Lords Sitting of 20 December 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone):My Lords, before the commencement of

The Long-Term Unemployed
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the annual figures since 1979 of the long-term unemployed.

Following is the table referred to:

The numbers unemployed for over 52 weeks in the United Kingdom in October each year since 1979 were as follows:

Registered unemployed

1979

357,066

1980

401,114

1981

784,636

Unemployed claimants

1982

1,029,000 (estimated)

1983

1,142,898

October each year

Registered unemployed

Unemployed claimants

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

(1) Total unemployed

1,367,639

2,062,866

2,988,644

3,049,008

3,093,998

(2) Unemployed for over 52 weeks

357,066

401,114

784,636

989.306*

1,142,898†

(3) (2) as percentage of (l)

26.1

19.4

26.3

32.4

36.9

of which:—

(4) Unemployed for over 52 and up to 104 weeks

173,747

200,356

512,719

555,322

581,151

(5) (4) as percentage of (1)

12.7

9.7

17.2

18.2

18.8

(6) Unemployed for over 104 weeks

183,319

200,758

271,917

433,984

561,747

(7) (6) as percentage of (1)

13.4

9.7

9.1

14.2

18.2

*Because of industrial action in 1981 it is estimated that this recorded figure shows a shortfall of about 40.000.

†Affected by the provisions announced in the 1983 Budget for unemployed men aged 60 and over: by October 1983 it is estimated that 122,000 in this duration group had been relieved of the need to sign on.

Lord Dean of Beswick:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that, despite the predictions of the Government and those from other sources that the economy is on the upturn, these figures are continuing to rise at a considerable rate? Can the noble Earl tell the House when Her Majesty's Government expect these figures to level out and to start to move downwards?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, I am afraid that in modern economies there is little correlation between increased economic activity and increased levels of employment. That is true all over the western world. The principal way in which we can help the long-term unemployed, and unemployed more generally, is by tackling the underlying causes of unemployment, by setting the economy to rights and creating the conditions for growth. In the meantime, we are spending nearly £2 billion a year on schemes of special help for unemployed people who, through no fault of their
586
business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty The Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Zealand to attend the Seventh Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth Parliaments to be held in Wellington from Monday, 9th January, to Wednesday, 11th January, and to take part in a tour of New Zealand which has been arranged immediately thereafter. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Monday, 16th January and Tuesday, 17th January.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the numbers unemployed for over 52 weeks in the United Kingdom in October this year were 1,142,898. With permission I will now circulate a table giving the figures for previous years since 1979.
their own, are caught in the machinery of an economy changing gear.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, while acknowledging that this is a question that would confront any Government of whatever political complexion, may I ask the noble Earl whether he agrees that, so far as young people are concerned, the heart of the unemployment problem has shifted from school-leavers to those aged between 18 and 25? Is he satisfied that the recent Government announcement of a target of 130,000 filled places in the community programme, which is to run, I understand, for a further two years from October 1984, is a sufficient response to the problem of the 1,140,000 people, as he has just told us, who have now been unemployed for more than 12 months, one in four of whom are aged under 25?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, it would be impossible to be fully satisfied, but I am satisfied to the

587
degree that within available resources the community programme does a good job. I can confirm to the noble Lord that about 40 per cent. of all participants in the community programme are in the 18 to 24 age group.
Baroness Gaitskell:My Lords, how can the noble Earl say that the health of the economy has nothing to do with the numbers of unemployed? It has a great deal to do with them.
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, that is not what I said. What I said was that increased economic activity in the modern world is not necessarily reflected in the numbers of the unemployed.
Lord Glenamara:My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree, especially in view of what he has just said, that the increasing and accelerating growth of technology means that there is no hope whatever of employment for large numbers of people unemployed in this country and throughout the world without a radical new approach to our employment policies? Does the noble Earl not agree that this is a challenge facing the whole western world? Unless we take up that challenge there is no hope whatever, because of the advance of technology. Cannot the Government take the initiative through the United Nations or elsewhere?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. Nevertheless, demographic factors and the fact that the number of people available for work at any one given period or one given decade shows fairly radical alteration must also be taken into account. What we are trying to do at the moment is to ease the special generation facing very particular problems (through no fault of their own, as I have said) into employment through training and re-training, and through other measures. In the meantime, we also have to see to the internal health of our economy and its competitiveness in world markets generally. I believe that over the next decade this will ease the situation somewhat.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords, while we clearly welcome any effort the Government make to ease the problem of those who are out of work, especially young school-leavers and others, is it not the case that the argument between the political parties and, indeed, the argument within the Conservative Party itself is that the time has come for the Government to stimulate the economy? Temporary expedients, such as finding something for young people to do for 12 months, are no alternative to, or substitute for, a job which has prospects. Therefore, will the noble Earl apply his mind to the problem which has been put so clearly by Mr. Edward Heath, Sir Ian Gilmour, Mr. Francis Pym, and others of his right honourable friends—namely, that the time has now come for the Government to take a clear step to stimulate the economy by building roads and houses and other parts of our infrastructure so that people can get a permanent job?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not consider that the spending of £2 billion of public money on training schemes, community programme schemes
588
and the like, are temporary expedients. That is a great earnest of the Government's commitment in this area. I am in no sense against the stimulation of the economy so long as it is recognised that it must be paid for in terms of things which can deflate the economy such as higher rates of interest or higher taxation. I also have the personal experience of having worked in Northern Ireland where enormous sums of public money, have been spent by successive Governments over the years and are still being spent. If the noble Lord's analysis were right, Northern Ireland would now be one of the more prosperous parts of the British economy.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that there is a lesson about long-term unemployment buried in today's news from the Scott Lithgow yard on the Clyde?
The Earl of Gowrie: Yes, my Lords.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, will not my noble friend agree that the trends in total unemployment in the past four months have been surprisingly encouraging considering that the economy has only recently turned upwards in Britain, and Britain has only recently become competitive and started to regain market share? Will my noble friend agree that this is perhaps because we live in an age of change and the new jobs are coming in new industries in small numbers at a time, while the old industries continue to decline and catch the news headlines?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is encouraging that the overall trend in the rise of the numbers of unemployed has stabilised consistently over the past four months, and that bears witness to the truth of a great deal of what he has said. Nevertheless, of course the numbers are too high. The individual tragedies involved cannot be underestimated, and that is why the Government are spending the amount of money that they are on the special programmes and other schemes that I have mentioned. I also agree with my noble friend that it is very important for us in Parliament to give clear signals to this political economy that future employment levels will come in smaller batches than we have known since the war.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the basic philosophy of capitalism in my lifetime has always been to have an unemployed market so as to keep the men quiet for fear that their jobs will be taken? Is this not a continuation of a capitalist economic policy?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, it is at least interesting to look at the very severe unemployment problems that exist in the non-capitalist economies such as China and Soviet Russia.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the Minister's comment on Northern Ireland, will the Minister review the position of the Northern Ireland Economic Council's report which stated that the level of public spending reflects the degree of economic activity? If there had not been public spending in Northern

589
Ireland to the degree that there has, would the noble Earl agree that the position would now be even worse?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not disagree with that analysis at all. What I was trying to deal with by way of illustration was the simple fact that if large sums injected into the economy, in terms of public spending, could correct the economy, then Northern Ireland would have a pretty healthy economy.
Lord Alport:My Lords, will my noble friend consider, from the Government's point of view, that there might be advantage in dealing with this problem by using not purely the material and financial yardstick by which to judge it, but sometimes to judge it by the human consequences which employment brings on the people of this country?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, that is precisely why levels of taxation in this country are already high—too high in my view—so that those of us who are fortunate enough to be in employment can make a contribution towards the plight of the unemployed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl must be aware that a large number of the people who are unemployed were formerly employed in the public sector. Therefore, will he urge Her Majesty's Government to respond to the overtures of both the CBI and the trade union movement—the TUC—to reflate the public sector in order to get jobs moving in that sector and get these appalling unemployment figures moving downwards?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most happy to take that point on board so long as the noble Lord, for his part, also looks into the employment consequences of higher rates of interest, higher taxation and higher rates of inflation.
Lord Leatherland:My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government training schemes, to which he referred, will also cater for octogenarians, many of whom find it impossible to get a job or to live on their pensions?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the very fact that the noble Lord is able to put that question to me shows that he is usefully employed.
Lord Seebohm:My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that considerable sums are now being received—
Noble Lords: Order, Order!
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead):My Lords, the next Question has been called. We have had a good run on Lord Dean's Question, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will let us move on.

The One Pound Coin
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will continue to issue one pound notes in view of the inconvenience of one pound coins which are almost the same size as twenty penny pieces and difficult to distinguish after dark.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is the Government's intention to withdraw the £1 note from circulation in due course once the public have had time to become accustomed to the £1 coin. The need for a coin results from the way the £1 note deteriorates now that less frequent replacement is feasible. As the £1 coin becomes more familiar the public should find little difficulty in distinguishing it from the 20p coin which is of a different shape and colour, and is also noticeably thinner and lighter than the £1 coin.
Lord Molson:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that many cashiers find that when giving change for larger notes they are asked for pound notes and not for coins? If the paper wears out unduly fast, have the Government given consideration to substituting a plastic pound note?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am aware of many representations which have been made about the £1 coin. The fact remains that the main impetus for the introduction of the coin was the increasing treatment of the note as if it was a coin: it is kept in tills; it is not returned to banks by traders, and so it is not possible to replace it with the frequency that is desirable in order to keep the note in proper condition. As regards plastic notes, as my noble friend will be aware. the Isle of Man has recently introduced a plastic £1 note. Evaluations by the Bank of England suggest that plastic notes are not a suitable alternative to paper notes or, in the case of the £1, to the coin. They are not as secure from forgery as paper notes. For that reason we do not propose to go ahead with any idea on that line.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the weight of these coins is so heavy in one's purse or wallet that I have already worn through one, and that they also fall out of my husband's pockets? In view of inflation, it is very expensive both to replace the trousers and to replace the wallet.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have as many £l coins in my pocket as the noble Baroness, and I suggest that she invites her husband to change his £1 coins for a £5 note.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, yesterday during the Second Reading debate on the Cable and Wireless Bill we heard that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to give the people what they want. Is my noble friend quite sure that they want this coin?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, extensive consultations established a demand for the £1 coin, and in some anticipation of my noble friend's question both yesterday and today I have conducted my own private survey round your Lordships' House, and I have found that it is 50–50 in favour.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the new –1 coin is now being called a "Maggie" because it is hard, it has rough edges and pretends to be a sovereign?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but at another time I could tell the noble Lord a similar story in relation to the 50p piece, which I think was introduced by his party when they were in Government.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs:My Lords, will the Minister agree that this coin is disliked not because people are unable to get used to it and not because of their reactions to it, but because they just do not like it? Will the Minister not agree that we should continue to take soundings for a little longer and keep the £1 note, which is popular. for a little longer?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, no announcement has been made about the point at which the £1 note will be removed from circulation. However, I think it is important to bear in mind that the fact that, apart from anything else, it costs quite a lot of money to keep the £1 notes in circulation. A £1 note lasts for about 11 months and a £1 coin for about 40 years.
The Earl of Kimberley:My Lords, can my noble friend say for how long the Americans keep a one dollar bill in circulation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot speak for the Americans from this Dispatch Box.

"Buy British": The Public Sector
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will draw the attention of Government departments and agencies, including those engaged in procurement for the armed forces, public corporations including nationalised industries, local authorities, private industry and individual citizens, to the need to "buy British" whenever feasible, and to ensure that their agents, employees and sub contractors do so.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they expect and hope that British goods will be bought whenever they are the best, the most competitive and offer value for money. For the past three and a half years we have been vigorously pursuing a major policy initiative aimed at encouraging the public sector to use its purchasing power in a positive manner to help develop and maintain suppliers' competitiveness.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most helpful and encouraging reply. Does he agree that, if we show confidence in our own products when the price and quality are right, people overseas are more likely to follow our example and buy British, and thereby help the export trade?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. The answer is, Yes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the nationalised industries have achieved a remarkable success in purchasing on a competitive basis from this country the vast bulk of their supplies, averaging over 90 per cent? In the case of the National Coal Board, which I had the honour of serving together with the noble Lord, Lord Gormley, the industry achieved even more than that. Would the noble Lord kindly indicate to us, in percentage terms, what success has been achieved by Government departments and agencies directly responsible to Government in the purchase of goods produced in this country?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord shot my fox because I, too, have the figure of 96 per cent. for the industry which he served with such distinction. On the noble Lord's second question, about the percentage of British goods bought by the private sector, I understand that it is in the region of 90 per cent.
Lord Blease: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the "Buy British" campaign, initiative or appeal also includes goods and manufactured products produced in Northern Ireland? Given the elements of price, delivery, quality and the statutory requirements, will he not agree that there is an urgent need to have some sort of appeal mechanism at ministerial level, so that enterprises that have tendered for products or goods and have been overlooked, or which consider that they have been overlooked or bypassed in favour of some foreign product, may appeal at ministerial level for their goods to be reconsidered?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall see whether I can obtain any information about the percentage of orders that are placed in Northern Ireland. However, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government are indeed monitoring the situation, and are very aware of the efforts which are made by British industry to sell to nationalised industries. Indeed, the public purchasing initiative is one of the arms of the Government in this particular area.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in the privatisation measures which the Government are now proposing, are they taking into account the outstanding record of the nationalised industries in supporting British industry?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question is a little wide of the answers that I have been giving.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, recently I ordered some peat for my garden and was astonished to find that it came from Moscow. Would it not be better if it came from Northern Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point. If she will give me the details, I shall see what substitute can be arranged for Moscow peat.
Lord Avebury:My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to address his mind to the question put to him by my noble friend, which was not about the private sector but was about the percentage of goods purchased from British sources by Government departments and other agencies for which the Government are responsible? Can the Government say what that percentage is?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sorry, but I should have said in my original Answer that other nationalised industries were in the region of 90 per cent. If I can obtain any further information on a detailed basis, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, just as my Question was intended to cover goods made in Northern Ireland, so also does his Answer?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's assistance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Taylor was perfectly in line with the Question on the Order Paper, because it says quite distinctly:
"including nationalised industries, local authorities, private industry and individual citizens"?
Will the noble Lord now answer the question?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, my noble neighbour is, I think, making a mountain out of a molehill. His noble friend asked about privatisation, not about private industry.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government encourage the police forces to purchase British cars instead of German cars, which I understand they do?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, that, I would think, is a matter for the police forces concerned, and of course the police forces must make their own decision on that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is important not only that people should buy British but that we should all be able to say, as we did before the war, that British is best? Is he aware that the only way that that can be done is for the Government to change course and to stimulate the economy and find jobs for people who will produce the best?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on the contrary, the Government's policy is to encourage British industry to see that things are the best on quality; and on delivery, technology and international competitiveness—D, T and I, which spells out the department for which I answer.
Lord Leatherland:My Lords, would the noble Minister care to go upstairs and see in one of the corridors a duplicating machine upon which there are piles of paper indicating that it was made abroad?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should be interested to see the corridor afterwards at the noble Lord's behest.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, may I refer back to the question of my late noble friend who asked, if I understood him properly, what would be the effect of privatisation of nationalised industries which are at the present moment buying British? Surely that is something to do with the Question?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I cannot see that privatisation would have any adverse effect upon their purchasing policies.

The Rating System: SAUS Response
3.2 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration is being given to the response by the School for Advanced Urban Studies on Government proposals on the reform of the rating system, rate limitation and the proposals contained in Streamlining the Cities.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the response in so far as it refers to the White Paper Rates has already been considered. It is not clear as to whether or not this document is the official view of SAUS. It certainly does not share the Government's commitment to the need to protect ratepayers, to reduce public expenditure, and to achieve the Government's overall economic plans. The more recent response, which combines these comments with observations on the proposals in Streamlining the Cities, is currently being considered.
Lord Graham of Edmonton:My Lords, can we assume that the Government and the noble Lord welcome the observations of these distinguished academic individuals? On the very day on which the rate capping proposals of the Government are to be published, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the conclusions in the report in respect of rate capping, which indicate that there will be a significant increase of central control over local government? Lastly, in respect of the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties has the noble Lord noticed that so far as the case in the White Paper is concerned the report says that it is totally unconvincing, ill-prepared, and wholly unjustified?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I had noticed that, but in fact the signatories to the document clearly do not share the Government's view of the need to contain public expenditure within what the country can afford. But we have that view and we were elected on the basis of it. As to the other references to the abolition, and so on, clearly the noble Lord and those who put their names to this paper have a totally different view from that of the Government and certainly from mine.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that it is perfectly possible for the Government to maintain their mistaken policies about limiting Government expenditure without dismantling big city government?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, there is no intention to dismantle big city government.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what is an advanced urban study?
Lord Bellwin:My Lords, there are those who might fairly question that, certainly by reading the conclusions which the signatories to this paper reach. But far be it from me at Question Time to attempt such a definition.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps the Minister is not aware that the School for Advanced Urban Studies was set up by the Department of the Environment. Apart from the opposition in the noble Lord's own party and by the local authority associations which has been expressed today when the Bill has been published, is he aware that Professor Jones, professor of government at the LSE, and Professor John Stewart, professor of local government at Birmingham, in a recent paper demonstrated that the rate limitation proposals destroy the basis of local accountability? It was this on which Professor Jones expounded on radio this morning. Can the noble Lord find and let us know of any objective academic or other impartial specialist opinion which supports the Government's proposals and the so-called reasoning in the White Paper? If so, we should be grateful if he could let us know so that we can read it and find Out from whom and where it comes.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness pleads in aid the cause and the writings of the academics. I prefer to plead in aid the needs of the people who pay the bills at the end of the day.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a natural mnemonic for the School for Advanced Urban Studies is "sauce"?
Lord Bellwin: I pronounce it "sowse", my Lords.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister seemed to dismiss my noble friend's question as to whether he is aware that the general attitude of this report is also reflected by the three local authority associations. As there was a White Paper seemingly for consultation, what notice have the Government taken of the wholesale rejection of the Government's White Paper by the three local authority associations?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have to repeat something I said a moment ago, that the one group of people who do not reject wholesale the Government's proposals are the mass of people throughout the country, businesses and individuals, who have to pay the bills at the end of the day.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but is the Minister really saying that these
596
proposals are based on ignorance rather than knowledge and experience—that one should just take the objective and view of keeping down rates—and that the proposals do not make financial, social, or economic sense?
Lord Bellwin:My Lords, the noble Baroness makes her own judgments as to what the proposals mean. I would only say that the criticisms in this particular report, or paper, are based largely on value judgments which, at the end of the day, are clearly political in character.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on rate support grant 1984–85, Wales. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on British Shipbuilders: Britoil contract.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time for a Tuesday of 7.30 this evening. The Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Somerset House Bill will be taken.

