management is within the contract and delegated to the contractor, and the situation ends there. So under the Bill the Secretary of State is now placed in the position to legislate under Schedule 11, and to do this act without the assistance of either House of Parliament.
We believe it to be an anomaly that this situation has arisen, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the very powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, in this regard on Thursday, 15th June. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was persuaded to withdraw the Amendment which he had moved. I wonder whether the Government would like, first, to comment upon the situation as it now stands. We believe that it would be a difficult situation if the Government proceeded on the basis that they have in mind at the moment, and for reasons which have become apparent to your Lordships today.
In our earlier discussions it became apparent when we were looking at Amendment No. 106A—that was the first Amendment we discussed this morning, in which we were concerned with the powers of a Minister of the Crown to alter a statute by order—that the order would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. It is apparent under the Bill as drafted that ministerial powers are available (ministerial powers are naturally available to the Secretary of State) to act in a manner which he thinks fit and both expedient and necessary.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Tweeddale for putting down this Amendment because it bore out so exactly what many of us thought about the situation as drafted in the Bill. We do not believe that it would be either prudent or desirable to alter the status quo here, and I am much reinforced by the views expressed by the Welsh Committee of the British Medical Association. They are strongly of the view that it would be not in the best interests of both the profession and the Welsh people generally if the situation were departed from as the Government have in mind. I beg to move.
1.52 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: May I say that it was not the Government's intention, if we arrived at it, to move Amendment No. 112A, because we did have some discussion about it, and it is linked to Amendment No. 47B which was tabled to Schedule 2 last week and was withdrawn. The Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has talked about are concerned with the Secretary of State's power to give directions in relation to Sections 29 and 34 to 43 of the National Health Service Act 1977. When we debated it last week, the Government's policy in relation to this power was explained in full, and the reasons why we thought it necessary to include it in the Bill. There is really nothing I can add to what was said then.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, was good enough to withdraw his Amendment. This left Schedule 2, Part VI as it was, thereby devolving most of the ministerial functions in the sections of the 1977 Act concerned. If these Amendments were to be carried, the directing power will be lost and the Assembly
1590
will therefore have competence to determine the terms and conditions of service, including the remuneration of general practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. I am sure this is not the effect the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, wishes to achieve; and it is most certainly not something the Government can accept given our policy that the remuneration of Health Service staff should be reserved. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord might withdraw his Amendments.
Lord SANDYS: I regret that we are reaching a somewhat sterile situation in this argument, and I hope that it will be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to refresh your Lordships' memory over this particular problem. The noble Baroness quite rightly said that the Government have reserved their powers in regard to the remuneration of the medical profession. She included both dentists and pharmacists in that particular field. We are in considerable difficulty here because the terms and conditions and remuneration are intertwined, and I think this phrase has recurred through discussions both in another place and in your Lordships' House.
To separate these two strands is a matter of very great complexity; so much so that we believe that it would be much better if the status quo were adhered to. I think the first consideration must be for the maintenance of standards and good management within the medical professions in Wales. The Government have advanced the case that the Assembly should manage the Health Service in Wales in a manner which they think fit. While it is very desirable that they should have as large a remit as would be suitable, it appears to be extremely difficult to separate these two functions: that is, the ones I have just referred to of remuneration and the means whereby they organise their affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, put it very well. May I be allowed to take a few moments of the Committee's time to refer to column 572 of the Official Report of the 15th June. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, said:
"Therefore, I am bound to ask: if the assurance given that the intention is to sustain the standards that obtain today, why not leave the responsibility where it now is rather than engage in this