Mental Health (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Fosdyke Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin):My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power of the Scottish Tourist Board to engage outside the UK in the promotion of Tourism in Scotland]:
Lord Carmichael Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which may be considered in two ways. If we look at it carefully we see that the word "only" in the context of this Bill is really superfluous. There is no suggestion from the wording that an activity can be carried on outside the United Kingdom without the consent of the Secretary of State. Unless the Minister can point to some legal necessity for including the word "only" here, I hope he will agree to its removal.
However, there is another way of considering the inclusion of this word "only; that is, that it could be construed as being mildly offensive and even diminishing the gesture made on Second Reading, which we all welcomed, small though it was, that the Scottish Tourist Board would have some power to promote Scotland overseas. I feel that the inclusion of this word "only" diminishes that gesture which was made. On Second Reading many speeches emphasised the special attractions that Scotland has in certain parts of the world, and the Minister responded well to the debate. Why does he spoil a good initiative by unnecessarily emphasising the master/servant relationship that is embodied in this part of the Bill? I hope that the Minister will reflect on this—I am sure that he has already done so—and will allow the Bill to read,
"to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom with the consent",
and not, "only with the consent".
"of the Secretary of State".
I therefore hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically, or explain why the word "only" is essential. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: This amendment would weaken the emphasis on the need for the Scottish Tourist Board to obtain consent for its activities outside the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will recall our discussion at Second Reading of the policy underlying the requirement that the Scottish Tourist Board should obtain the Secretary of States's consent before it exercises its overseas promotion power. I referred then to the broadly similar provision already applying to the Scottish local authorities and to area tourist boards, and I explained that through the consent procedure the Secretary of State is able to ensure that there is no wasteful overlap or duplication of effort.
A similar purpose underlies the consent procedure in this Bill: we wish to ensure that any overseas activities undertaken by the STB in practice complement the British Tourist Authority's promotion efforts for Great Britain, and that the overall Great Britain effort by BTA remains properly co-ordinated. To achieve this, the Secretary of State
598
has to be informed of all STB overseas promotion proposals and check their compatability with BTA's plans. In practice, We expect the board to submit an annual programme of detailed proposals for approval, enabling the Secretary of State to consider the Board's plans largely in one coherent package.
As Clause 1 is currently drafted, it is perfectly clear that the Scottish Tourist Board cannot properly exercise its overseas powers without the Secretary of State's consent. The use of the word "only" is perfectly natural in ordinary English, and by including it the policy intention—that the Scottish Tourist Board should invariably seek the Secretary of State's approval before carrying on overseas activities—is reflected with maximum accuracy.
Omission of the word "only" would I believe make it less clear that consent is necessary on all occasions; and it might imply that the obtaining of consent is of less importance. While I repeat that there is no intention to exert the power to give consent in a heavy-handed manner, we feel that it is important to ensure proper co-ordination by following the procedures suggested. It seems to me altogether fairer that our policy intention should be conveyed as unequivocally as possible; and I hope that on reflection the noble Lords may be persuaded that their amendment should be withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I think that anything that has been said by the noble Lord confirms me in my attitude regarding the meanness of the concession that has been given. What is the Minister saying? He says that if we leave out this word it will not be sufficiently clear that we mean to tie down the Scottish Tourist Board to get the consent with all the other things that apply to it. The Lord Advocate is here. He is a legal man; he will deal with the more difficult legal problems that will arise in relation to Scottish roads, but can he bring his legal mind to hear on this point? Would it greatly affect the sense of the clause if we left the word "only" out? It would then say that it had to be done "with the consent…of the Secretary of State". What is the advantage of putting in the word "only"? My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove is quite right. The Government are being grudging and mean about the whole business of giving this new power, small as it may be, to the Scottish Tourist Board.
May I remind the noble Lord that this is the one Tory manifesto commitment that has been carried out. This was included in the manifesto. Noble Lords from England, and even those from Scotland, may find that this is news to them. Here is a Tory Government carrying out for Scotland a Tory manifesto commitment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, will give us the benefit of his wisdom on this matter. He will remember what he demanded. I will read it again:
"We recommend very strongly, therefore, that the Scottish Tourist Board should be given overseas promotional powers in its own right, and be solely responsible for promoting Scotland abroad, after consulting district councils. (In saying this, we reserve the position of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, as we make clear in paragraph 154).
In fact that reference to the Highlands and Islands Development Board is because it has more power in promoting tourism for the Highlands abroad than has

599
the Scottish Tourist Board. At present the Scottish Tourist Board has none, but we are now bringing it up to the level, so we were told, of the councils and the area tourist boards.
I think it is offensive to put in this word "only" when it is unnecessary. I object to the principle of the cabining and confining of the Scottish Tourist Board as has been done here, but the Government have put in the word "only" and that is tautological and unnecessary. As for the Minister's telling us what we all know, that if we took it out it would weaken the power and the hold that the Secretary of State will have on this tourist board, does the Minister believe that this is necessary, or is he just reading a brief? May I tell him that he is a Minister of State? It is time he realised his power and told the civil servants that he would exercise the privilege of power and say that this is an unnecessary word and why should we carry on wasting the time of this noble House over this kind of thing? There is plenty of that in the next Bill, but here it is probably much more serious. I hope that the Minister will think again about it.
I am not a lawyer. This is a fairly commonsense bit of law. If one leaves the word out it makes no great difference. We are told that the reason why it is there is to make it clear that they are going to have no independent power—which was what the noble Lord, Lord Stodart sought, an independent position for the Scottish Tourist Board, one that we have been asking for for years. We were lucky to get a Scottish Tourist Board. I think it was in 1967. I was one of the sponsors of the Bill. It was a United Kingdom Bill and not a purely Scottish one, although we had things in the Bill that did not apply to England or Wales or they do not require any legislation for the changes that are going to come over them.
When it was announced by the Government in a press statement that they were going to give this power to the Scottish Tourist Board, we had laudatory leaders in the Glasgow Herald and in the Scotsman. All the papers were so startled by the fact that the Government were keeping a commitment that they forgot small print. But the small print was not there until the Bill came out. At the present time, we are told, the British Tourist Authority spends £2 million on behalf of Scotland. We have been told—and we are grateful to the Minister for telling us this at Second Reading—that with this new great venture, this commitment that has been accepted gladly by the Government, the Scottish Tourist Board are going to be allowed to spend £200,000 if they get the consent of the Secretary of State and if the Secretary of State has consulted the British Tourist Authority. And just to make sure of these things, there is put in this word "only".
How miserable can the Government get? When a Government behaves like this, no wonder the noble Lord is in this place. Well, he will be used to the Government blowing the trumpets of what they are going to do followed by the sad realisation that they are not going to do very much at all; it should be engrained in him by now. But it is sad that he should come along and read to us this rubbish as to why the word "only" should be there. The word "only" is
600
completely unnecessary and is offensive. Unless the noble Lord has something further to say I think we should divide the Committee on this.
Lord Gray of Contin: I never cease to be amazed at the transformation which can come over a Member of Parliament—whether in this place or the other place—when he moves from one side to the other. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who had a distinguished parliamentary career in another place, was responsible for a great deal of Scottish legislation. He was noted as one who hounded the draftsmen in order to get Bills exactly as he wanted them—and rightly so. I think that we can assume that any Bill for which the noble Lord was responsible received a very high degree of scrutiny. Therefore he will not be surprised that I have in front of me a copy of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. Nor will he be surprised that in that Act there is stated:
"The powers specified in the foregoing subsection shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary of State".
I should have thought that the difference between the noble Lord's "only" and the "only" that he is suggesting should be deleted from this Bill is really not of great relevance.
I think that the Committee will agree that the reasons which I have given for not accepting the amendment are compelling. There is no doubt that the object of this exercise is to ensure that there is no duplication of effort between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority but that their objectives which are the clear objectives to promote tourism for GreatBritain—and particularly for Scotland—are complemented. I believe that what we are doing in this Bill—and I will not be drawn at this stage into the question of the finance, the £200,000—is by far the best way of achieving for Scotland the advantage of individual identification and the promotion of that identification by the Scottish Tourist Board along with the benefits of promotion in a Great Britain scene which we can obtain through the activities and efforts of the British Tourist Authority.
I do not think that we should waste too much time on this amendment. I do not think that the case for it has been made by noble Lords opposite, and with the greatest respect—and I fully appreciate their interest and their wish to discuss the Bill at Committee stage—I suggest that they do not have a strong point in this amendment and I hope that they may feel that they can withdraw it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:We on these Benches think that it is perhaps not as strong a point as some which come later; but, equally, we think the Government might as well have given way on this matter. With that strong position that we have taken up, I will say no more.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It was a pity that the noble Lord had not said that before we had the second "no" from the Government. He must learn to use his powerful influence—his weighty influence—at the right time. I must come back to this attack on what was said in the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. If the noble Lord drags in this

601
very red herring then I have to make some comment on it. He will remember that that red herring, that Bill, gives very considerable powers to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The noble Lord was not there at the time. He was only a very temporary sojourner in the other place compared with some others that I know. If he had been there, and coming as he did from the Highlands, he would probably have been as appalled as I was at the fact that this wonderful Bill which everybody wanted was castigated by a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland (who is now in this House) as Marxism run wild. It was straight from Karl Marx. You can understand what a reasonable fellow I was when I said, "It will only be put forward with these powers used and exercised with the consent of the Secretary of State".
Now let us have a look at this Bill before us. There is nothing very Marxist about this one. It is a very different set-up. There is only one limited little power to spend as far as we know at the present time. I can understand him not wishing to go into the finance of the £200,000. So that is the answer to that one. Surely, when the Government are trying to be generous, trying joyously to meet a commitment which they gave to the people of Scotland—a commitment which the people of Scotland did not want anyway from them, judging by the results—they could have done a little better than this. I think that the real question is whether it is necessary to be in the Bill. It is a matter of simple drafting.
How does the Bill read if the word is not there? At present it reads:
"…shall exercise the power … to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom only with the consent (which may be given from time to time…) of the Secretary of State…".
It is a case of "only with the consent of" or
"…shall exercise the power with the consent…".
That is what we are arguing about. That is the great matter of principle on which the researchers have been delving into almost every speech I have ever made: they may even have gone hack to 1946, for ought that I know, in respect of this. Is it really worth arguing about?
It is up to the Government to justify what they have done, and if there is something tautological and unnecessary in a Bill I am all for getting rid of it. I love interruptions but I like to hear them. Noble Lords will have to break from their usual custom of speaking from sedentary positions and I hope they will do it without covering their mouths with their hands. But I quite welcome them to get up. I know they do not like it, but this is a fact—the word "only" is unnecessary and, being there, is purely and simply offensive. I will give the Government time to think about it. I will put the same amendment down at the next stage, hoping that between now and then they will reconsider the matter and maybe find some better arguments for its being there.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Having listened to my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and also to the reply from the noble Lord the Minister, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter before it comes up at Report; otherwise we will put the amendment
602
down again at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page1, line 15, leave out from ("State") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: this amendment seeks to remove words which would give a senior Minister or Cabinet Minister an instruction to consult with a Government-appointed body before permitting another Government-appointed body to do or not to do something. This seems to me to envisage a situation where there was no real contact between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board and the Ministers who appointed them. If we look at Clause 2, it makes it clear that the Scottish Tourist Board must have the consent, with or without conditions, of the Secretary of State before carrying out any promotions overseas. Surely that is enough? In practice, we all know there will be a great deal of discussion within the British Tourist Authority on all promotions and schemes and that particular attention will be paid to overseas promotion by the Scottish Tourist Board, especially since its budget for such work is so small, and the Secretary of State through his staff will be very well aware of whatever the Scottish Tourist Board are likely to propose. I hope that the Minister will take the point.
Again, I am concerned that a power which is being given to the Scottish Tourist Board and which we all welcome appears, from the wording in the Bill, to be given grudgingly and not in an outgoing manner at all. It is giving them something but trying all the time to say: "But we want to know all the time exactly what you are doing". It is taking any freedom away from them. So I am concerned that the Bill, which had been well received, should seem to be giving the Scottish Tourist Board not a reasonably free hand. I believe that the Minister should remove these unnecessary psychological fetters on the Scottish Tourist Board and not diminish it in the eyes of the Scottish people and of the British Tourist Authority. We should try to get away from the old "master/servant" business that I mentioned earlier. I hope the Minister will realise that Scottish tourism will be well supervised by the people of Scotland, because it is not an enormously large country. The Secretary of State, with this staff, will be able to provide many safeguards against any irresponsibility, either now or in the future. I believe that the inherent and overall power of the Secretary of State for Scotland is sufficient control without there being any need to put in this particular clause. I beg to move
Lord Gray of Contin:The Government are concerned to ensure that any overseas activities proposed by The Scottish Tourist Board will complement the British Tourist Authority's promotion efforts for Great Britain; that there is no duplication of effort between the two bodies; and that the overall Great Britain promotional effort by the British Tourist Authority remains properly coordinated. This amendment would remove the

603
obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority on the Scottish Tourist Board's overseas promotional proposals. The requirement on the Secretary of State in subsection (2) to consult the British Tourist Authority will ensure that the Authority has a voice in the shape and structure of the activities which the Scottish Tourist Board proposes to undertake overseas. It is entirely appropriate that this should be so. The British Tourist Authority will continue to be the organisation with primary responsibility for the promotion of Scotland overseas. Nothing in this Bill is designed to alter that in any way. What we propose is that the Scottish Tourist Board should supplement the British Tourist Authority's efforts. If the two bodies' activities are to dovetail, it is crucial that the BTA, the lead body, be given the opportunity to comment on the Scottish Tourist Board's activities. Scotland, after all, is to be marketed as part of Great Britain as well as in its own right. This is not, of course, to say that the British Tourist Authority will dictate what the Scottish Tourist Board should do overseas. The final decision on the Scottish Tourist Board's activities abroad will rest with the Secretary of State, who will take a view on the basis of all the advice available to him, including that of the British Tourist Authority.
I do not anticipate that the requirement of the Secretary of State to consult the BTA will cause delay. The consent provision in subsection (2) is similar to that imposed on local authorities and area tourist boards under the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. The BTA is involved in that consultation process and at no time since the procedure was introduced, some ten months ago, has there been any difficulty about obtaining the British Tourist Authority's comments quickly. I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Lords will agree that their amendment may be withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must say that the Minister's explanation rather highlights what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, that now we want to oversee the Secretary of State as well and instruct him to consult the British Tourist Authority. Surely to goodness the Secretary of State knows his duty without its being laid down exactly to him. I must say that the argument to the effect that we have to dovetail every single thing and gain the consent of both bodies does look a little thin when you consider that the Scottish Tourist Board are going to be spending £200,000 and they are hardly likely to throw it away and duplicate something that was already being done by the British Tourist Authority. I must say that it appears to me excessive, but it is not, again, a tremendous point. However, I think that the Minister could well remove these lines and improve the Bill and perhaps show a little more trust in the tourist authorities in Scotland and in the Secretary of State for Scotland, instead of hedging them in with every possible definition.
Lord Hughes: I am very surprised that the Minister of State should have reacted as he did to this amendment, which undoubtedly, I think, would improve the Bill. I particularly appreciated what my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said on the previous amendment, when he was inviting the
604
Minister of State to remember that he was the Minister of State, because when I occupied the position which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, occupies now I was given a very clear mandate from my noble friend (who was then Secretary of State for Scotland) to exercise my discretion on matters where the Bill would be neither impaired nor improved by accepting an amendment. Of course, I was in a different position from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. I did not have hordes of possible votes sitting behind me, and I had to try to be reasonable to the House and carry the House with me. Now he knows that if any of these matters are taken to a Division he will win it. That does not make the argument any better.
I should like to draw his attention to the fact that, while he points out how necessary it is that the Secretary of State should consult the British Tourist Authority before giving his consent to proposals, if the noble Lord goes a little further down the page—and I would appreciate it if he would pay attention to what I am saying and not allow himself to be distracted by his colleagues—he will see:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall—
(a) affect the power of the British Tourist Authority to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Scotland".
There is nothing in that hit saying that, before it exercises its powers. it should consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. But when the Secretary of State wants to consider something. he has to consult the British Tourist Authority.
That indicates to me that my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove are right when they say that the Government give all the impression of having allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce this Bill, but they have done it in the most grudging fashion possible and are seeking to preserve the power of the British Tourist Authority even over the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, would do more honour to his office if he exercised a little more discretion, and did not feel obliged to stick to every word or comma which appears in the Bill before the Committee today.
Lord Howie of Troon: I think that the Committee will by now be well on the way to agreeing that my noble friend Lord Carmichael must be right or, if not totally right, very nearly right. In parenthesis, let me say that it is a very good thing to see him here. He brings a great deal of expertise and distinction from another place to our deliberations.
What we should consider against this amendment is the Title of the Bill and what the Bill purports to be about. I come here not to cause trouble but to bring peace, but, as I see it, the Bill is intended to enable, to help or to assist the Scottish Tourist Board to do a variety of things. It is not to assist the British Tourist Authority to do things, estimable though the British Tourist Authority may be, and desirable as its information and help might be. The main thrust of the Bill is to help the Scottish Tourist Board to do something and, therefore, I should have thought that anything in the Bill which appeared to hinder the Scottish Tourist Board in carrying out those duties which are written into the Title of the Bill, ought to be

605
looked at fairly closely. If the provisions of the Bill are such as to hinder the Scottish Tourist Board in carrying out any of the duties which the Bill is intended to a lay upon it, we ought to think about that fairly carefully.
I should have thought that if the Bill, in Clause 1(2) which we are considering, insists that the British Tourist Authority ought to be consulted, it might be a good thing. The British Tourist Authority is a great fount of wisdom in all these matters and consulting it might be helpful. But if the duty to consult is laid upon the Scottish Tourist Board, that is certainly an inhibition between the tourist board and the duty which is laid upon it in the Title of the Bill.
The problem might not be great, nor so enormous as to be insurmountable, and we know that Secretaries of State for Scotland can get round these problems with great dexterity and adroitness. But we should think very carefully before we put into the body of a Bill an instruction which, as I see it—and I may be wrong—amounts to an inhibition on the tourist board in carrying out the duty which the Title of the Bill lays upon it.
The Minister of State is a very sensible man. We know that from his previous career in another place. we know it from the time that he has spent with us, and he has done quite a hit of work in that relatively short time. I think that he should pay very great and careful attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and think them over and wonder whether on this occasion Lord Carmichael might be right.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend to look at the word "shall". That is really the point which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is making. The Bill is putting an obligation on the Secretary of State. If the British Tourist Authority say, "But you never consulted us about this", and the Secretary of State has given his consent, he is technically in breach of the law. Is this really a very sensible burden to put upon the Secretary of State? I know that this is the very old controversy about the words "shall" and "may", but I should have thought that the word "may" would have been quite enough to cover all that is required. I fully recognise that there must be co-ordination, but it seems to me that this is putting a burden on the Secretary of State which is not necessary and which might land him in quite a lot of difficulty.
Lord Stodart of Leaston:The noble Lord, Lord Ross, quoted some words from the report which we submitted to my noble friend two years ago, and I make no bones about saying, as I said on Second Reading, that I wish that the Government were prepared to go a little further. That is what the report said and that is what I wrote my name to. I am bound to say that I think my noble friend the Minister of State is labouring under a most unfortunate burden from the remarks that were made in another place, when I believe that a Statement was made and the Minister made it emphatically clear that this would mean virtually nothing and would be of little importance to the Scottish Tourist Board. I think that that did an immense amount of harm.
606
But what I ventured to say in my Second Reading speech was that, since the report was submitted, we have made a certain amount of progress. There was a Director of Overseas Tourism appointed almost immediately to the Scottish Tourist Board. This Bill is giving an ability to the tourist hoard to promote abroad—albeit on a limited scale—and I do not think it unreasonable of me to say that, in the course of the Second Reading, I did not get the support or the acclamation which I think I was entitled to get, in view of what the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Carmichael, have been saying today. They did not say "Great stuff that Stodart Report!" All they said —and I shall quote what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said—was:
"I am glad that we have this new flexibility for the board"—
that is, the Bill as it is written—
"We welcome the Bill…I hope that this will he just the start of something". [Official Report, 29/11/83; col. 601.]
I think it is. I do not have so long an experience of Parliament as the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, but I have come firmly to the conclusion that the mills of God indeed grind slowly. I can only hope that they will grind sure in due course.
Lord Gray of Contin:I cannot add a great deal to what I said initially, when I replied to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I will, however, try to clarify one or two points which may not be fully appreciated by the Committee. First, the British Tourist Authority does not have to give its consent. The words are:
"the Secretary of State…shall…consult the British Tourist Authority".
At the end of the day, the decision about which activities the Scottish Tourist Board engages in overseas is the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no question of the British Tourist Authority having to give its consent.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk put forward the argument that we have had on so many occasions in both Houses about "shall" or "may". There are many examples of a Secretary of State being placed under an obligation to consult any number of other bodies with a view to achieving a better result in the case of the matter under consideration. This obligation does not apply just to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my noble friend is aware, there are many other instances where Secretaries of State are required to consult. I cannot really believe that by making this amendment we shall improve the Bill. The requirement is perfectly reasonable, and is well precedented.
I emphasise, because I am quite sure this point has not been fully appreciated (I come back to the first point which I made in my earlier remarks), that there is absolutely no question of the BTA having to give its consent, but it is right and reasonable that the BTA should be in the lead. As I explained earlier to the Committee, the BTA spends a very substantial sum of money upon helping to promote Scotland—a very much larger sum of money than it is intended that the Scottish Tourist Board will spend in order to supplement the efforts of the BTA. So it is reasonable and in the best interests of Scotland that the BTA should take the lead. With the BTA taking the lead,

607
Scotland will get the benefit, not only of its own promotion through the Scottish Tourist Board, but also of the British promotion which the British Tourist Authority carries out on its behalf. Far from doing anything to weaken that situation, I believe the fact that it will be strong and secure will be in Scotland's best interests. I do not believe that the amendment does anything to improve the position, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Wilson of Langside: This amendment has already occupied a good deal of time, and I hesitate to take up any more of the time of the Committee. However, I find it quite astonishing, having listened to the Minister's reply, that he has not received one word of support either from his side of the Committee or from this. The Minister has not said that he will take the matter away and look at it again. I agree with everything that, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in support of the amendment. I find it surprising that in answer to what has been said on both sides of the Committee the Minister should apparently still be reluctant to have another look at the matter, and that he is content to leave the Bill with, apparently, an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority. It is not enough to reassure us by saying that in the Bill as it stands an implied veto is not left in the hands of the British Tourist Authority.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have a great deal of sympathy for the speech of the Minister of State. There was a good deal of sense in it, but it might be worth his while to reconsider the words -shall" and "may". The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made a quite strong point. A great deal of what the Minister of State said about the input of the BTA is correct. We know about that, and we accept it. But the Minister said something which is quite important. Though he felt it was right that the BTA should be consulted, he emphasised more than once that the consent of the BTA was not necessary. It was a key point in his reply. It was a weakness in a very sound reply—a weakness in the following way. If the consent of the BTA were necessary, the word "shall" would not only make sense but would be necessary. But since the consent of the BTA is not necessary the word "shall" is unnecessary and the word "may", as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, makes a great deal more sense.
If the noble Lord the Minister of State were to reflect upon the comments which have been made in this extremely brief debate he would realise that by making the kind of change which has been suggested at a later stage of the Bill—either the large change which my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove has moved or the lesser change which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has mentioned—he would be doing the Committee a very good turn.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I had hoped that the noble Lord would give us some pleasing words about the possibility of looking again at this matter. The fact that he dealt so timidly with the previous amendment makes his performance on this one even more disgraceful. He said that there was a precedent for the
608
Secretary of State having to consult. However, they are not necessarily mandatory consultations. On previous occasions I have put down amendments to the effect that the Secretary of State should consult the trade unions. The answer I received was that the Secretary of State would do that, anyway; those words did not need to be inserted. If these words were not included, I am sure that, because this other body is there and does the bulk of the work, they would be consulted.
Because of the praise that the Minister heaped on the shoulders of the BTA, I began to wonder why there was any need for the Bill. If the situation is so good, why have the Bill? The overseas projection amounted to over £200,000. It is quite humiliating that the Secretary of State should be told that he has got to consult the BTA. The Scots are suspicious people. The Government have already announced changes relating to the BTA. One of the changes is that the chairman of the English Tourist Board is to become the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. I believe that is all the more reason for being a little more considerate of the feelings of the Scots and saying, "We don't need this".
Of course we realise that there is no power of veto here for the British Tourist Authority; but to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make this consultation is quite unnecessary. The Bill, as we read it, becomes more and more offensive. I do not believe that we want to divide the Committee; I know that my Welsh colleagues want to hear the good news about Wales—if, indeed, that be the proper phrase. I shall therefore advise my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove:I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister of State will have felt the feeling of the House on this particular amendment and realises his own particular isolation. Perhaps between now and Report stage he will reconsider the matter. In order to give him a chance to do so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I believe that this is probably the right moment to take the Statement, move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and. on Question agreed to.
House resumed.

Rate Support Grant—Wales
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
"Mr. Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement about the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1984–85. I have this afternoon announced to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance the details of the 1984–85 rate support grant settlement. Copies of the text of my statement to the consultative council

609
will be placed in the Library of the House. The rate support grant report will be laid before the House after the recess and will be debated in the usual way.
"The main features of the 1984–85 settlement confirm the intentions I announced in November. They must be seen in the context of the Government's continuing commitment to secure reductions in public expenditure. The total of relevant expenditure provision accepted for grants is £1,440 million. This comprises £1,253 million for current expenditure and £187 million for non current items. Aggregate exchequer grant will be £996 million, comprising £138.8 million for specific grants, £31 million for transport supplementary grant. £1.9 million for national parks supplementary grant and £824.3 million for the rate support grants, Domestic rate relief is unchanged at 18½ pence in the pound which costs £25.3 million, leaving £799 million for distribution as block grant.
"The settlement is a fair one. Current expenditure provision, after allowing for the 1½ per cent. reduction in authorities' national insurance surcharge from next April and the way in which housing benefit administration costs are now counted for rate support grant purposes, is £57 million or 4.8 per cent. more than the provision underlying the 1983–84 settlement.
"Aggregate exchequer grant at £996 million is £21 million or 2.2 per cent. more than the aggregate exchequer grant provision in the main rate support grant settlement for the current year. More importantly for rating purposes, it is £36 million or 3.8 per cent. higher than the amount authorities have included in their budgets for the present year.
"As in the present year and preceding one, I have set individual authority expenditure targets. Experience has shown that these are helpful to authorities in providing a degree of certainty of grant entitlement for spending at target and clearly exert a significant influence on expenditure decisions. In the light of the views expressed by the two Welsh local authority associations I have retained the same method for determining next year's expenditure targets as that used in the current year. This enables me to withhold grant in an equitable way by ensuring that the amount of grant withheld from an authority is directly related to its own overspending and not to the expenditure decisions of other authorities.
"The targets I have set are very tough for some authorities—but are reasonable for all. Every authority's target gives a cash increase in its current expenditure: the minimum increase is 11 per cent. and the maximum 6 per cent., after making allowance for the reduction in the national insurance surcharge next year and a modest amount of budget drift.
"The grant withholding penalty for spending in excess of targets has been strengthened. As in the present year the amount of grant withheld for excess expenditure up to 1 per cent. above target is 40 per cent. of that excess but above that level the rate of holdback increases progressively with a maximum rate of 90 per cent. for authorities spending 5 per cent. or more above target: this compares with a
610
maximum rate of grant withholding in the current year of 75 per cent. at 6 per cent. spending above target. I am retaining the grant protection arrangements already adopted whereby any authority spending at or below target will be exempted from both grant holdback and close-ending. Similarly the limitation of grant holdback for low rateable resource authorities set in the present year will be retained for 1984–85.
"Block grant will be distributed in accordance with the grant related expenditure formulae agreed by the Welsh local authority associations. I have decided to retain the existing block grant mechanisms which determine the distribution of block grant before holdback and the same safety net for limiting grant losses associated with changes in GRE—a maximum 4 pence loss at the county level and 1 pence loss at the district level.
"There is a continuing need for restraint in local government expenditure. Some progress has been made on this front but there is still some way to go. Since 1978–79 local government current expenditure in Wales has risen by about 2 per cent. more than the increase in costs for the economy as a whole. We must reverse this trend. The realistic increases in expenditure provision and aggregate exchequer grant for 1984–85 should enable authorities to maintain reasonable service standards provided pay settlements are kept down and authorities continue and reinforce their efforts to secure greater efficiency and economy and better value for money. In this respect I note that the latest joint manpower watch figures, which are being released today, confirm that staff numbers in Wales have risen by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September. This alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year, after making allowance for the effect of a grant holdback. Clearly if authorities are to meet their targets for next year this growth of manpower must he reversed. I appreciate of course that authorities have difficult choices of priority to make but that applies in all areas of public expenditure, including my own programmes.
"What happens to rates next year will of course depend on the decisions of authorities themselves. Here I will simply make two points. Authorities can on average increase their net revenue expenditure next year by nearly 4 per cent. and still spend in line with targets. And if authorities spend at this level and apply only half of the balances they have applied in the present year, rate increases would average only 1 per cent. Indeed, rates could fall if authorities applied balances to the same extent as in the current year.
"These figures are a very far cry from some of those which have been bandied about: for example the average rate increase of 17 per cent. reported in the press. I regard this figure as wildly exaggerated and simply do not believe it. It would imply about a 7 per cent. increase in net revenue expenditure which I am sure authorities in general will not seek to impose on their ratepayers. Furthermore, rates this year on average rose by less than 1 per cent. despite earlier local authority forecasts—and forecasts by Opposition Members in this

611
House—that average rate levels in Wales would be into double figures.
"I conclude by repeating that the settlement is a fair and reasonable one. I am confident that local authorities. like the Government, want to keep rate increases down to the absolute minimum. Low rate increases benefit all sectors of the community: industry, commerce and domestic ratepayers alike. It is now for each local authority to take its own spending decisions in the light of the settlement provision and of the effect of their decisions on ratepayers as a whole."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. This is another complex Statement which we shall need to study very carefully. I hope that there will be opportunities in due course to debate this Statement as well as the English and Scottish Statements on the rate support grants.
Is the noble Baroness aware that because of the very high unemployment figures in Wales, local authorities occupy a position of special importance both as employers of labour and as providers of services—for example, home help and other social assistance in communities where poverty is. unfortunately. only too evident at this time? May I point out to the noble Baroness that in aggregate the spending of Welsh local authorities has in fact been economical and very close to the totals allowed for in RSG settlements? Yet the Statement says that the targets are very tough for some authorities. Could the noble Baroness be a little more explicit and say which authorities the Government are going to be tough with and why; what is the reason for this toughness? Does it follow that in some areas the increases in the ratepayers' share of the total will mean rate bills going up substantially?
The Statement seems to me to give the impression—although here I must make plain that I have not yet had an opportunity to digest it as I should wish—that there are going to be no cuts. Could the noble Baroness say what will be the position in real terms if inflation goes up by 4.5 per cent., which I think is the Government's estimate, although there are many who think that inflation will go up by 6 per cent. or more? But even if the figure is 4.5 per cent., does not that mean that in real terms local authorities are going to suffer a cut?
Furthermore, the Government say that the local authorities can save by increased efficiency and economy. Does not the noble Baroness realise that the local authorities are in fact bearing extra costs as a direct result of Government policy? For example, direct labour organisation legislation, publication of information, response to MSC initiatives, sale of council houses—all these are the result of Government policies. Furthermore, there is the transfer of work from the Civil Service offices into the town halls throughout the country and throughout Wales; for example, in regard to unified housing benefits, statutory sick pay schemes, proposals for the alteration of valuation lists, and so on.
612
The noble Baroness has repeated the Statement indicating that staff numbers in local authorities in Wales have risen—I am quoting now—by about 1,000 over the 12 months to last September, and this alone must have cost ratepayers about £15 million in the current year. Is the noble Baroness aware that these increases are the result of Government policy? This is not a deliberate step by the local authorities, although, frankly, as one who lives in Wales and sympathises with unemployment there, I would sympathise with local authorities for increasing jobs in order to find work for people. Is the noble Baroness aware that the increases to which she has referred are the result of the Government policies to which I have referred?
Is she further aware that the Government's policies must result in real cuts in the standards of services in many areas? Is she aware that the standards of service and efficiency of Welsh local authorities are recognised to be of high quality and that the grant holdback represents a significant increase in the severity of that scheme? Is it not inequitable and harsh that relatively minor variations should result in severe grant penalties of up to 90 per cent? Is the noble Baroness aware that the task of councillors and officials in Welsh local authorities in communities which are suffering more and more as a result of Government policy is going to be virtually impossible and this really is a matter which must be criticised severely? Can the noble Baroness therefore give the House an undertaking that this matter will be looked at very carefully before damaging cuts are inflicted on local authorities with splendid records of public service?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, should like to express from these Benches our thanks to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I share almost entirely the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Is the Minister aware that many of the Welsh local authorities believe that their rate bills will have to rise by at least twice the rate of inflation, since the total cash available for local authority services, according to the Statement, is only up by 2.2 per cent. on the £996 million available? That means that there has been a cut from 70.4 per cent. to 69 per cent. in the RSG.
Is the Minister also aware that the Welsh local authority treasurers, after the Secretary of State had had initial consultations with them, did not accept the view of the Secretary of State for Wales, who believed that the average rate rises for Wales would be below inflation? The district councils in Wales believe that their average rate rises will be at least twice the rate of inflation; that is, between 8 and 12 per cent. The only way for them to ease that rate burden, apart from severe cuts in services, is by imposing huge rises in council house rents. Can the noble Baroness tell us how much of the £138.8 million for specific grants is to help to meet the costs of the 60,000 home improvement grant applications already in the pipeline, which the Welsh authorities were hoping they would have some assistance with in the block grant? Is the Minister aware that we shall be watching the results of the RSG settlements, both for Wales and for the rest of the United Kingdom, with considerable interest in the future? I trust that we are not going to be able to say later that the rate support grant this year

613
was deliberately engineered to produce higher than average rate rises in order to get public support for Government measures to come for rate capping.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their reception of this Statement. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that this is a very complicated subject. As to the question of a debate on this subject as on the English rate support grant, that would, of course, be a matter for the usual channels, who I am sure have taken note of what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a great many questions, and, if I may, I will try to deal with them in turn. He first of all asked about the increase in numbers of local authority employees in Wales and said that some of these were due to the Government's putting on to Welsh local authorities services which they would not otherwise have had. I would confirm that all the increase in manpower, the 1,000 increase in manpower over this last year, is in the county tier authorities, which have not been affected by the transferred functions that the noble Lord mentioned.
The noble Lord asked me which authorities would be affected, when I said that the effect would be tough on some authorities. In a sense, the answer was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The targets will be very much affected by the element of the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will understand, the changeable element in the targets set, which can be tough on some authorities and less tough on others, is determined by the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. This reflects the exercise of local discretion in setting increases in rents. If authorities decide not to increase their rents in line with the increase in the local contribution assumed by central Government when setting housing subsidy levels, then, of course, the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account will he higher than that component of the authorities' targets. So an authority ought not to be surprised at the way that this is worked and the results that it will have.
As far as the increase in the severity on the holdback is concerned, here the rate of grant withholding is exactly the same as in the current year for authorities spending up to 1 per cent. over their targets, but the penalties increase on a sliding scale rapidly over that percentage. The intention is, of course, to squeeze the overspenders in this particular way in order to keep down the total level of expenditure. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that many Welsh local authorities think that their rate bills will rise by very considerable amounts. The noble Baroness will understand from the answer I have already given to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that this will depend very largely on the amount of rate fund contribution that is made to the housing revenue account. We do not believe that the sort of figures that have been talked of will in fact be necessary if local authorities are prepared to consider their costs, which is a very important matter, and are also prepared to use some of their balances. Some authorities did that this year, with some success in keeping down the rate fund contribution.
614
On the point raised by the noble Baroness concerning consultation with the Welsh authorities I am of course aware of the view that they have taken about the rate support grant and that they are opposed in principle to the expenditure targets, and have said so. But 1 understand that the Welsh authorities pressed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to retain the same methodology for constructing the targets for this coming year as that used in the current year, and that has in fact been done.
The last question raised by the noble Baroness related to home improvement grants. I understand that the proportion out of the £138.8 million is about £40 million.
Lord Elwyn-Jones:My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether the Government can take steps to compensate Welsh towns such as Llanelly, which has suffered grievously through the closure of factories like Duport Steel and the Carmarthen Bay power station, by making special provision for a new infrastructure in these greatly suffering communities to enable industrial enterprise to be recreated in towns which, I am sorry to say, by reason of Government policy, at any rate to a considerable degree, have become rather derelict in the course of the past four years?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord about Welsh towns. My understanding of the position is that Welsh local authorities have discretion within their spending targets to determine how they spend their money. I would not be in a position to comment on particular capital spending in any particular authority, at least not without notice, but my understanding is that where there are these cases it is possible for the town to use some if its money in that way.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the noble and learned Lord's question was very pertinent and should be taken into account, the Government must look at it in a wider sphere? People are unemployed in other parts of the country because the rate burden, on top of other tax burdens, is making it impossible for firms to give the high level of employment that they could if greater efficiency and more stringency on spending came about. It is not only a matter of local councils, and the effect on certain authorities, but the fact that the overall effect of high rates and high taxes is interfering with any attempt which can be made to reduce the high unemployment figures.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I think I am right in saying that overall about 60 per cent. of the rate bill is paid by industry and this affects their ability to employ more people.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the Statement, allied to the Statements in relation to Scotland and England, and the Bill published today, bring into high relief the whole future of democratic local government in this country? If, for example, in an economic depression

615
local authorities are forbidden, in reality, to do some relief work which the Government refuses to do, what is to be the future?
Baroness Young:No, my Lords, I cannot accept that. I accept this is a tough settlement, but we believe that it is achievable. It is worth remembering that last year 32 out of the 45 Welsh authorities achieved their targets and have shown that it is possible to do so. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that it is the duty of the Government to fix total expenditure levels, for all the reasons we have given, and that it is central to our economic policy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords, will the noble Baroness deal with one short question? Will she confirm that if inflation runs at the Government's predicted figure of 4½per cent. there will be a cut in the grant in real terms?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the general estimate for the future rate of inflation is 4.8 per cent., as it is now, or perhaps lower. We believe it is important that when fixing their wages local authorities must take account of the 3 per cent. increase that the Government have given as a guideline on wage settlements. Furthermore, we believe that local authorities must continue to ensure that they are getting value for money and look for good housekeeping in the way that they spend their money. Given those aspects and the other points I have made, we believe that it is possible for authorities to keep within the targets which have been set.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, coming back to my noble friend's point, does not the noble Baroness accept that if the Government fix all spending, and force the local authorities so to do, there will be no incentive for the ratepayers and the electors in a district to get rid of their authority or its members?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government have fixed expenditure levels, but within those there is wide variation between authorities on what they choose to do. Some authorities have got themselves into difficulties because, for example, they have not increased rents by the amounts suggested and on the basis of which the grant will be calculated. There is discretion for local authorities, and it is therefore within the right of the electors to choose, if they so wish, to change the council at local elections.