1591
transparently bogus effort of transferring the responsibility to the Assembly and then, by means of a second Amendment, nipping in with the authority of the Secretary of State who will tell it what to do? It does not make sense. May I ask the noble Lord to look at this point. We do not want unreality. We want the standards of consultants and specialists in Wales to be maintained, in the interests of the Welsh people, at the level which obtains in the Island as a whole".
The noble Lord, Lord Hill, has vast experience of the medical profession both as a Minister and also through his responsibilities in a previous Government in regard to Wales, and I think that his views should be closely adhered to. We believe that there is a distinct and apparent difficulty here which it is not possible to resolve, and I am not surprised that the noble Baroness felt that she could not add at any great length to what her noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge said on the previous occasion. I regret from these Benches that we must sustain our position, and therefore I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sorry that the noble Lord has decided to press his Amendment. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, made all the comments that the noble Lord has referred to us. But my impression was that he was talking about the consultants rather than about those who are involved in more general terms in the Health Service. What we have done in Wales is to try and cope with the problem of ensuring that the Assembly has the powers it needs for the administration of the Health Service, but we have reserved to the Government the power to determine remuneration because we think it would be wrong that the Assembly should be able to dictate perhaps better or worse terms for any of the practitioners in the Health Service.
It is a complicated procedure. It is made difficult because of this linking between the Administration and the terms and conditions of services. I would have hoped that the noble Lord would not press it at this point, that we might perhaps have further discussions, and that he might talk to my advisers and see whether we can satisfy him and allay his fears between now and the Report stage, still reserving his right to come back if he is not satisfied.
Lord SANDYS: I am only too willing to consider the matter with the noble Baroness's advisers should she be willing to offer opportunity between now and Report stage. I cannot commit ourselves to alter our position on this particular Amendment, but I am only too willing to go further into the matter, and in addition to bring in those aspects which relate specifically to the Welsh Committee of the British Medical Association. If the noble Baroness feels that there is ground for further discussion on this, then I would be willing to withdraw this Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: Our position in the Government would remain the same. We would want to try and preserve the status quo in the Wales Bill as it is at the moment, with the Assembly being responsible for the administration and with the Secretary of State being responsible for remuneration and the terms and conditions of service. If we can ease the problem at all by discussions, well and good; if not, the noble Lord must test the feeling of your Lordships.
Lord SANDYS: We are in a difficult position here. If it is decided to divide on this issue, what the Government have drafted will be changed, and the other place will be given the opportunity to review an aspect of the Bill which has not been examined hitherto. This is a matter of very great importance to Wales. Of course we may reach the position in question in any event, should we proceed on Report. Having listened very closely to what the noble Baroness has just said, I believe that it might ultimately save both the Government's time and fruitless discussion on this side if we divide on this issue and give another place the opportunity of a very full discussion, which would permit Welsh Members of the other place to digress upon it further.
2.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 112B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Balfour, E.

George-Brown, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandys, L.

Cockfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tweeddale, M.

Effingham, E.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Banks, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Kilgorran, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Northfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
2.9 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 112C:
Page 86, leave out lines 1 to 3.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 112B. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 86, line 19, leave out ("laid before") and insert ("made to and published by").
The noble Baroness said: This is the last of the series of Amendments which deal with the making of statutory reports to the Assembly and their publication by them. In this case it relates to the making to the Assembly of reports of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales, and their publication by the Assembly. I should like to move that Amendment, and I think that it will be a considerable relief to Members of the Committee that this is the last Amendment on this Committee stage.
With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to take this opportunity to say thank you to the noble Lords opposite for the way in which they have handled their side of the debate, for their co-operation, for their consideration and
1594
for their good humour through the long hours that we have spent on it. Although my colleagues on the Bill team are not very much in evidence at the moment, I am sure I speak for all of them. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Elton, felicitously referred to this Committee stage as "a great historical occasion, dealing with constitutional issues of the rights of people in a great nation". As a Welshman I thank him for those words; but now this last, small Amendment has in my view an intrinsic merit fitting for Lord Elton's great occasion. It is an Amendment to remove from the Wales Bill at Anglo-Saxon phrase, "laid before the Assembly", which is characteristic of procedures in a Westminster-modelled Parliament. The Welsh Assembly will be a unique Assembly, quite different to Westminster. This Amendment therefore casts out the Anglo-Saxon phrase, "laid before the Assembly", and introduces a Welsh freshness and finality to the Wales Bill Committee stage.
May I join with the noble Baroness in praising particularly Lord Elton and his team for good humour and hard work over many hours; and may I also thank and praise Baroness Elton—I am sorry; Baroness Stedman: that shows how near we have come to agreement in this Assembly—and ask her to thank her team,

1595
for the great work they have done on this Committee stage.
Lord ELTON: My pleasure at the noble Lord's earlier remarks is perhaps equalled by my astonishment at his latter remark. I must say that if he is unable to distinguish the proper relationship between myself and the noble Baroness I despair of his ever appreciating the proper relationship between Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, or its local authorities. But it was nice of him to make the points that he has made, or, at least, that he intended to make.
I, too, should like to thank the Government team for playing against us, outnumbering us, as they do, with such patience. I am deeply grateful to my noble friends on both the Front and the Back Benches for displaying an astonishing versatility and an ability to master briefs which I think means that our Party is the richer for their participation. I presume that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not be moving the Amendment which stands in his name on the Marshalled List as No. 114, which would appear to be an expression of an opinion of the proceedings so far with which many of us would concur. I think that all Members of this Committee who have worked the really very long and arduous hours, which we have to do in addition to our normal duties, deserve the thanks, not only of myself but of the Government; as, indeed, do those who have toiled behind the scenes, working not on one but on two Bills. We too often overlook the duties which fall on the Public Bill Office and the various other departments of the House, and the
1596
printing agencies. All of them have supported us with great effect and efficiency.
Finally, of course, I think one should not forget the staff. This is only a half-term speech, not an end-of-term speech; nonetheless, I think the cheerful patience of the staff of the House has done much to make me return to get my feet on the floor at moments when I thought they might leave it. I think we are accepting an Amendment—I have quite forgotten where we started—but I have said what I wanted to say, and I say it with gratitude and sincerity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

HOMES INSULATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill had been withdrawn. The order made on the 24th of May last Discharged and Bill committed an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.