British Shipbuilders: Britoil Contract
4.27 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about the contract between Britoil and British Shipbuilders.
616
"In December 1981 Scott Lithgow contracted with Britoil to produce a semi-submersible drilling rig. The contract value was £88.6 million, and the contractual delivery date was April 1984. Construction began in February 1982.
"By March 1983, British Shipbuilders had provided for losses of £43.8 million on the rig. The then Chairman, Sir Robert Atkinson. warned that performance and losses at Scott Lithgow were unacceptable.
"On 31st October 1983, Britoil were sufficiently concerned about progress on the contract to issue through its agents a notice requiring Scott Lithgow to demonstrate within 30 days that the rig could be completed by February 1985.
"Scott Lithgow responded to Britoil by arguing that, despite the undoubted delays on the contract hitherto, completion would be possible within the terms of the contract.
"However, on 19th December a notice of cancellation was served on behalf of Britoil on the basis that Scott Lithgow had not demonstrated that the rig could be delivered by February 1985.
"British Shipbuilders have responded to the cancellation notice by disputing its validity, and I understand that they have now instituted legal proceedings. While British Shipbuilders and Britoil are considering the next step in this negotiation, all work on the rig will be stopped. British Shipbuilders are instructing suppliers to suspend work on contracts relating to the rig. Up to 2,000 members of the workforce are involved in construction of the rig. The remainder of the workforce—approximately 2,250 men—are employed on two other contracts: one for BP and one for the Ministry of Defence. It is British Shipbuilders' intention that these contracts will continue.
"Unemployment in this area is already high and a further increase of the scale implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern to the Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has this morning met the Scottish TUC and told them that he would of course seek to do all he can to alleviate the very real distress that would be caused in the local community. However, the offshore industry is highly competitive and customers insist upon contractors—including management and workforce—delivering on quality, price and time. Regrettably, Scott Lithgow so far appears to have been unable to satisfy Britoil that it can fulfil its obligations on this contract."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. He will perhaps forgive me if initially I say that the Statement is set out in terms that amount to a debonair detachment from the real problems that are involved. The Statement is indeed a very grave one. There is not only the possibility that 4,000 people will be unemployed ultimately as a result of the loss of the contract. There is also the possibility that a mortal blow will be dealt at the whole oil rig construction industry in the United

617
Kingdom. These are matters which should be of considerable concern to the Government. They cannot leave things exactly where they are.
It is difficult when matters are at issue between parties, as at this time they appear to be between British Shipbuilders and Britoil, to elicit from published statements much information as to the relative culpability of either party. As is well known, when contracts are delayed certain rights attach to the customer. These often give rise to disputes between the parties as to the real reasons why there have been delays. Anyone who has had experience in construction generally or in the building construction industry well knows that there can be changes or modifications in design half way through the contract or defaults in the case of nominated sub-contractors at certain parts of the contract, all of which can contribute to delay.
The statement that by March 1983 £43.8 million had been lost on a contract the total value of which was £88.6 million is absolutely astounding. The loss cannot be accounted for merely by restrictive practices on the part of the workforce, which is an argument that may be in the minds of some noble Lords. There must have been a considerable miscalculation. As I understand it, the contract is about 30 per cent. complete. It requires considerable explanation as to how half of the contract value has been lost within the first year of the work. Did the noble Lord or his right honourable friend know in the spring or early summer of 1983 that those losses had already taken place? If so, surely that merited active intervention by the Government to see what was going wrong.
The noble Lord states that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today met Scottish TUC representatives and told them that he will do all he can to alleviate any hardship that might conceivably arise. However, another statement has been made by the Secretary of State on BBC radio, which the noble Lord may or may not he able to confirm. It is to the effect that there is still a six-week breathing space before matters become absolute and still the possibility of negotiation between the parties. If that is so, far be it for me to say anything that will in any way prejudice the success of these negotiations. But, if there is a six-week breathing space—and I hope that the noble Lord will he able to confirm this—I suggest that, in view of the national importance of this industry, it is the Government's duty at any rate to investigate the claims being put forward by the respective parties and to assist them in arriving at a solution. The matter certainly cannot be left where it is.
On this side of the House we hope that the Government will accept that their responsibility is to do everything that they can—if necessary by ministerial guidance and advice—to ensure that some settlement is reached within the six-week period. In particular, they ought to investigate the position in regard to the representations made by Britoil about requesting British Shipbuilders to demonstrate that it could complete by February 1985. In shipping terms that is known conventionally as the "drop dead" date. According to the statement, Scott Lithgow argues that it could complete, whereas Britoil says that it is not satisfied. Surely there is scope for investigation by the
618
Government in that matter. I sincerely hope that they will take active steps to do that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for his Statement. In many senses the situation is a tragedy. It seems that this Christmas is associated with tragedy, and this particular tragedy appears to be self-inflicted. I live within a few miles of Scott Lithgow's yard and can readily visualise the real depth of the tragedy in a district which already has 20 per cent. unemployment. The number who will be thrown out of work on the loss of this particular contract will be about 2,000. The viability of the whole yard will also be brought into question since it has on its books only the two remaining contracts mentioned by the Minister. That would probably mean that the number of people unemployed would be increased by 4,000 as a result of the closure of Scott Lithgow. Ships have been built there at the tail of the bank since 1711.
Is the Minister aware that in that yard British Shipbuilders spent £13½ million last year in modernising the plant? This decision reported today represents a colossal waste, not only of its investment of public money but also of thousands of skilled workers who are being thrown on the scrap heap. Has the Minister taken into account, when he makes the calculations reported in the Statement, the national implications of this decision? In Scotland we have been building up a new industry, based on our experience of North Sea oil. Does he realise the implications of the closure if this rig, which is one-third completed, is towed away to Japan, South Korea or France for completion? This would have very serious implications, not only for Scott Lithgow but for the whole image of this new industry on which so many of our hopes in Scotland are based.
Will the Minister accept that while he recites a very sad story of delays, this is, in fact, a very highly sophisticated rig? In fact, it is the most advanced rig in the world. It is dealing in technologies of which we have little previous experience. The rig is designed to work in depths of 4,500 feet in the hostile waters of the Atlantic, and this has never been previously achieved in this new technology without anchors. Will he accept that there are probably responsibilities on all sides for the difficulties that have now arisen? Will he also accept that it is easy but not always helpful to attribute all the difficulties and blame to the workforce of Scott Lithgow?
Will the noble Lord accept that the closure of Scott Lithgow and the closure of the rig building activities at that yard have serious implications for the steel industry in Scotland and also implications for Ravenscraig? Will the Minister tell us a little of what the Secretary of State for Scotland promised in his negotiations with the TUC? To be helpful in relieving distress is one thing: to intervene in this serious situation and to try to knock heads together is another. I hope that it is that positive approach, rather than the prospect of social security, that is going to be offered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Finally, will the Minister read The Scotsman of today—a newspaper not unfriendly to the Government? It says that,

619
"those who sought to allocate blame for the difficulties now facing Scott-Lithgow were following an irresponsible quest which can produce only a fruitless outcome".
It points out:
"The customer and the supplier will desert their social and industrial responsibilities if they do anything other than to seek to resolve their differences…".
This dispute is between two industries in which the state has a substantial responsibility. British Shipbuilders is 100 per cent. state owned. Britoil is 48 per cent. state owned. Is it beyond the capacity of Government to bring these industries together before this tragedy has its full impact on the Clyde? I hope that the Minister will encourage us a little on this account.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that the Statement indicated "a debonair detachment". I must take issue immediately with his comment. The Statement said specifically that a further increase of the scale of unemployment implied by the cancellation of this order would be a matter of deep concern for the Government. I agree entirely with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that this is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for Scotland. It is a tragedy for British Shipbuilders. It is a tragedy for the management. It is a tragedy for the workforce. Let there be no question about that.
But, equally, it is a clear illustration of what happens when people are not prepared to come to terms with the problems of the world in which they live. There have been great deficiencies, both in management and on the part of the workforce in Scott Lithgow. I am not attempting to apportion blame. I could go into the matter in great detail. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, admitted that it was not merely the result of restrictive practices. I agree with him. The restrictive practices have played a considerable part. We are threatened, in fact, with a national strike in order to maintain restrictive practices, which hardly seems to be the right way of dealing with the kind of problems with which British Shipbuilders is faced.
There is a long history of difficulties in the Scott Lithgow yard. It has made very large losses over a period of years. There is nothing new about this. All of these facts are on the record. They appear in the published accounts of British Shipbuilders. Over the years, since nationalisation, Scott Lithgow has lost£165 million, which is 38 per cent. of the total losses made by British Shipbuilders. In the year 1982–83 alone—these figures are in the published accounts —Scott Lithgow lost £66 million out of a total loss by British Shipbuilders of £117 million. So there is no question but that the problems confronting Scott Lithgow have been well known, have been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the press, and, indeed, have been raised in this House by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, who has repeatedly pressed me on the progress being made in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked if this was the end of the United Kingdom's off-shore rig capacity. The answer is "No". Within British Shipbuilders there is Cammell Laird, which has an
620
established position in the construction of both semi-submersible and jack-up rigs. Harland and Wolff also has suitable facilities for mobile off-shore structures. In the private sector, UIE at Clydebank has an excellent record and there are a number of other firms with a good record in this field, including Highland Fabricators and McDermott's who are jointly building a floating production platform for Sonoco, and Howard Doris who have tendered in competition with Cammell Laird for Sun Oil's semi-submersible floating production facility. So there are other facilities available.
So far as the merits or demerits of the case are concerned, a writ has been issued. The matter is now before the courts and it is sub judice. It is not therefore open to me to comment on the merits of the cases put forward either by British Shipbuilders, on the one hand, or by Britoil, on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to a six weeks' breathing space before these matters become finalised. Here again, one of the major issues in the litigation is whether or not the notice of cancellation served by Britoil is a valid notice. The noble Lord will not therefore expect me to comment further on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made a passionate plea for intervention by the Government. But the simple truth of the matter here is that this is a commercial dispute between British Shipbuilders and its customer. A very substantial loss has already been made. There are likely to be further losses incurred. The Government have provided a very large amount of finance for British Shipbuilders and this was a matter which I touched upon in the Bill that your Lordships recently passed dealing with the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders. But as regards an individual order, it is not right for the Government to intervene.
Lord Beswick:My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is simply a dispute between Britoil and Scott Lithgow. But has the noble Lord done the sums about the cost to the British Government if the rig is cancelled? What would be the additional loss which would have to be met by the Government? What would be the loss in revenue from the income tax which otherwise would be paid by the workers? What would be the cost to the state of maintaining those workers if they were thrown out of work?
Lord Cockfield:My Lords, the noble Lord believes that the Government should intervene in this individual case. We do not think it is a matter for the Government to intervene. As far as British Shipbuilders as a whole are concerned, their total loss last year was £117 million, of which not less than £66 million related to Scott Lithgow. Exactly what the future level of losses will be, either for Scott Lithgow generally or in relation to this particular order, must depend upon the outcome of the litigation.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, with respect, I did not advance any opinion as to whether or not the Government should intervene. I asked a question. I asked, first, what would be the direct cost to the Government of the additional loss: secondly, what would be the cost to the Government of the loss of

621
revenue if the workers are no longer earning; and, thirdly, what would be the loss to the Government if the Government had to maintain these workers by way of social security.
Lord Cockfield:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for not advocating that the Government should intervene. As regards the rest of his questions, I did, frankly, answer them. The financial consequences depend upon the outcome of the litigation and any negotiations which may take place between British Shipbuilders and Britoil.
Lord Howie of Troon:My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister accept that not many of us in this House see him as being detached from this problem, debonair or otherwise? At the same time, will he realise that his Statement seemed to chide the management and the workforce, and they alone, for what must be a very complex problem, and that that hardly seems sufficient in the circumstances? Will he turn his mind to some of the matters which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington raised? What part, if any, was played in these regrettable delays by design changes or other alterations in the requirements of the customer? What part has been played by delays or difficulties in supply by sub-contractors, whether nominated, as my noble friend said, or otherwise? What part, if any, has been played by the difficulties among suppliers? All of these matters are important, and all of them contribute towards something which the noble Lord the Minister has quite rightly recognised as a tragedy. However, in view of the difficulties of the situation will he recognise that, while he says that he blames nobody, he does seem to blame two groups when they may not be entirely to blame?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, no man is an island entire unto himself, and any tragedy which occurs affects all of us. I do not think that there is any dispute between any of your Lordships on that point. Nobody is attempting to pretend that this situation is not a tragedy. There is a point of difference as to the extent to which the Government ought to intervene in a situation of this kind, but let me not pursue that any further at the present juncture.
The noble Lord raised a number of specific points. I entirely agree with him that they are all important, but they are all points directly related to the litigation which is now in progress, and it would therefore, I fear, be improper for me to comment upon them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord a little further. When the noble Lord made reference to the breathing space referred to by me, he did not at the same time confirm or deny that it was his right honourable friend who, according to the BBC, said that six weeks remained to consider and settle the matter between the parties. Will the noble Lord confirm or deny that those words, or substantially those words, were used by his right honourable friend? On the assumption that they were used, surely the noble Lord will agree that, notwithstanding the observations he has correctly made about matters sub judice, it would be in order for the Government to assist the two parties to arrive at some agreement during the six weeks which, according to his
622
right honourable friend, remain for the matter to be considered and settled between the parties?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have not seen the text of the statement to which the noble Lord refers, and I would hesitate to make any comment upon it, particularly as one relevant point is when the statement was made. I do not want to go into an excessive degree of detail on this, but the contract provides for notice to be served within a 30-day period. The contract can extend 300 days after the delivery date. Some of the points in issue in the litigation are whether valid notice was served within that 30-day period and whether or not the rig could be completed within the further 300 days allowed under the contract. But we are treading on very thin ice at the moment because the whole of this matter is the subject of litigation, and I really ought not to comment further on the merits or demerits of the arguments being advanced.
Lord Wilson of Langside:My Lords, in that situation, can the Minister tell the House whether any estimate has been made of how prolonged or otherwise this litigation is likely to be, and whether or not any action is open to them to expedite the matter?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's first question is, I fear: No, I do not know how long it will take. The noble and learned Lord himself is well aware—and I have to be very careful—that sometimes the law proceeds with greater speed than it does on other occasions. The Government have no plans, and nor. indeed, are they in any position to intervene in the litigation.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill: read a first time.

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.59 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that, if in the judgment of the Scottish Tourist Board the time required to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State and to consult with the British Tourist Authority as aforesaid would be likely to result in the opportunity to carry on the particular activity under consideration being lost or prejudiced to the detriment of the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities in Scotland, then the Scottish Tourist Board may proceed without such consent and after such consultation with the British Tourist Authority as they consider administratively desirable and necessary to carry on that particular activity.").
The noble and learned Lord said: One returns, as one often does in your Lordships' House, from the tragedy of Greenock to the minor problems of the overseas promotion of Scottish tourism with a horrible sense of anti-climax. However, this a very simple, uncomplicated amendment, and one which I am sure

623
will commend itself to the Minister, who is nothing if not an altogether reasonable man.
The purpose of the amendment, as appears on the face of it, is to reduce to prospects of possible bureaucratic delays, and perhaps inefficiency, in seeking the consent of the Secretary of State and carrying out the necessary consultations with the British Tourist Authority. One can well understand that in the ordinary run of case no doubt the matter of seeking consent and carrying out consultation can be completed without difficulty, but from what I have heard said in public about the working of the Scottish Tourist Board I get the impression that there may be situations in which it is essential to reach a quick decision on the activity proposed to be embarked upon overseas. I assume that the Minister would be anxious to reduce such delays and will have investigated—and I hope that he can tell us something about it—the situations which may arise where the Scottish Tourist Board has to seek this consent and to have carried out by the Secretary of State the consultations with the British Tourist Authority.
Of course, one does not want to be rude about the Scottish Office, but, like delays in the law to which reference has been made, the Scottish Office does not always work with extraordinary speed. I do not need to dwell on that. However, from the point of view of the practical working of the Scottish Tourist Board, I am a little anxious about this matter, because there must often be situations in which speed of decision is vital and contacts are made with people overseas, and opportunities for the development of Scottish tourism may be lost. If that is wrong, I should like to be assured by the Minister—and I think that the Committee would wish to be assured by the Minister—that there is no danger of anything of this sort arising from time to time.
That is all there is to the amendment. It seeks to give the Scottish Tourist Board a discretion to exercise its judgment, whether it needs to go through the process required of it by the Bill as it at present stands or, in special circumstances, to dispense with the need either for seeking the consent or not dispensing entirely with the need for consultation with the tourist authority, but rather consulting direct with the authority instead of through the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that this amendment will commend itself to the Minister, who I know is a reasonable man and dislikes the unacceptable face of bureaucracy just as much as do the rest of us. So I await with interest his acceptance of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This is an interesting amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could use it to give us some indication of a number of points, including the nature of the consultation that is likely to take place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has raised the question of the time taken to carry out these consultations. It would be interesting if the noble Lord the Minister of State has any information as to how long a consultation on specific promotions will take. I agree that long-term plans will be laid periodically. For instance, can he tell us how many people in St. Andrew's House, or wherever else in Edinburgh they
624
happen to be in the Scottish Civil Service, deal exclusively or largely with the Scottish Tourist Board, and what sort of relationship they have with the Scottish Tourist Board? I can understand that an amendment as long as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, would, from my experience, not be acceptable to a Government department. However, I am sure that the sentiment in it is something that I should be only too happy to support.
Even in these circumstances, and given the well-worn formula that the Minister accepts it in principle but will take it away to look at the wording again, perhaps we could get that concession from him. He has been rather tardy about giving us concessions so far. Perhaps he could also, if not immediately then before the end of the debate, give us some idea of the other points—namely, the nature of the consultation and the number of Scottish civil servants actually involved with tourism.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for the way in which he moved this amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the very reasonable attitude which he takes to it. The amendment would permit the Scottish Tourist Board in certain circumstances to disregard the obligation imposed on it under subsection (2) of Clause 1 to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before promoting Scotland overseas.
The amendment provides that, where the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or lead to the loss of promotion opportunities, it may proceed without Secretary of State approval, undertaking only such consultations with the British Tourist Authority as it thinks fit.
The amendment as drafted would negate the purposes of subsection (2). The Scottish Tourist Board. which in the Bill as currently drafted is under an obligation to obtain the Secretary of State's consent, would by this amendment itself be entitled to determine whether to disregard the consent requirement. There would be little point in imposing a statutory obligation on a body if that body were itself entitled to decide when to disregard it. I think, therefore, that as a matter of logic I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.
I recognise, however, that in tabling this amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, may be concerned to probe the mechanics of the consent procedure and to guard against any possibility that the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals could get silted up in time-consuming bureaucratic procedures. I wholly share the concern of the noble and learned Lord in this matter. But I assure the Committee again, as I did at Second Reading, that the consent procedure is designed as a final check on the compatibility of the Scottish Tourist Board's and the British Tourist Authority's programmes, not as an exhaustive appraisal of the tourism merits of the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals.
It may be helpful to refer to the comments made during debate on the provision in the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, on which this subsection is modelled. Then, too, concern was expressed that the requirement on local

625
authorities and area tourist boards to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to their overseas promotion proposals would lead to delay and possibly to the loss of promotion opportunities. This is exactly what the noble and learned Lord has in mind. Experience has since confirmed our view that such proposals can be dealt with expeditiously—they are, in fact. processed within a matter of days of their receipt by my department. And a special accelerated procedure for urgent applications ensures that there is no loss of promotion opportunities. The procedure applying to the approval of the Scottish Tourist Board's programme should be no more complex or time-consuming than that followed in relation to the approval of local authorities' proposals. Indeed, since the Scottish Tourist Board will, each year, be submitting its programme of overseas promotions for the year ahead for the Secretary of State's approval well in advance of the promotion season, there is little risk of delay resulting from the consent requirement. May I emphasise, too, that, since we fully expect continued close liaison between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board on overseas promotion proposals, the Secretary of State's separate consultations with the British Tourist Authority should normally be only a fail-safe measure.
I do not believe, however, that there will be any delay by the British Tourist Authority in considering any request for views. I am confident that the BTA will play its full part promptly in the consent procedure. The BTA has a statutory right to advise any Minister on tourism matters in Great Britain, and is expert in this advisory function. I hope that I have been able to allay the noble and learned Lord's concern about the impact of the consent provision in the Scottish Tourist Board's plans, and I hope that he may feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Before I sit down, however, I should like to deal with the two points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The number of civil servants engaged in tourism in the particular functions to which he referred amount to four and a half. From his own ministerial experience, he will realise that it is not unusual to cut civil servants in two when giving such figures. I have touched upon the nature of consultation briefly already: it is to ensure that there is not a duplication between the projects entered into by the British Tourist Authority and those of the Scottish Tourist Board, and the nature of the consultation can be from a wide-ranging consultation to merely ascertaining the dates on which certain projects are to take place.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove:Can the noble Lord tell us whether, in consequence of this Bill, the number of civil servants devoted to Scottish tourism will rise, and whether perhaps they will get to a round figure from now on?
Lord Gray of Contin: There is no likelihood of any rise in the number of civil servants overall. Whether there may from time to time be justification for a slight apportionment to bring them up to five, or down to four, will remain to be seen, but it is not likely that there will be any major change. The Scottish Tourist Board itself considers that it will be able to carry out
626
the new responsibilities given to it principally from within its own numbers.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is not the noble Lord the Minister being uncharacteristically harsh in accusing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, of trying to negate the provisions of subsection (2)? I do not think that that is his intention, although the amendment is longer than the kind of amendments I am used to; nor, as I heard his speech, was he intending so much to negate the provisions as to make the provisions more reasonable. Is that not a reasonable thing for a reasonable man like the Minister to want to do?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in his amendment begins with the word "Provided". The very word "provided" indicates that he is not trying to negate the provisions of the Bill. It sets a body of circumstances in which the harsh rigour of subsection (2) might be ameliorated. Within these provisions it seems to me sensible that the noble and learned Lord should ask for the provisions of the Bill to be ameliorated. If we refer back to the discussions we had on the earlier amendments some little while ago the Minister will understand why the provisions should be ameliorated, and I have no intention of repeating the arguments because we have but a short while here and we do not want to overstay our welcome.
I was a little taken aback by the Minister's assertion, or apparent assertion, that the department would deal with any matter expeditiously. It is not my experience of the Civil Service that they deal with things expeditiously—not even the Scottish Department. They deal with them as rapidly as they may, of that I have no doubt, but I think that expeditiously is too much to claim. All that the noble and learned Lord was asking for, as I understood it. was that in certain circumstances where speed was of the essence the Scottish Tourist Board should be able to act with vigour, haste, and immediacy without being held back by the provisions of the Bill.
I am perfectly willing to have the Minister tell me that Lord Wilson's amendment, as drafted, goes perhaps further than that modest intention, and the Minister, I think, would be right if he were to say that, but the intention is that the Minister should apply his mind not merely to the wording of the amendment. The Minister should say, "Lord Wilson of Langside's intention is sound, the principle is sound, and the principle should be accepted: the Bill should be drafted in such a way as to make that principle appropriate in law and in practice". I hope that the Minister will take heed of these words, which are meant to be advisory, friendly, and helpful.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: May I proceed to be helpful too? What this amendment by my noble and learned friend does is highlight the position of the Scottish Tourist Board and the amount of difficulties which hedge it around. Perhaps I may take a practical example. The situation that I envisage happening very easily is that the Scottish Tourist Board will find out that in the programme which they may or may not have had from the British Tourist Authority an

627
important promotion has been neglected or left out, or there may be an outright disagreement with the British Tourist Authority, which I would imagine the budget given to the Scottish Tourist Authority is designed to correct. If they feel deeply that a certain promotion should be undertaken and that there is only a certain amount of time to get in on it, then they should be able to act quickly.
The Minister should now take the advice on a previous amendment of his noble friend Lord Selkirk and, instead of being forced to waste a lot of time in negotiations with the British Tourist Authority in consultations, he will be able by using the word "may" to listen to the reasonable case of the Scottish Tourist Board and authorise them to go ahead. The amendment raises the points that we have been making on previous occasions.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment for what they have said. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, were perhaps a little sensitive to the criticisms of my drafting, which I thought was at least as comprehensive as what the draftsmen often produce for our delectation. However, the amendment as it stands was essentially, as the Minister said, a probing amendment, and in the light of what he has said—and I hope he will give serious regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said—
Lord Howie of Troon:I have a horrible feeling that the noble and learned Lord is about to withdraw his amendment. Does he wish to withdraw before the Minister has had a chance to reply to these probing points put to him?
Lord Wilson of Langside:I had rather thought that I would withdraw at this stage. I had overlooked the circumstance that the Minister had not replied. I am sorry. I thought that we had been on these amendments for quite a long time.
Lord Gray of Contin:I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that we have been some considerable time on them, and I do not feel that I can make any great further contribution. But as a matter of courtesy I shall try to deal with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, raised and which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made. I shall deal with Lord Mackie's point first. He said there might be a case where there could he outright disagreement. Of course if there was outright disagreement then the will of the Secretary of State for Scotland would be the deciding factor. I explained earlier that the British Tourist Authority is consulted, but the decision is not dependent on its consent. The decision would ultimately be with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, suggested that I was accusing his noble friend of trying to negate something. What I was trying to explain was, like it or like it not, that would be the effect of the amendment: but as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, it was a probing amendment. We have considered the
628
possibility and I have tried to explain what the effect would have been.
If the Scottish Tourist Board considers that the consent procedure is likely to cause delay or to lead to loss of promotional opportunities, it may proceed without the Secretary of State's approval. That is virtually what the noble Lord is suggesting in this amendment. As I said earlier, I do not think it would he sensible to proceed on the basis that one writes something in and allows the person most directly concerned with it to decide whether it should be approved. That to me does not sound like the making of good law. There are others who are much better able to pass judgment on that than I am. As a layman it would seem a weak point to me.
Lord Howie of Troon:May I make a brief point? I do not wish to delay the Minister, but surely it will be within his experience—as it is within the experience of most of us—that the law of this country is dotted with provisions which make statements of a fairly straight forward and clear kind which are followed by the words, "except in so far as". Then follows the exception. Thus the notion of making an exception to a provision in the law is by no means new. It is hallowed by time immemorial.
Lord Gray of Contin:That may be so; but I am afraid I cannot really accept the amendment as it is proposed nor, indeed, is the principle behind the amendment sound. I do not think that we want to write into legislation anything which is not absolutely sound. Therefore I must, with the greatest respect, suggest that it would probably be better if this amendment were withdrawn. I trust that the noble and learned Lord might consider withdrawing it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:I am sorry to delay proceedings, but I think the Minister misunderstood the point that I was making. My point was very simple, that if the Secretary of State had a statutory duty to consult the British Tourist Authority and it was in direct dispute with the Scottish Tourist Authority, there was nothing like an authority of that sort for delaying its answer to the consultations until it was too late for the point at issue. Therefore the Secretary of State should be able, if necessary, to ignore that, which he could do by taking advice from his noble friend and putting in the word "may" instead of "shall".
Lord Gray of Contin: I am afraid that the noble Lord has misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. That is not what this amendment says. It suggests that the Scottish Tourist Board should not necessarily consult when it does not see the necessity for doing so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister is quite right about this amendment. I dare say I was totally out of order in going back on a previous amendment to show him the error of his ways in a previous discussion.
Lord Wilson of Langside:With the leave of the Committee I shall in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am sorry I seem to have upset Lord Howie of Troon in doing it too soon.
Lord Howie of Troon: No.
Lord Wilson of Langside:There is no-one I should less like to upset because I have a great respect for the noble Lord. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I should like to make it clear to the Minister that in my fallible judgment he was wrong to suggest that giving people a discretion makes bad law. Half the had law we have emerges because we do not give people discretion, but they have to stick to the letter and lose sight of the spirit. Having made my point that I am not impressed by that part of his argument, in the light of what else has been said by the Minister and by others who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 20, after ("Scotland") insert ("provided they do so with the consent of and after consultation with the Scottish Tourist Board").
The noble Lord said: At first sight this amendment may seem to be asking for the Scottish Tourist Board what earlier amendments have sought to deny to the British Tourist Board. Even had the Minister been more yielding in some of the earlier amendments and given the Scottish Tourist Board more power, I would still have felt that this was an important amendment to the Scottish Tourist Board and to Scottish tourism. The difference between this amendment and the powers that the British Tourist Board has was emphasised by all the speakers at the Second Reading; that is that the promotion of Scotland is a highly specialised and delicate job.
I have no doubt that once again in any promotion that the British Tourist Authority will have for Scotland, there will be a great deal of discussion and involvement within the industry. Within the British Tourist Board the Scottish Tourist Board will have a voice and with the whole tourist industry generally before any major decision is made or any major promotion takes place. In this Scotland will have certain safeguards.
Nevertheless, the sheer difference in size between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority seems to us to mean that Scotland should have a more positive representation and a more positive voice in anything that the British Tourist Authority might do. This is coupled with the fact mentioned at the Second Reading debate and in the Statement in another place by the Minister of State at the Department of Trade, that the chairman of the British Tourist Authority will ultimately become the chairman of the English Tourist Board as well, working in both organisations. As I said earlier, because of the sheer size of the BTA and the combination with the English Tourist Board, it would be easy for the British Tourist Authority in promoting Scotland abroad, with the best intention in the world, to get it disastrously wrong. There have been examples—I am sure the Minister is aware of them—where there has been an overdoing of the Brigadoon type of promotion overseas. We are learning. Nevertheless, I am sure it would be helpful if the Scottish Tourist Board could be given the power to
630
be consulted about anything that the British Tourist Authority will do in promoting Scotland overseas.
We know that there will be a great deal of co ordination and co-operation between the various bodies that make up the tourist authority. Since the Minister did not think that the co-ordination, co operation and consultation was sufficient in the case of the earlier amendments and insisted that powers be retained by statute, that the Scottish Tourist Board was so much subject to both the Secretary of State and the British Tourist Authority, it seems reasonable that the Minister should be willing to make this very important concession.
From what he told us earlier it is not as though there is likely to be a great falling out of the different parties. On the odd occasions when there is disagreement, the Secretary of State's word would be important. We are concerned that the Scottish Tourist Board should know how Scotland is being depicted overseas and should have some power to decide what shall not be put forward as Scotland to overseas markets. While he was defending the role of the British Tourist Authority and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister seemed to he considering always the importance of belt and braces. He would make no concessions; everything had to be watertight, and to anything that was suggested by us or by other noble Lords, he seemed (in the best spirit) to say, "No" because there could be risks here and risks there. Everyone, quite correctly has paid a tribute to him as being a very fair man. I would submit that it is asking very little that the Scottish Tourist Board be given the right to examine and, if necesary, even to veto any, particularly Scottish, promotion about Scotland that the British Tourist Authority are suggesting be put forward.
I would say to the Minister that the Bill generally has been given a very good welcome, but I feel that there has been a tendency to get the wrong flavour into the original idea of giving the Scottish Tourist Board some sort of authority, and the wrong flavour to the extent (as has been said by many noble Lords) of the grudgingness of the whole Bill compared to what was originally a good intention and idea. In order to try to recoup a little, I hope that the Minister will make the concession that we have asked for in the amendment. If, as the Minister has said continuously, everything goes with great consultation and great friendliness between the British Tourist Authority, the Scottish Tourist Board and the 4½ people in the Scottish Office that deal with tourism, it is a small enough concession to ask for and I hope that he will find some way to accommodate the amendment. I beg to move.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:I should like to urge the Minister to accept this amendment. It would make some sense of the whole Bill. Up to now it is a small thing—the £200,000 to be used somewhat grudgingly, as allowed by the Secretary of State and approved by the British Tourist Authority. But it is only sensible to give Scotland and the Scottish Tourist Board a proper say, a significant say, in the £2 million which the British Tourist Authority is spending overseas. To do that, they need the powers given in this amendment. It makes it into a real Bill which gives the Scottish Tourist Board some real say overseas without

631
interfering with the British Tourist Authority and the general promotion of Britain. I think it is a very sensible amendment and I urge the Minister to accept it.
Lord Wilson of Langside:I, too, think that this is a wholly admirable amendment. It is right in principle in the context of this Bill that it should be there. I think in practice it would make the working efficiency and competence of the various tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority better. For that reason, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin:This amendment would impose on the British Tourist Authority a requirement to consult the Scottish Tourist Board and obtain its consent to the BTA's promotions of Scotland overseas. I am grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the way in which he presented his case, but this amendment is fundamentally at odds with our intention as to how the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish Tourist Board should exercise their overseas promotion powers. I believe that approval of this amendment would be profoundly damaging to the cohesiveness of the 1969 Act framework, and to the coherence of the total British marketing effort abroad.
This amendment would oblige BTA not simply to consult the Scottish Tourist Board on its efforts overseas involving Scotland—BTA already does this as a matter of course—but it would make BTA's promotions involving Scotland subject to STB approval. Your Lordships will appreciate that much of BTA's effort on Scotland's behalf is made in the context of all-Britain promotions covering the three countries. In preparing such Great Britain promotions. BTA has to assess the relative marketing requirements of England, Scotland and Wales in relation to the target market and the particular product being promoted. The Scottish Tourist Board is in no position to gauge its marketing needs against those of England and Wales in any particular promotion. Only the British Tourist Authority, which can take an overview of the three countries' requirements, is in a position to make this kind of judgment. To give STB control over all-Britain promotions with any Scottish element would inevitably and unfairly prejudice English and Welsh interests. Where all-Britain promotions are concerned, the body at the centre—the British Tourist Authority—is the body best equipped to reconcile all the various competing needs and to take a final view of the right promotional "mix" for England, Scotland and Wales. This is the view I expressed at Second Reading and it remains a cornerstone of our policy on tourism promotion overseas.
The need for approval which this amendment would introduce would be wholly at odds with the basis of co-operation and consensus on which the boards currently operate and which I want to see continue. The BTA consults the national boards individually at an early stage in preparing its main Great Britain marketing programme and takes due account of comments made. Also, through the membership of the BTA board, the chairman of the
632
three national boards are able to influence the scale and content of BTA's marketing programme for Britain as a whole. It is through such consultation and discussion that the marketing programme takes shape and is finally agreed. A statutory consultation provision affecting BTA and STB alone would just not work.
We fully acknowledge that Scotland would benefit from additional, specialised overseas promotions by the Scottish Tourist Board. Clause 1 is designed to allow this to happen. But we are also firmly committed to maintaining a coherent British effort under BTA's overall control. This amendment would fragment the overall effort, setting Scotland against the rest of Britain; and that is the last thing we want to happen. The way ahead, in our view, is not to seek confrontation—and I do not suggest for a moment that that is the intention of the amendment; but it could be its result—but to build on the existing framework of co-operation and consensus among all four tourist boards.
When we talk about the tourist boards, I think that I must emphasise, as I did at Second Reading, that there is no commitment to a merger of the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. The new British Tourist Authority chairman, Mr. Bluck, will be looking only at the possibility of combination. No decision whatsoever has been taken at the present moment. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that it is our view that Scotland will benefit more amply from the measures which we are taking than if we were to do as the noble Lord in his amendment suggests. I hope that on reflection he may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon:I am beginning to have serious doubts about the noble Lord the Minister who. I am sad to say, I do not know very well, since he entered another place after I left it and has only recently joined us here. But I am watching with great interest. He has the reputation of being a reasonable man and we have all been telling ourselves all afternoon that he is a reasonable man. I do not know how reasonable he is; but he has not done anything remotely reasonable today as yet. He has not conceded anything. He has not said that he will think again. He has been nice, he has been agreeable, but he has not given us a thing. I see sitting beside him his noble friend Lord Lyell, whom we have often enjoyed on these Scottish occasions. He treats us fairly roughly and endearingly, but every once in a while he says, "I will think over what you have said". He does not mean that, but at least he says from time to time that he will consider, in thinking over what we have said, whether or not some sense can be made out of our arguments and the principles that we have tried to argue here. I have not seen the Minister do that today. I am not as yet convinced that he is an unreasonable man, because I see that he has a very reasonable face and I feel sure that in time he will convince me that he is a reasonable man: but he will have to hurry if he is going to do it today, because he is well behind the start-line in that particular matter.
He has just given us a very lengthy, detailed and extremely informative speech, which told us quite a bit about the relationships between the Scottish Tourist

633
Board and the British Tourist Authority. I dare say it was philosophically sound, and it related precisely to certain questions put to him by my noble friend Lord Carmichael: but I am not sure, interesting though it was, that it was totally relevant to the principle of this amendment.
The principle is really a very sound and simple one. I would have thought it was a very reasonable one, which required a reasonable examination and possibly a reasonable reply, which I hope to have later. If it is right that the Scottish Tourist Board should consult with its British equivalent about particularly Scottish matters under subsection (2), it cannot be wildly wrong that the British authority should consult with the Scottish authority about specifically Scottish questions under subsection (3). The principle seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward one.
It is quite possible that the amendment is unduly brutal, because we on this side are simple folk and sometimes put complex arguments in over-simple ways. But the principle is clear, and I should have liked the Minister to have paused in the middle of that extremely informative speech and said, "Yes, there is an interesting principle here." He might possibly have said that the principle was wrong: but at least he could say. "I will have a look at the principle and consider it", instead of just damning it outright as he seems to have done. After all, we are just at the Committee stage, and there is a fair way to go. I should not like the Minister to lengthen the process by obliging us to put down all kinds of amendments at a later stage. All he has to say is, "There is some sense in this; I will look at it and see what sense there is, and see whether or not something can be done to make the Bill better."
The Earl of Selkirk:May I ask my noble friend, before he replies, whether he would be good enough to confirm that under the 1969 Act the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority? Is that correct? If so, does that in fact mean that all that the British Tourist Authority is doing will necessarily be known to the Scottish Tourist Board?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I can confirm that, if I might answer my noble friend before I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is correct that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority. I indicated earlier that when the British Tourist Authority presents its programme for overseas promotion at the beginning of each year the chairmen of the various national tourist boards are in a position to hear exactly what is intended. They can then report back to their own boards, and thus, hopefully, conflicts are avoided.
To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who has been very nice to me all afternoon, I must say—and I feel rather unkind that I cannot give him something as a reward—the plain fact is that, however well-intentioned the amendment is, I am not satisfied that it is going to be an improvement. To accept the amendment, or even to give a commitment to take this away and look at it again without having some real conviction oneself that
634
one can produce something which is better, is not really what the Committee would expect.
I cannot accept this amendment because I am not convinced that it would be an improvement. I believe that the arrangement the Government have proposed in the Bill is the best for Scotland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is as anxious to see the best for Scotland as I am. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is equally anxious to achieve that end, and although he supports the noble Lords in this amendment I must tell him that I am not convinced that it would be an improvement, and therefore I cannot accept it.
Lord Wilson of Langside:The noble Lord the Minister earlier spoke a good deal about the need for cohesiveness and consensus. That is a view with which none would disagree. For my part, I would have thought that this amendment would produce more cohesiveness and a more readily-reached consensus than the Bill as it now stands, under which the obligations to seek consent and to consult are all on the other side.
I have felt for a long time—and I said something of this on Second Reading—that there was perhaps a fatal flaw in the set-up which we introduced in 1969. I speak of the Government of which I was then a member. I thought it might very well be that the bureaucratic difficulties, which one gathered from the press, radio and television had arisen from the working of the 1969 Act, derived perhaps from the circumstance that the British Tourist Authority and the three national hoards all had common functions within the United Kingdom and then the British Tourist Authority was given, in addition to those same functions as the other boards, the overall responsibility for activities overseas. I could have understood a set up where the British Tourist Authority, having been given no functions within the United Kingdom, was given the overall administrative responsibility for co-ordinating the activities overseas (and perhaps within the United Kingdom, too) of the three boards.
I think this is relevant, or it may be relevant, to the Minister's search for cohesiveness or consensus, if that is what we want, in the working of the three hoards. I would have thought that in practice this amendment would promote that, instead of the wording of the Bill which, as I say, puts all the obligations to consult and to seek permission to do things on the Scottish Tourist Board and leaves the British Tourist Authority with a question mark against its place in the set-up, if I am right, with its powers and duties unimpaired and unaffected by this Bill.
Lord Gray of Contin:I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. I really cannot add, I am afraid, to what I have already said, other than perhaps to say that the Scottish Tourist Board itself is pleased with this measure. It believes it to be more than reasonable. The board itself has made no representations to me regarding the sort of amendment which noble Lords are suggesting at the present moment.
With the greatest respect to noble Lords opposite, I am not convinced that this would be an improvement. I believe that what the Government have set out is the

635
most satisfactory position for Scotland. I am sorry that I cannot be more sympathetic to the amendments that have been proposed, but the only reason I am not sympathetic to them is that I do not see that any one of them would improve what is proposed. If I did, I would willingly take each suggestion away and look at it again. But I am not convinced and that is why I have not suggested that I might take them away.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to know that we have a piece of perfect legislation before us. This comes from a reasonable man. The only conclusion I can come to is that we have a reasonable man in an unreasonable Government. He now comes along and suggests to us that, after all, the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased with the Bill and has not complained. Mind you, the Scottish Tourist Board happens to be the creature of the Secretary of State. He appoints the members and he gets rid of them. I do not know whether or not they are reaching the stage of reappointment, but I cannot see the Scottish Tourist Board raising its voice in respect of this Bill. The question is: Are we satisfied that it is a piece of perfect legislation?
The Minister, if he is a reasonable man—I hope that he is not an insensitive man—must have been aware that on two earlier amendments he sat there isolated and alone. He listened for a voice of support from his own Back-Benches in respect of this perfect piece of legislation and it did not come. It is all right to expect the Scottish Tourist Board to require the consent of the Secretary of State; and if you go back to the original legislation on to which this Bill is tacked your Lordships will find that the consent of the Treasury is required as well, so far as money is concerned. It is all right for the Secretary of State to have to consult—the word used is not "may" but "shall"; it is a mandatory obligation—the British Tourist Authority. But when we try to put the balance right just a little, so that when dealing with Scottish projection overseas and all the publicity worth £2 million—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: £200,000.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I am not talking about the Scottish Tourist Board; I am talking about the British Tourist Authority interpreting the needs of Scotland in respect of tourism, and that spends £2 million, not a grudging £200,000. But I gather that we shall be talking about money on Clause stand part. There was a promise given by the Minister, but we shall come to that later. But, surely, if there is any body which should know and should be concerned about our projection overseas, it is the Scottish Tourist Board. Is it unreasonable to ask for its consent? The Minister says, "But it already consults." I can see a gleam of light. We might even get that into the Bill at Report stage, if we miss out "consent" and put in "consult". We shall then get mandatory consultation.
Things are changing in the tourist field and that is the whole point of the Statement made by the Minister of State in another place. Our hackles were first raised when he tried to soothe the Welsh and English Members by saying, "This is only a very limited power that we are giving to Scotland." Before that, we
636
thought we had achieved a great victory. I can understand that the Scottish Tourist Board is pleased that we have opened the door, but it would be far better pleased if it had some say in the spending of the much larger sum of £2 million. I could speak about some of the mistakes made abroad in the projection of Scotland by the British Tourist Authority. I could talk about incidents in Paris which affected Strathclyde, because of an individual from the British Tourist Authority, but I do not want to do that.
Every reasonable man would agree about the best people to advise on the projection of Scotland and on what is required in a particular year. In a year when we shall probably have a gathering of the clans you would not think that somebody who was purely identified with England would be able to advise properly. He probably could not even spell most of the Scottish names. That has happened, too. I could tell your Lordships about English Ministers who thought that Benbecula was off the West Coast of Northern England. There is an abysmal ignorance about anything that happens north of the Tweed among people who should know very much better. So we are reasonable in asking for consent.
The Minister says, "What we want to get is consensus". How do you get consensus without consent? What does the word "consensus" mean? It means everyone agreeing. The Minister made the perfectly valid point to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority, as are the chairmen of the English Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. I do not know whether it has escaped the noble Earl's notice that the gentleman who is to be chairman of the British Tourist Authority has already been told that he will become chairman of the English Tourist Board as well. I do not know how we shall get a fair consensus with one of these regional chairmen in the chair. I could have understood it if the chairmanship had gone around. That would have been sensible and fair—fair to the Welsh, fair to the English and fair to the Scots. This is really a very national matter of concern.
I know that there have been voices raised before about the prominence of English stalls at various functions, where they stake out the tartan and all the symbols of Scotland. Sadly for the English, they do not have the same symbolism in respect of nationalism as we have in Scotland. It may be easier for us. But, surely, this is why we should have consent. It is why this is so right. It puts right the balance in relation to the timidity of the Minister of State in respect of the other amendments. We would not have talked at any length about this amendment, if he had shown himself to be reasonable on the other amendments.
He is going away for Christmas and the New Year, and something said by Burns about independence might be relevant. What we want is a little more freedom for Scotland. Burns said that freedom and whisky went together. I know that the Minister of State is not exactly a teetotaller and there is just a chance that he will be savouring some very fine malt when he gets up to Inverness. Let him consider the amendments that we have put down and let him see the error of his ways in respect of getting the balance right between the British Tourist Authority and the Scottish

637
Tourist Board. We might help him on this, if we discover at Report stage that the amendments which he has put down are the same as the amendments that we put down. But I do not think that I would advise my noble friend to take us into the Division Lobby at this late hour of the night on this important matter. It is something to which we really must come back.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I wonder whether we may have from the Minister of State the information which he promised us. We are all concerned about how the Minister of State will consent after his consultation, which will be very quick indeed. We have the Secretary of State with his four-and-a-half men, and if you take account of holidays that means effectively two-and-a-half men on duty at any one time. One can imagine how they will do this, and do it quickly. But there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that they will be allowed only £200,000 for their direct share in overseas publicity. How will this be determined? Will it be determined annually? And will the figure of £200,000 be supplementary or complementary? The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, could tell us the difference between "supplementary" and "complementary". If it is supplementary, it supplements; it is additional. Is it going to be additional, or will the £200,000 to be spent directly by the Scottish Tourist Board be taken out of the sum which would have been spent by the British Tourist Authority? In other words, do we gain £200,000 of freedom and independence, or do we lose £200,000 from the £2 million? I should like to know exactly how this will be determined. Will it be determined by the Treasury or by the BTA?
Lord Gray of Contin: We have had a very interesting afternoon discussing these amendments. Now that we have reached the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill? I know that the Committee would not wish me to dwell for too long on the matter; but the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has asked me two specific questions and I shall try to answer them for him. Each year, with the approval of Parliament, the Secretary of State allocates funds to the Scottish Tourist Board. The £200,000 will be additional. This sum is no part of the funding already provided by the British Tourist Authority. In other words, it is extra money and it will be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide from time to time what the allocation of funds to the Scottish Tourist Board may be.
The noble Lord asked me how the consultations were to take place and for what purpose the £200,000 would be used. As I explained earlier, at the beginning of each year the British Tourist Authority will make known its proposals for overseas promotion. The chairmen of the various national tourist boards, being members of the board of the British Tourist Authority,
638
will have the opportunity to comment on those proposals. It is our belief that some of the proposals will be the better for a certain amount of supplementary support from the Scottish Tourist Board. In those cases, the Scottish Tourist Board will co-operate as closely as possible with the British Tourist Authority in order to ascertain how individual projects could the better be supplemented with their support. In certain cases the method of consultation can be quite wide-ranging. In other cases it may be fairly minor, depending on the type of project.
Clause 1 contains the two main operative provisions. Subsection (1) lifts the 1969 Act restriction on the Scottish Tourist Board's operating power, and in order to ensure that the board's activities outside the United Kingdom are properly co-ordinated, subsection (2) introduces a consent and consultation procedure. I believe that the Bill hinges on Clause 1. It is vitally important to the Bill, and the Committee should, I believe, give a warm welcome to it. At Second Reading nobody spoke against the Bill. It was welcomed by all sides of the House. I believe that the Committee stage has proved useful because it has given us an opportunity to probe and discuss in some depth a number of issues which have been causing concern to us all. Although I have not accepted any of the amendments, I have listened carefully to what has been said. I believe that the Government's proposals are still the best ones in the interests of Scotland and that this clause is vital to the Bill. Therefore I invite the Committee to agree it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Lord has suggested that during the Second Reading of the Bill nobody opposed Clause 1. That is quite true. We were happy in principle about the clause, despite the small amount of money which was entailed. The Minister must realise that although the helpful amendments which have been moved by me and by other noble Lords have been sympathetically dealt with, we have got nothing out of the Government. I hope the noble Lord has learned this evening that the Bill is not totally satisfactory and that the Committee has clearly expressed the view that the Scottish Tourist Board is not being given quite the independence, authority and opportunities that it should. We can only hope that when the Minister is in Scotland during the Recess he will absorb its atmosphere again and that he will come to the blinding realisation that we were correct. When, therefore, we reach the Report stage, or when the Bill returns here from another place, I hope the Minister will be willing to consider more seriously and sympathetically some of the points which have been made.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.8 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Powers and duties of local roads authorities]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("roads") and insert ("highway")
The noble Lord said: We are now embarking on a very important Scottish Bill. Originally, there were 147 clauses. Now there are more, as a result of the second thoughts of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
I should like to make one or two preliminary observations about the Bill. It surprises me that a Bill which has been 10 years in the preparation should have been so imperfect three weeks ago that the Government have put down 60 or 70 amendments to it. If the Government had had their way, we should have taken the Committee stage about a week earlier. That would have denied the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate the opportunity of putting down his last 10 or so amendments, which are still starred amendments according to the Marshalled List. It shows a remarkable weakness somewhere.
I am very grateful to the Scottish Office for sending me the tome entitled Notes on Clauses. Mind you, if it had arrived a little earlier it may have helped me with the first 73 amendments which I have put down. But it arrived far too late for me to learn the inner thoughts of the Scottish Office in respect of this Bill and to help me when I was getting to the amendments. But I must say that as I read the Bill I found I had never come across such a mess before. I do not know what their thoughts were when they started out on this Bill. Perhaps they were, "It will be a great idea to codify the law in relation to roads in Scotland. Let us modernise it; let us bring it up to date". I do not know whether the draftsmen realised what a mess they were getting themselves into.
My first amendment gets right to the heart of the matter, when I suggest that we leave out the word "roads" and insert "highway". I do not know whether the Committee realises it, but if one goes to most of the councils in Scotland to find out anything about the roads one asks for the highway department. That is what they are—highways departments. But the draftsmen had the brilliant idea of changing "highways" to "roads". It means, of course, that every department will be painting for weeks to get rid of the word "highways" and putting in the word "roads" instead; getting rid of "highways department" and replacing it with "roads authority". People will see new empires springing up. It will be remembered that we used to have the old education authorities. They are no longer education authorities because they are just education departments of the regions. It may well be that the change to "roads authorities" will be out of date before we have finished with this Bill.
The Government have got into an awful state with this Bill, as can be seen if one looks at some of the
640
amendments. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163, which have been put down since the printing of the Bill, run to pages and pages of new discoveries of amendments that will need to be made because the Scottish Office want to change the word "highway" to "road", and because they want to change the word "street" to "road". As far as I know, we in Scotland were doing all right the way things were. This was not an aspect that troubled the Stodart Committee when they looked into local government and the responsibilities as between district and regional councils. I do not know whether anyone told the Scottish Office about the terrible mess that Scottish legislation was in with regard understanding the difference between "roads" and "highways". I am perfectly sure they did not. But having followed that through, we have got ourselves into a complete quagmire.
I do not believe that the law will be properly codified and properly modernised. By the time I had read through to the end of this Bill. I had come to the conclusion that it would have been far better to let things alone. I did not know that we had so many draftsmen doing nothing in Scotland that they could afford to spend so much time on this kind of work. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appreciates that I am talking reasonable sense—that there is an argument that we should have left matters alone.
This is not consolidation. If this had been consolidation, the Bill would have gone before a joint committee of the Lords and the Commons. They would have gone through every clause and would have ensured that there was no actual change in the law, and that it was proper consolidation. It could then have gone through your Lordships' House in about two minutes. But this is codifying and modernising. As if that were not enough, there are also innovatory provisions; new powers. The whole Bill finishes up as a proper mess.
I do not know how much time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has spent on this Bill and how much time his civil servants have spent on it. I do not have the backing of any civil servants when I am reading a Bill such as this, but I can tell him that I have not gone through all the sources yet—and I am perfectly sure the same applies in respect of every noble Lord here. It is obvious that before we are finished with this Bill there will probably be another handful if not tens of amendments from the Scottish Office again, they having discovered other legislation that has to be modernised because we have taken the decision in respect of the word "highway".
I am quite serious about this point. We could have had a Bill giving the new powers and have left the other thing alone. It is not an essential Bill. The only essential aspect is the 34 new powers which I listed at Second Reading. We would then have had a reasonable Bill which everyone could understand; which could be read and properly understood by everyone.
I have not yet mentioned the drafting of this particular Bill—but what drafting! I was speaking to one of my noble friends about it today. He said, "This is probably an inherited job. It was probably the father of the present draftsman who started it, and then the son

641
became a draftsman and finished it off". There have been so many draftsmen at it over the years that one can recognise the different hands in the different sections, and they do not all add up.
I should have liked it if we had had more time, but this work really should have been done by a committee. We did this with the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, which did the very same thing for civic government—getting rid of ancient statutes and deciding what we would keep and what would be carried on, so that we would have a new code of civic government. But that work was done by the inter-departmental committee. Then it went before yet another committee; and further work was done by the Scottish Office after that. I do not know how this Bill was dealt with and who was consulted, but by starting off in the first line by saying,
"a local roads authority shall manage and maintain all such roads in their area",
et cetera, and by thus getting rid of the word "highway", we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess. It just denotes the change that has taken place and the complexities which arise there from. Those are my first few thoughts on the subject. I beg to move.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made a number of general comments in relation to this particular amendment. My view of the position is that roads legislation in Scotland has been added to piecemeal over a long period. The difficulty for the practitioner in finding out the relevant law has been quite remarkable. The object of this Bill is to try to bring together in one Bill all the provisions which relate to roads, and to make them consistent and reasonably clear and part of a single structure.
So far as the drafting of the Bill is concerned, those arrangements have been under the responsibility of a single draftsman for the whole Bill. As far as I know, the draftsman's father was not engaged on this matter; but I do know that when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland a good deal of work was done in the Scottish Office in preparation for this Bill—as I believe he mentioned on Second Reading. I should like to say how grateful the present Government are to him for all the work that was done as part of his responsibilities at that time. If we have not made as excellent use of his work as he would like, we have done our best to be worthy successors to him in this particular operation. I can certainly see that there is room for improvement in a Bill of this sort, and I am extremely grateful for the amendments which noble Lords in all parts of the House have seen fit to put down to the Bill and which we shall be very happy to consider. I am glad to say that some of the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and his colleagues have made are acceptable to the Government, and I hope to be able to accept those in due course.
So far as this particular amendment is concerned, the word "highway" is one which has never had a very precise connotation. We are aiming to bring into the conception of "road" all the various types of public right of way that one can have, and the roads authority
642
seems the right authority for dealing with roads. It is for that reason that we have thought it right to change this particular name from the Highway Authority to the Roads Authority. In Scottish legislation one finds a great number of names—roads, highways, streets and other things. Usually in a particular field of law if a different word is used the intention is to strike a different meaning; but one cannot be confident, for example, that a "road" and a "highway" under present Scottish legislation mean different things; often they will mean the same. Accordingly, it seems right to try to reduce the concepts in number and use the word "roads" to describe the authority responsible for these consistently throughout the Bill. I hope in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this particular amendment.
Lord Hughes: In the light of what my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said about whether this Bill was necessary, and that a much more reasonable thing would have been to produce a simpler Bill giving the additional powers which are contained, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, will remember that at Second Reading the tome to which my noble friend referred arose as the result of an answer which Lord Gray of Contin gave to me: that he could not at that time say exactly whether, when it was said that this was just codifying, there was not in fact a change, and that he would circulate more information. I must agree with my noble friend; so far as I was concerned it certainly arrived, but it did not arrive at such a time that I could make much use of it. In case the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, has any fears on the matter for the next stage of this Bill, I will give him this assurance: that I have no intention of making any use of it to search for yet more amendments.
The bulk of the amendments which are being put forward really are seeking to conform to what the introduction says, to codify and modernise. I will come back to that later on. The noble and learned Lord has said that the reason for putting "roads" in as a single word which will cover any other description that existed in the past is to make absolutely certain that no difficulties arise. I should like to ask him, has there been any occasion in the past where legislation has referred to "roads" or "streets" or "highways" which has led to any difficulty with any of the authorities carrying out their powers? In conversation at the tea-table the other day with one of his noble friends, she said, "I always understood that in the cities you talked about streets and in the countryside you talked about roads". I think that was probably as good a summary of the situation as you can get. I was for many years a member of a local authority. I do not think anybody ever raised with us any legal problem as to whether a street was a road or a road was a street. So there is something really important in what my noble friend Lord Ross says about whether the Bill is really necessary.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hope we are going to get a better effort from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. What he is doing really is justifying this tome. I do not think there has been any justification in what he says. I have been looking again at his own amendment, which came after Second Reading, so they had forgotten all about it; they did not know

643
about it in the Scottish Office. It is Amendment No. 162. If noble Lords will open their "hymn books" at Amendment No. 162 they will see that it is a fairly long amendment. It consists of four full pages of the Marshalled List, and all it is doing is getting rid of the word "highway" and putting in "road". I am perfectly prepared to bet, here and now, that before we have finished the Third Reading of the Bill we shall have another amendment with another list of "highways" that have to be erased and "roads" put in.
My noble friend is quite right. I have asked the Lord Advocate again, when have we had difficulties with all this diversity of descriptions of streets, roads, pavements, alleys, which are now all going to be lumped together, quite unjustifiably in my mind, with the word "roads"? When we get to the definition of "roads", I wonder whether someone will justify having any houses on roads, because they have got numbers and they are related to the road, but the houses are no longer part of the road. I wonder whether we shall search the Local Government Bill to see whether we have made sense of the changes that need to be made there from "highways" to "roads", "roads" now comprehending everything you can think of. Well, of course they have not imagined them all yet, but they will get round to it. I do not think it was necessary at all.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, much of this stemmed from the reorganisation of local government. I did not do that. It was the Tory Government of'1973 that reorganised local government in Scotland and gave us the much loved regions we have, with one region comprehending half the population of Scotland. We will come to that as well in relation to one of the amendments. I do not know whether any Minister sat down and thought about this point or whether it is because a draftsman who had been dabbling at this at various times over the past 10 years said, "Ah!, we have got something here", and then started to make a 147-clause, eight-schedule, Bill. As somebody said, "Is your work really necessary; is it worth while and is it going to simplify?" I do not think it is going to simplify at all. That is a sincere and honest feeling after spending quite a lot of time, more than I can afford, over this particular Bill.
I am not going to divide the Committee on this amendment, but I warn the Government that they have not finished with this Bill. I see the Chief Whip of the Government in this place. He realises, of course, that 70 amendments are down in the name of the Government. The amendment I mentioned, No. 162, and then No. 163, are pages and pages long—single amendments! So please do not blame the Scots for being a bit stick-in-the-mud about this. I like to see statutes clear, I like them to be readily understood, I like to see them well drafted. I question whether this Bill was ever necessary, and if it was necessary it should have been far better drafted than it is. In view of the fact that the Government are not going to change their mind it means that they are not going to look at it for the first time as a whole. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("list") to ("prepared") in line 11.
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It leaves out the words:
"(in this Act referred to as their 'list of public roads')".
With all due respect, it has not been referred to as their "list of public roads". I consider that the words are absolutely unnecessary. It would be much simpler for the Bill to read:
"entered in a list prepared and kept by them under this section".
That gets rid of a line of prose which, in any case, no one understands.
I am very grateful for the help that I have had from my noble friend Lord Hughes. who is as appalled as I am at the language in this Bill. This is virtually a crusade we are joining to try to get the Scottish Office to simplify the language. It is not enough to codify, modernise and have a few innovations. We want the Bill simplified and made clear. I hope this is the first amendment that the Government will accept. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I join with the noble Lord in thinking that matters should be clear and plain. I shall do everything possible to achieve that result. The idea of the phrase in the brackets which the noble Lord wishes to leave out is that it will be easily referred to later in the Bill, because time and again this concept comes up. To set out the full description each time would make the Bill a great deal longer rather than shorter. This is a common technique and, I suggest, a simple, plain technique. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this is a reasonable way to go about it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is a technique that I am beginning to question. It is unnecessary, here or elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Hughes: I could have understood that explanation if it had cut down elsewhere. I would expect that thereafter all one would need to do is refer to the list. But right in the very first line of Section 2 the words "the list of public roads" are repeated again, so the words in brackets do not remove the need for reference to it. For that reason I agree with my noble friend that these words in brackets do not serve any useful purpose.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have to respectfully disagree about that. As regards Section 2, or Clause 2, that is a different list. That is the list kept by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that list is also referred to later. That is the reason why it is mentioned.
Lord Hughes: It is not. The noble and learned Lord has not picked me up correctly. I said Section 2, not Clause 2. I should have said subsection (2), and it is the very first line, line 17, of that subsection, which reads:
"Subject to subsection (8) below, the list of public roads prepared by the local roads authority".
That is not the Secretary of State's list.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sorry; I thought the noble Lord was referring to Clause 2. So far as this is concerned, it is the subject of an amendment. The purpose of expressing it in this way in subsection (2) is to make it clear that what this list is to be—because one must start with this list—and what subsection (2) is requiring, is that what is on the existing list at the date the Bill comes into force will become the first list under the Bill. One needs, therefore, to pick up the existing situation—the situation as it exists when this Bill comes into force—in order to put in, for the first time, the list which is required in the Bill under subsection (1).
Lord Hughes: Will the noble and learned Lord therefore go further and indicate to us what the harmful consequences would be if my noble friend's amendment was accepted?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The harmful consequences would be that one would have to repeat the description, in full, of this list of public roads every time it occurs in the Bill; and it occurs quite a number of times.
Lord Hughes: No; one could of course do what would seem to be the straightforward thing and define a list of public roads in the interpretation clause, which, after all, is the easiest place to find it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: That is certainly another possibility, but it is not a question of leaving it out altogether; it is putting it somewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicated on Second Reading, as I recall, that it seemed convenient to have interpretations at the beginning. This is a matter which is fundamental to the way the Bill is constructed. It seems very easy to slip in the reference point right at the beginning. I submit to your Lordships that it is a very convenient way, in this context, of achieving a fairly clear result.
Lord Hughes: I do not want to make this a duet between us, but the noble and learned Lord has misrepresented me. I said that in one of the Acts which are listed, and where the changes are taking place, the interpretation clause is at the beginning of the Bill, not that one found interpretations in other clauses at the beginning of a Bill. It seemed to me that the old way of having interpretation at the beginning of the Bill was easier to follow than having it right at the end of the Bill. It is much easier to turn back to, say, Clause 2 than to look for Clause 37, Clause 93 or, in the case of this Bill, Clause 143. That is what I said. I was not suggesting that we go back to the old method, although it seemed to be an advantage. I believe—and I have amendments down later on this issue of interpretation—that it will always make a Bill easier, if wording is used and people do not know exactly what it means, that they can turn to the interpretation clause to find the meaning. They should not have to search through different parts of the Bill to find different parts of the interpretation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he says that we should get it done here and not in the interpretation clause, Clause 143. I do
646
not know whether anyone has looked at that clause. I can tell your Lordships that it is a joke. It is the first interpretation clause that I have ever seen with powers in it. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has looked at the clause. Has he looked at the main interpretation clause? Is he satisfied with it? I can well understand why, if he has looked at it, he does not want to put anything else into it. It is such a mess. However, we shall come to that clause later.
Local authorities have been working with lists of roads for long enough. They already exist. But if there is a difficult way of doing it, the draftsmen have found it here. I do not commend it. I trust that the Lord Advocate will get someone to look at the drafting of this Bill between now and the next stage. I have never seen a worse Bill. However, the Lord Advocate is happy, and he is the man that counts. He is responsible for the draftsmen. They are employed by the Crown Office and he is the head of the Crown Office, so he accepts responsibility for everything that they do. He is satisfied: I am not. But who am I to quarrel with him on such a point? Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("for") to ("they") in line 14 and insert ("these").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment put down because there are more words in the Bill than are needed. I apologise to your Lordships for omitting a word. The amendment should read, "leave out from ('and')", and not, "leave out from ('for')". The clause at the moment reads:
"prepared and kept by them under this section; and"—
this is the part that I wish to leave out—
"for the purposes of such management and maintenance (and without prejudice to this subsection's generality)".
This is just jargon—words, words, words. With my amendment, the subsection would read:
"and they shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to",
and so on. That would be perfectly clear. Perhaps that is the trouble. However, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The structure of this clause is that the roads authority is given the responsibility of management and maintenace. The purpose of the provisions to which the noble Lord has drawn attention is to give an explanation by way of illustration—although not exhaustively— of what that management and maintenance is to consist of. In my judgment. the phraseology employed is of the type that is perfectly common in similar Acts of Parliament. To take out the words in the manner that the noble Lord suggests would restrict the powers of the roads authority to the particular examples given. That would be to narrow the powers from what they are at present. I hope that that clarification is sufficient for the noble Lord's purposes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: What the noble and learned Lord says is not sufficient. Indeed I do not accept what he says. The noble and learned Lord says that such words are common in similar Acts of Parliament. Is it

647
not time that the practice of putting in unnecessary words was stopped? I do not accept that the amendment would limit the powers of the local authority to exactly what is said in the clause. The noble and learned Lord should remember that we have the other clauses in the Bill to come, which considerably widen the provision far beyond what he says.
I think that the phrase,
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
is probably the dream answer of the draftsman. I do not know what the "subsection's generality" is. We shall return to this matter in clause after clause. I want to see Scottish legislation clear and not cluttered with jargon. I am not prepared to accept it when a Lord Advocate or any other Minister tells me that other Acts of Parliament of this kind have that wording. That is the trouble. They should not have. Acts of Parliament should be clear. Ordinary people and ordinary lawyers—not just Lords Advocate—have to read Acts of Parliament. That explanation is not good enough. We should start modernising the wording now. I had hoped that the Government could have done better, but I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("reconstruct, alter, widen,")
The noble Lord said: I shall get the same answer on this amendment as on the previous one. We have two versions for this alteration, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The Lord Advocate can have his choice. I shall leave my noble friend Lord Hughes to speak to Amendment No. 5.
The Government turned down the previous amendment and we are left with this term "generality". It should cover everything, so we do not need anything more. But we have this list:
"they shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to reconstruct, alter, widen, improve or renew any such road".
Do we need the words "reconstruct", "alter", and "widen"? Would it not be sufficient merely to say,
"improve or renew any such road"?
I am perfectly sure that a local authority would not reconstruct, widen or alter a road unless it was improving it. I whisper to the Lord Advocate that in later provisions of the Bill we have the word "improve" without details of widening, reconstructing and the rest. He could quite safely take the words out and the whole aspect of roads legislation would not collapse before our eyes. People might even think that there was a lot of sense in saying merely "improve" without detailing the various kinds of improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I hope that my noble and learned friend will forgive me if I say that I support the amendment. I remember when I had to look at Bills after they had been drafted. One looked at one or two words and wondered whether to put in a few more words to cover every possible exigency. The advice
648
that I was given was that however many words one puts in there will almost certainly be one that is forgotten and then the whole piece of legislation may be worthless. With great respect, there is just the possibility that a road authority might want to narrow a road, and that provision does not appear. That is why, quite frankly, as a perfectly simple citizen, I cannot think that an authority could wish to do anything to a road that is not covered by the simple word "alter".
Lord Hughes: Did the noble Lord conclude his remarks by mentioning the simple word "alter"? That is my amendment and I shall come back to it.
The Earl of Selkirk: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate can reconcile the phrase:
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
with then going into a whole lot of detail which covers almost everything that there could he. I think that one or other provision must come out. I cannot follow why the two are necessary.
Lord Hughes: My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock referred to Amendment No. 5. He has also said that he has down 73 amendments. We have worked on the Bill quite independently. I produced some 30 amendments. When we got together, to my astonishment at least, we found that we had produced alternative versions of the same amendment only in one case, and that was Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
If I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate correctly. the reason for putting in the words,
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
is that the more one specifies the more one endangers the generality and very often that provision was put in to make it perfectly clear that where items were specified they were illustrative and not exhaustive of all that might be done. Having accepted that the Government wished to keep to the hallowed phrase.
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality",
I looked at the clause to see how otherwise to improve the provision. I looked at the words in line 15:
"to reconstruct, alter, widen, improve or renew".
I made my amendment to leave out all those details apart from "alter" because I question whether a road can be reconstructed, widened, improved or renewed without altering it. Indeed can anything else be done to a road without altering it. The simple solution is for the Government in due course to accept my Amendment No. 5. If it should conceivably emerge at some distant time in the future, through the magic of science, that something can be done to a road which does not alter it, one can fall back on the phrase,
"without prejudice to this subsection's generality".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: At the moment, we are, strictly speaking, on Amendment No. 4, although we shall perhaps have the great pleasure of considering Amendment No. 5 in a little while. It may be wise to have Amendment No. 5 in mind when considering suggestions on Amendment No. 4. The principle obligation is to manage and maintain the road. The

649
great thing about maintaining a road is that you keep it as it is. That is the primary object. The main job of roads authorities is to keep roads as they are, in a good state of repair without any alteration and without any of these other operations which are described. That is the ordinary job of the roads authorities. However, we want to give them power, when circumstances require, to make changes in the roads.
I think that many people would say that every change was an improvement. Then, of course, the only word that you would need is "improvement". But these are matters to some extent of opinion. This is supposed to be a Bill that will become an Act for the use of practical people. The idea is to make it clear that the obligations of management and maintenance, keeping the roads as they are, is not the whole story. There is more to it than that. It is that the roads authorities have power to do operations on the roads to change the roads.
It would be perhaps a matter of individual choice as to which of these words we should pick out as the one that is most comprehensive, but there is a certain amount of difference in each of them. It would be possible to improve or renew a road without reconstructing, altering or widening it in the sense of altering that piece of ground over which the road goes. Some alteration of the surface might be involved in that situation. So we have tried not to approach this matter in as confined a way as would be done if it was purely consolidation. We have tried to take account of developments since the legislation was originally passed. Some of the Scottish roads legislation is extremely old. A good deal has happened since it was originally enacted. We have tried to follow the structure of the legislation that we are putting into this code, but we are trying to take account of putting it into a single consistent structure.
I would suggest to your Lordships that it is valuable for practical people to have the examples given of what the roads authority may do. My noble friend Lord Stodart is right: there are dangers in particularisation, which is the reason for the phrase "without prejudice to this subsection's generality". In other words, we are giving illustrations so that people may be absolutely clear, when they are within a particular illustration, that they are all right, but that they need not be too anxious if they are not within one of the particular illustrations—if the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, turns out to be actuality—so long as they come within the general words of the provision. I am prepared to look at this matter, as at every matter that is raised during the course of the evening, from any of your Lordships, but that is my view at the moment. I would advise your Lordships that the clause would be better if these words were left in.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Frankly, I do not see it. If you are going to widen a road, you are only going to widen it to improve it. If you are going to do any of these things, you are only going to do it to improve the road. So "improvement" covers the whole lot. The Lord Advocate, in his explanation, used one other word. That word is not in the clause. We had better put it in. He used the word "change". You would not change it unless you were going to improve it, would you? So it is comprehended within "improvement". The Lord Advocate has virtually approved my case. I
650
am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart. That is exactly the point I am making.
We are going back over 100 years in respect of some of this legislation. It will be another 100 years before we get to it again. Why not do it right this time? It can be simplified without taking away any of the powers that the new roads authorities, be they local or the Secretary of State, will have at their elbows. Later on, the Bill actually uses the word "improve" without mentioning "widening". If we are to have these three here, we shall have to have them elsewhere, on the basis of the argument of the Lord Advocate for consistency in all things. However, I shall bow to him at the moment. I shall jog his memory when we come to the others. If I have no amendment down—I probably have not—it is because that would be doing his work for him. I take these words out but I do not put them back in where he has forgotten to put them in. I hope, however, that the civil servants will examine the matter, probably during the hour when the Scots, who are not interested in the next piece of legislation, will be having some relaxation. I trust that the civil servants will see some of the inconsistencies which do not support the argument produced by the Lord Advocate in respect of this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("to") to ("any") and insert ("alter")
The noble Lord said: If it were not for the time of evening, I should be seriously tempted to divide the Committee on the amendment because I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has given a proper answer. I can understand putting in alternative meanings if any one of them can be doubtful, but the Lord Advocate did not answer the question that I put to him. Can you reconstruct a road without altering it? Can you widen a road without altering it? Can you improve a road without altering it? Can you renew a road without altering it? Can you think of any other thing than these that you would do to a road? The Lord Advocate, unwittingly, I think, gave one answer: he said that you can change the road. As my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock has said, the word "change" does not appear. The reason is that change is just another word for alter. Presumably, the Lord Advocate did not want to go part of the way towards me by saying that the local authority, in its maintenance and management, should have power to alter a road, so he said "change", which has exactly the same meaning.
On Second Reading, my wish was to take out the wording "without prejudice to this subsection's generality" because I think that this goes in automatically, and, in so many cases, it is meaningless. When you go into all these things that can be done, there is no need for the words "without prejudice to this subsection's generality". I am prepared to bow to the fact that the amendment to take out the words has been rejected, but I think that we accomplish everything that is necessary in giving the powers to the local authority if we just say that
"they shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to alter any such road".
I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have given such explanation as I think is appropriate for this. The most doubtful question, I think, that the noble Lord has asked me is in relation to the word "renew". If you are renewing a road, is that an alteration of the road? It would certainly be open to argument whether that was so, because. in effect, if you are renewing it, all that you are doing is putting down what was there before but it is new, and that may be regarded as the same road new.
Lord Hughes: Perhaps I might interrupt the noble and learned Lord. Is he suggesting that, when a local authority renews a road, takes off the surface, lays it aside and goes to all that expense, it then puts it back and tries to make it exactly the same as it was previously? "Renewal" must mean "alteration". It must mean using different materials and so the road must be altered.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord is anxious to tell me the answer. I am trying to give him my answer but I know that he sees the situation perhaps a little differently from the way in which I do. However, I think he will take it from me that I have had occasion from time to time to involve myself with the detailed consideration of Acts of Parliament in relation to particular cases. I am saying—and this is all I said at the time that he asked me to make way for him—that the most doubtful question that he asked me was whether "renew" would be included in "alter". Of course, I perfectly understand that if one repairs a road one uses new materials to fill in the holes and so on. But it might be very questionable whether a repair of a road was an alteration of a road. So the mere fact. as he said, that one is using new materials necessarily involves one in making an alteration of the road.
"Repair" and "renewal" might not involve what would be properly alteration in the sense that the road, to a person using it, would appear to be different from the road that he used before the repair was made. So I would certainly advise the Committee against restricting the phrase to the word "alter" alone, although I am certainly prepared to consider what has been said on this particular matter.
Lord Hughes: I must come back to this matter again. Once again the noble and learned Lord has brought in a word that does not appear in the Bill. He is saying that "repair" or "renew" would not be covered by "alter". But the Government have not found it necessary to give the authority power to repair a road. I take it that one reason for that is that "repair" could be comprehended in "altering" or "improving". But in dealing with these two amendments he has twice used words which do not find their way into the Bill. He used "change" and he has now used "repair". It seems to me that the more he speaks, the more he justifies the rejection of the earlier amendment to keep in "without prejudice to [the]… generality" and, having accepted that wording, the simpler we keep the later stages the better.
The only point on which the noble and learned Lord impressed me was as regards what he said about "renew". He raised some doubt in my mind as to whether "renewal", in the hands of a skilful lawyer like
652
himself, could be regarded in an argument of court as being the same thing as "altering". Therefore, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment if the noble and learned Lord will give me an assurance that he will look at this form of wording, because it seemed to me that it might meet entirely what he said if, instead of having all these words, he brought it down to "alter" or "renew". If he is prepared to give an undertaking to commit himself not necessarily to these words, but to looking at the words again to see if he cannot satisfy himself that less verbiage is necessary to accomplish the object, then I would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am extremely happy to give an undertaking of that type. I will examine all that has been said on this matter to see whether we can improve the provisions. I think that I said that before, and if it helps the noble Lord I am perfectly happy to say it again. It would be my intention in any case in a matter of this type and with a Bill of this type to take account of everything that your Lordships say and to see whether we can make use of it to improve the wording of the Bill. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has had to say about it. I shall also take his advice about the more I speak the less it seems to do me good, and so I shall now be silent.
Lord Gray: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, withdraws his amendment. I should like to make two comments. First, the question regarding "repair" is surely covered by "maintenance" at the very beginning of the clause. Secondly, I would say to my noble and learned friend that perhaps when considering this matter he could look at whether the words used adequately cover the powers in Clause 12 concerning the closing and stopping up of roads in so far as they are, in part, apparently vested in local authorities.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Yes, certainly I will be happy to do that in the circumstances.
Lord Hughes: I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1 line 16, at end insert ("or to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and I would like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22, 69, 70, 126, 145 and 153:
Amendment No. 22: Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("or to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised").
Amendment No. 69: Page 20, line 37, leave out ("or fences") and insert (", fences or barriers").
Amendment No. 70: Page 20, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

(a) between any of the following and any other of the following—

(i) a footway;

(ii) a footpath;

(iii) a cycle track;

(iv) a carriageway,

(aa) along a cycle track so as to segregate classes of users thereof,").
Amendment No. 126: Page 77, line 26, at end insert—
("(4A) A person who parks a motor vehicle ("motor vehicle" having the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1972) wholly or partly on a cycle track commits an offence.").
Amendment No. 145: Page 93, line 18, at end insert—
("(5) The power conferred on a roads authority by section 1(1) or 2(1) of this Act to determine the means of exercise of a public right of passage includes the power to redetermine by order under this subsection such means of exercise.
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 69 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (5) above as they apply to an order under section 66 or 67 of this Act.
(7) A local roads authority shall have power to carry out any works necessary for giving effect to an order by them under subsection (5) above; and in so far as the carrying out of any such works, or any change in the use of land resulting from any such order, constitutes development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, permission for that development shall be deemed granted under Part III of that Act.
Amendment No. 153: Page 107, line 46, at end insert—
(" . Section 120(4A) (parking motor | Level 2. | £50."). vehicle on cycle track).
These are amendments which I think are of particular interest to the cycling fraternity, but which also have the support of the police, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Scottish Rights of Way Society. They have three main aspects: first, to provide a simple means of altering the type of use of a public road; secondly, to enable a roads authority to erect fences or barriers between one type of road and another; and thirdly, to make it an offence to park on a cycle track—all of these being intended to facilitate the creation of special facilities for cyclists.
At the present it is possible to change the use of one type of road to another—for example, a footpath to a cycle track, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. But this can be, as those of your Lordships who may have been involved in it will know, a complicated procedure which might require more than one order under that Act and may also require planning permission. The amendments provide for the change of use to be effected by a single order under the Bill which will carry deemed planning permission. The proposed order will have to be publicised and, if objections are made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State will determine whether the order should be confirmed.
Provision is already made in Clause 27 of the Bill to enable road authorities to erect fences at certain dangerous parts of roads but this, as it stands, is not sufficient to allow for the erection of barriers which might be necessary in the interest of safety to separate, for example, cyclists on a cycle track from pedestrians on an adjoining footpath. The amendments now before you Lordships will make provision for that. Anyone who suffers damage through the execution of such works will be entitled to compensation under Clause 112.
Under Clause 120 it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle on a cycle track, and it is a logical extension of that control to make it an offence to park vehicles on such a track. The less serious nature of the parking offence is recognised in the maximum fine which is set at Level 2, which is currently £50. The exemption in Clause 62 for the use of certain vehicles on cycle tracks
654
will apply in this case also. I beg to move the amendments and I hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships.
Lord Ross of Marnock: So far as I understand the Rules of Order, even in this House one can only move one amendment—one cannot move the whole lot.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Yes, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not accept that we have discussed the amendments that are serialised here by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. We had no notice of this and I do not agree that they all follow each other. For example, Amendment No. 69, which deals with leaving out "or fences" or something of that nature, has nothing to do with this subject. I do not think that it is in sequence with this amendment at all.
For 10 years we have been preparing for this Bill, and it was only when it was given its Second Reading that we discovered that this important power was not included. Is this necessary? If we did not have this power in Clause 1, would the whole thing fall, so that the Government would not be able to take the powers which have already been taken? They are already in the Bill, quite apart from some of the changes made by the amendments that may add to them. If this amendment had not suddenly appeared, would certain clauses of the Bill have been quite illegal?
Is this a power that someone forgot about that the Government needed?—because it is very different from the road authority having the power to construct roads. It is a different power altogether. Quite frankly, I do not think that it is needed here and it should not be here. If it had been necessary, the civil servants and those who have been looking at the Bill would have included it a long time ago. Is this another case of covering up just in case? So we clutter up the Bill with a few more afterthoughts. As it is an amendment, and a Government amendment, it must be an afterthought. But is it necessary?
I am not entirely happy that it covers Amendments Nos. 22, 69, 70, 126, 145 and 153 concerning parking and erecting barriers. All these are covered in later clauses of the Bill. Indeed, the amendments which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned that he wishes to take together do not depend at all upon these words going in there. They would still be quite proper and in order. They were in the statute before they were further amended after Second Reading.
I am not happy about this or about what the Government are doing. If the noble and learned Lord has another long list of amendments that are to be discussed together, perhaps he would be good enough to let me have them.
Lord Drumalbyn: I can quite understand the rational attempt to draw together a number of means by which the:
"public right of passage over any road"
and "any road" seems to me to be rather curous—
"or over any part of it may be exercised"

655
I can understand the merit of trying to do that. I do not think it would follow that every single item in the Bill would have to be covered other than what is already in Clause 1. There may be "incidental", "miscellaneous", and all the rest, for which it can be quite legitimate to legislate. But the worry is that there may be quite a number of groups of things that are not covered, and it may be necessary to diversify still further subsection (1). That is the worry that occurs to me on this matter.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have sought to explain that the idea of putting this power in Clause 1 is to facilitate the alteration of the type of use of a public road with cyclists and the alterations in order to provide for them, very much in mind. It seems an appropriate place in which this particular power should be given. The mechanisms under which the power can be exercised, of course, are subject to later controls. I mentioned Amendment No. 145, which deals with that in particular.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to raise a very small point. I was under the impression that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had the power to classify roads—special roads, side roads or local roads—and that that power was already contained in legislation. Why is additional power required if that power already exists, or is this an attempt to specify a number of certain types of operations which can be performed on roads, such as cycle tracks? Therefore, is he not in danger of omitting something which we tried to discuss earlier on the question of generalities? If the noble and learned Lord has listed so many items, would he not be inclined to miss out some other things? Would it not be better merely to retain to himself and local authorities the power to classify roads?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: On the particular matter of Amendment No. 6, the specific point I want to add by way of this amendment is:
"to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it"—
that is, the road—
"or over any part of it, may be exercised".
The idea behind that is to make it possible to construct a road and to maintain a road for a particular type of public right of passage and, after the road is possibly in use, for example, to restrict a footpath so that under these powers it becomes a cycle track.
We have to try to envisage what will be required and we have endeavoured to provide what is required. I do not think anyone can claim that nothing will ever happen that we have not foreseen, but we have done our best to foresee what will be required in order to give the cycling community the kind of facilities that I believe noble Lords think they should have.
Lord Ross of Marnock:As the President of the Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire Cycling Association, I have every sympathy with anything that will assist cyclists in getting around Scotland, and in particular around Ayrshire and Galloway. However, to return to the point: am I to understand that, in this monumental
656
piece of legislation that has taken over 10 years to prepare, the Government suddenly discovered, after they had published the Bill and after its Second Reading, that they did not have this power?—because that is what is meant by this amendment. We are adding this to Clause 1.
Alternatively, am I right in thinking that it is already in the Bill somewhere, but that perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has had a belated look at it and is beginning to wonder whether it is legal to put it elsewhere without having this power in Clause 1. It comes back to the point I made originally. It is an awful mess of a Bill which gives people power to execise the legs, be it by walking, on cycles, by car or by invalid chair. This is the generality of all this. It does not just say "cycle tracks" here; it does not mention cycles. I am perfectly sure that it is not for that particular purpose anyway.
I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should come clean with the Committee and tell us whether this is something they forgot to include, that it is something they have put in, and that it is something which, if it is not included, robs certain provisions which are already in the Bill of any legal standing. The power has not been put into the general powers in Clause 1, which relates to the making of roads, the constructing of roads, the reconstructing, the widening and the altering of roads, but which has nothing to do with the actual use of roads. It is a very fundamental change that is being made.
I cannot conceive that the Scottish Office produced this Bill and did not have this fundamentally necessary power right away in Clause 1 until someone came along and said "Let us have it now". We have not been given that explanation. If it was left out, let the noble and learned Lord say that it was left out. We are a very forgiving Committee in respect of the weaknesses, in particular, of lawyers.
In the old Scottish Grand Committee, of which every Scottish Member of Parliament was automatically a member—and from 1946 until about 1962 every Scottish Bill went to that Committee—we used to call for the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General, if he was in the House, when we were in difficulties. As often as not an hour after we had called for him we wished he had not been there, because not until they got going were we really confused. I think that this is really a matter for a lay Minister, not for a Lord Advocate or a Solicitor-General.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:I am grateful to the noble Lord for his frankness. It has not been my experience generally that when I have been invited to give my views I have confused the people who have asked me to give them; but one is always learning as one goes on, and of course it may depend to some extent on the person to whom the views are being communicated.
Lord Ross of Marnock: And who is the Lord Advocate.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:Indeed, but I am talking about myself on this particular occasion. So far as the occasions to which the noble Lord's history relates, of

657
course I am not in a position to throw any light upon them, because I did not have the privilege of being present to hear what was going on. Anyhow, I hope that the experience will not he repeated tonight that he had then.
So far as the question is concerned, I thought that I had explained orginally, in speaking to this amendment along with others, that there is a power in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to change the use of roads, but that it is a complicated power. When we were considering what we should do to make provision for cycle tracks, which was a matter for cyclists generally and one which was under consideration but which had not been brought to full fruition at the time the Bill was prepared, we thought that this was a power which would be suitable to be put in the Bill and which would facilitate the creation, for example, of cycle tracks. For that reason this power is here as a simpler way of achieving the result than would be possible under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. I thought I had explained that.
So far as I am concerned I am not hiding anything, or failing to disclose anything. I am not conscious of anything of that kind, and the idea that I am not coming clean with the Committee is one which I do not find particularly attractive. It is the last thing, or certainly one of the last things, I should like to be guilty of.
Lord Ross of Marnock:If this has only to do with cycle tracks, then why not limit it to cycle tracks? Why not say that? Or have there been other complications about changing the use of other roads in some way? We have clause after clause to come in respect of change of use of roads. So far as I could gather, they did not require this particular power here, which is a new power. We take new powers all through this Bill, or the Secretary of State does, and we are going to accord them to him. In relation to cycle tracks, could it not be done elsewhere much more simply, without raising it as a major point of principle in Clause 1? That is the most important part of the clause where all the other powers would seem to come. That is why I ask him why it is not limited to cycle tracks, and is it necessary in respect of things other than cycle tracks? Or do they not know? Is it "just in case", so that they take a generalised power, which they can justify only in relation to some experience where it has not stopped in relation to cycle tracks?
It has not stopped local authorities or, for that matter, the Secretary of State, from creating cycle tracks along trunk roads. They are there. I am not entirely satisfied about this matter and I do not like the list of amendments to which the Lord Advocate applies it. However, we shall come to them in turn. I hope it will be noted that we have not had a full discussion on these various amendments which are mentioned. We have had only the one moved, and the one to which I am certainly prepared to agree. I would he the last to deny the Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire Cycling Association of the Scottish Cycling Union some benefits which they might get from the Roads (Scotland) Bill 1983.
Lord Hughes: I have no connection with any cycling clubs or any vested interest to declare. I ask a question
658
here. I am not seeking to pick holes in the language of the amendment on this occasion but seeking to get information. The amendment reads:
"or to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised."
When the Lord Advocate was talking about cycle tracks, he indicated that it related not only to what could be used on the road but what could not be used. It was to be restricted to that particular way. Does this wording give the authority the necessary power to restrict as well as use? Because when you tell somebody that he cannot do something, he is not exercising anything. It is a genuine query. If the amendment gives a power to restrict, could it by any stretch of imagination—and my own feeling is that it would be a wide stretch of imagination—be used by a local authority to say, "We will not allow public processions in this street. This is not the type of right of passage that we would allow."?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The wording of the amendment is:
"to determine the means by which the public right of passage over it, or over any part of it, may be exercised.".
The idea in mind there is that one exercises a public right of passage on foot, by cycle, by motor vehicle, or possibly by horse-drawn vehicle, or something of that kind; the means by which the right of passage is exercised may be determined. In other words, the roads authority may say that the only means by which the public may have a right of passage along this particular stretch of road is by cycle, or by foot, or by vehicle, or by vehicle and cycle, or something like that, or by invalid carriage, or whatever particular means they want to determine. The determination would say what the means were, and that could be exhaustive of the means. In other words, it could say "only by cycle" for example.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee stage of this particular Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that we do not return to this particular Committee stage before half past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Somerset House Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Leasing of Somerset House for artistic, cultural or other purposes]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("may") insert ("by statutory instrument")
The noble Lord said: Before I move this amendment, may I suggest that the usual channels should consider a different arrangement for business which is taken, as on this occasion, in the middle of the consideration of other business and when noble Lords repair to the dining room for supper. This is now being treated as second-class business, because it does not call for any great attendance by noble Lords in the Chamber, or it is not contentious, or it does not matter.
I have protested previously about this, and I shall go on doing it whenever business with which I am concerned is relegated to this position in our affairs. Moreover, if it is expected that your Lordships' Committee is going to adjourn some business for supper, it should do so at the appointed hour and not drag on, as it has done tonight. As for coming back at half past eight—
The Earl of Swinton:With due respect to the noble Lord, he can complain to the usual channels about this, but we could not have been much nearer half past seven than we are at present. Dinner on Tuesdays is at half past seven.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I may have misunderstood the time we arrived at this stage in our proceedings, but it is usually seven o'clock.
The Earl of Swinton: Not on Tuesdays.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Then I hope those who are having supper will not hurry back, because we have business to do.
I think it would be better if I spoke to both Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 at once, because one is consequential upon the other.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 7, leave out ("he thinks fit") and insert ("may be determined").
These amendments require the Secretary of State to submit to Parliament his judgment and proposals for any lease to be granted under this Bill. It maybe contemplated that a lease granted by the Secretary of State for any period that he thinks fit may be a long one. It may be a lease which would last for a whole generation. To lease a public building, or any part of it, of the importance of Somerset House for a period of a whole generation is no minor decision. The Secretary of State should be asked to come to Parliament for approval, otherwise this is an excess of delegated authority.
I know the noble Lord the Minister has said that anyone who rises to the dizzy heights of being Secretary of State for the Environment is unlikely to do anything wrong or foolish. But Ministers do not rise at all. At best they emerge, and usually they are put
660
there in the complex process of finding horses for courses and room for a balance of wets and drys, of the Left and the Right, not to mention the Scots and the Welsh "Taffia". That is how Ministers get where they are. One cannot rely completely on their judgment. For example, I ask what blind faith one can put in a Minister when one looks across the river at the building erected in the 1930s on the south side of Lambeth Bridge by the Minister of Works for his own headquarters. It has been a blot on the landscape for years and years. That was doing something that some Minister "thought fit".
I ask again; are we to have an extension of the ugly facade of King's College that we have on the Strand now for as long as the Secretary of State "thinks fit"? The trouble with buildings today is that they are not designed by architects but by chartered accountants. That is why we have so much ugliness about all our cities at present.
Another reason given by the Minister for this delegated authority was that it would save valuable parliamentary time. I do not want to be cynical about wasting parliamentary time, but I have just been sitting in. I think that any Minister who studies the record will see that the value of parliamentary time is that which Members themselves put upon it. No subjective judgment about valuable parliamentary time is worth anything at all. In fact, I would say that one should never try to save parliamentary time on the ground that it may be wasted. That is not democracy. To use as much parliamentary time as possible, even though it may be wasted, is the foundation of our democratic system.
I do not think that this delegated authority can be justified on the ground that it will save valuable parliamentary time. If Parliament wants to save parliamentary time, it has means at its disposal so to do. I do not think it should do it by delegating authority to Ministers. It can do it by restraining its own enthusiasm and excitement on occasions; and in another place devices were created years ago known as "the closure", "the guillotine", "the kangaroo", and all the rest of it, all of which are devices to save wasting parliamentary time.
This is the end of what I want to say in moving this amendment. The words "he thinks fit"—there is always a note of arrogance in the use of the phrase, "as one thinks fit"—I want to remove it from the Bill anyway. It may be what a Minister thinks is appropriate, reasonable or within his discretion, but "as he thinks fit" is a peremptory notice of what the Minister may reply if one questions what he has done. He says, "I have thought fit", and that is the end of it.
The amendment is designed to bring the Minister to the House of Commons or to the House of Lords on the negative procedure for statutory instrument authority to do what he wants to do. I hope that the Government will feel that this is a reasonable thing to do, and that it will be some safeguard against the possibility of an outbreak of public opposition to what he does without a satisfactory parliamentary means of checking the plans that the Minister has it in mind to carry out. I beg to move.
Lord Mancroft:I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on a splendid

661
achievement with which I totally disagree. Only he could use the dinner interval, about which he has quite improperly complained, to deliver, on a very minor amendment on a very minor Bill, a major essay on constitutional behaviour and delegated legislation.
On the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to address a few words to your Lordships on the difficulty we had had over the years in the arts, in our national museums and in the municipal and private museums, in lending and exchanging pictures owing to the tight way in which the trust deeds had been drawn. Now I am glad to find that there has been a considerable relaxation in these rules, and we can do it in a very much more liberal way.
I yield to none—certainly not the noble Lord—in my respect for Somerset House and my hope that it will be properly and decently administered. I am sure it will be. But what we are doing here, if we accept the noble Lord's amendment, is to go back to exactly what I was complaining about on Second Reading. We shall fetter the power of the curator, the executors and trustees of the museum, when it is constitutionally set up, and tie them down to a lot of pettifogging regulations which I am certain will creep in if we are not very careful.
If they are thinking of setting up a three-ring circus in Somerset House, I shall he the first to join the noble Lord in complaining. But if we are going to restrict the powers of the authorities who run the place by a large number of regulations which are bound to creep in under the amendment, he is doing what he does not want to do. He will make the place unusable for what we all want to use it. It will then become a draftsman's nightmare or a draftsman's dream of pleasure by restricting it to its improper use. I see that several other amendments do the same thing. They tie the Secretary of State's hands quite unnecessarily. He is going to go mad, when we have the means of putting him sane again. I do not think this is the right way to do it. I hope that the Government will not give a very kindly reception to the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I agree with my noble friend and I disagree with what the noble Lord opposite has just said. It seems to me that the Secretary of State's hands ought to be tied, considering the things they get up to when they are untied. So far as my noble friend's amendment is concerned, all that it seeks to do is something which is very customary; that is, give a general authority in the legislation and to seek that when a specific proposal is carried out it has to have the approval of Parliament before any detailed action is taken. That is a very customary and reasonable thing, I should have thought. It is applied in many Bills and I see no reason why it should not apply in this one.
However, the reason I rise to support my noble friend is not only for that alone but because the next amendment is mine and I wanted to tell the noble Lord the Minister that, if he felt able to accept my noble friend's amendment, then, so far as my amendment is concerned, I should be happy with an assurance from him and would not wish to press my amendment any further. To an extent, at any rate, all that I seek to do under this amendment I think could be achieved at the stage when the statutory instrument is brought forward. I thought it would be as well for me
662
to give the noble Lord the Minister that assurance before he replies to my noble friend.
Lord Skelmersdale:I am always grateful for offers as beautifully presented as the offer just made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. Unfortunately, I cannot concede his wish because I do not intend to accept this amendment, for very good reasons. Before I start on what I want to say about this amendment, I am already confused. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his eloquent although somewhat lengthy speech introducing his amendment, did not speak to Amendment No. 1 at all. I did not hear a single word fall from his lips on the subject of statutory instruments, whatever that might mean. We can hardly go backwards. If the noble Lord would be good enough to speak briefly to his first amendment, I will answer both of them together, if that is his wish.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:I thought that this was almost common form. There are various ways whereby Ministers can lay proposals before Parliament. It can be done by regulation, it can be done by statutory instrument, in certain circumstances it can be done by orders-in-council. I did not think there was any difficulty about this. It was just that the Bill allows the Minister to do what he likes and this amendment asks the Minister to lay his proposals before the House in suitable parliamentary form. Perhaps I may now comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. It was not my intention that one should produce a schedule with his main proposals something like the charter of the BBC. Not at all. I had in mind that what would be laid before Parliament was the broad framework of what it was proposed to do with the whole, or part, or that part it was wanted to lease, of Somerset House; to whom it would go; what sort of lease was in mind, and what the general covenants would be regarding the purposes for which the building should be used. That seems to me to be the way of doing it. Of course, it may be that the Minister will adopt another alternative; perhaps a statement to the House when something could be commented upon.
I am merely seeking to get rid of these peremptory few words, "as he thinks fit". I do not think that any Minister should be allowed to do what "he thinks fit" with Somerset House, subject only to the very general restraints put on him later in the Bill, which are to have regard to the architectural importance of the building and the desirability of maintaining the right of access of the public to the quadrangle. That is all to which the Minister is required to pay regard in discharging his authority "as he thinks fit". Surely the Minister can put this in suitable parliamentary form. A statutory instrument, I understood, was a statutory instrument—especially if one has capital letters in it. The noble Lord may know better. He may have some alternative suggestion. Or he may say that there is no such thing. I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale:At least I know where I stand. I fully understand the basic purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his two amendments, which is to

663
express real concern behind the fears that he has expressed of what might happen to a somewhat mythical, I assume, Secretary of State in the future. But I do not believe that there is sufficient justification for the Bill to be amended in the way that he suggests. I say this for two reasons. First, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the architectural importance of the building and I believe that any Secretary of State, whether he comes from a dizzy height or whether he comes from the "Taffia", as the noble Lord suggested, will weigh this consideration most carefully when considering a lease.
Secondly, I believe that the practical problems will prevent any letting to an undesirable tenant. The remainder of Somerset House, other than the North Wing. is occupied by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Inland Revenue. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has already assured Ministers of those two departments that no lettings other than that now proposed to the University of London will be granted in Somerset House without prior consultation with them. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have something to say about a proposed letting which was not in accordance with the spirit of the Bill.
Looked at from a legal point of view, the proposal to grant a lease by statutory instrument—which is the effect of the noble Lord's first amendment—is, to say the least, a curious one. First of all, a lease and a statutory instrument are mutually incompatible. A lease depends on agreement and has to be made in a particular form, a deed, and executed by the parties that enter into that lease. A statutory instrument, on the other hand, in the present case would have to be a unilateral act of the Secretary of State for the Environment. A statutory instrument could not be made jointly with the lessee: and. although the lessee might agree to the making of the instrument, the lessee's agreement would be irrelevant because nothing would depend upon it.
In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is actually promoting the opposite effect to what he intends. The statutory instrument, if it were made, would give more power to the Secretary of State, rather than less. Moreover, a statutory instrument could not, I think, be made in the form of a deed. Thus, the notion of a lease granted by statutory instrument involves incompatible concepts and the proposed amendment is, if I may with great respect say so, rather pointless since it only provides for the form in which a lease is granted—that is, by statutory instrument—and is silent about the application of the instrument to any parliamentary procedure. No advantage can be gained from merely making a lease in the form of a statutory instrument which, at the end of the day, is a piece of paper which "gets laid on the Table".
So far as the second amendment goes, the Committee will realise that the incompatible natures of a lease and a statutory instrument, of which I have just spoken—the one requiring agreement between the parties and the other a unilateral act by the Secretary of State—do not make this amendment a necessary
664
consequence of a change in line 6 of the Bill. The existing words, "as he thinks fit", to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, takes such exception, merely empower the Secretary of State to grant a lease for such a period as, as we know, he thinks fit. They do not enable him to impose, for example, a particular period, a particular potential lessee, any more than he is enabled to impose a lease at the moment.
Given that what is involved is a mere power—and I am not being derogatory to the noble Lord, I assure him—the period of any lease must necessarily be such period as is determined between the parties. Thus, on the assumption that the proposed amendment implies determination between the parties. although this does not necessarily appear from the wording of the noble Lord's amendment, the amendment achieves nothing that is not already achieved by the existing wording of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned the calling to account of Secretaries of State. With his long experience of the parliamentary process—much longer than mine—he knows full well how he can do this in the form of questions or debates or, if necessary. by real condemnation, which can be expressed slightly more lightly, I agree, in this House but much more strongly in another place. I should have thought that was a much more effective way of seeking to achieve what the noble Lord intends rather than what is suggested in these two amendments. In this connection I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who put the point rather more briefly than I have been able to do.
Baroness Birk:I think it is quite clear what my noble friend Lord Houghton was trying to do, although, as the Minister has said, it may well be that the draftsmanship is not perfect. But what I am concerned about here, as I believe my noble friend is too, is the question of how the lease will be finally worked out. I can see the problems that have been raised by the Minister; but listening to what has been said, I was struck by the fact that we have a unique situation with Somerset House. It is quite different, for example, from the British Museum, the National Gallery or the Tate. Here the Secretary of State will grant a lease and it is under the guardianship of the Department of the Environment, although in fact it is a public building which really belongs to the nation.
I am concerned about this. I do not say necessarily that the wording is correct, but what my noble friend and I have in common is that we should like to know that there is a procedure which, without jeopardising a lease which would be good for Somerset House, would enable it to be used in the way that we want it to be, which is the idea put forward at the moment by the Courtauld Institute—thatis, the idea behind this enabling Bill. At the same time, we do not want the Bill to become the means of allowing some other form of lease which we might find incompatible with the building, and the terms of which might be worrying. I am afraid I shall be repeating all this when I move my own amendment: namely, the question of what rent will be asked. It is not really a commercial proposition at all, and I am rather worried on that point. I see the Minister's argument about asking questions; but at what point do you know it is right to ask the question?

665
Unless some statement is made that the lease has been negotiated, no one will be able to ask a question. I think we are in new territory here.
As to the second amendment, I think this may well be more a matter of semantics. I confess that I find the words "he thinks fit" rather a harsh and abrasive phrase, and although it may be argued that the words "as appropriate" may not have the same meaning, they come over as being rather better than the wording that is there.
Lord Skelmersdale:I am grateful to the noble Baroness. So far as the drafting goes. I am perfectly prepared to take this matter back and look at it again, because I can see that if the two sets of words do not mean anything different to the draftsman or—heaven forbid!—in future to a court, then perhaps the rather softer wording might be appropriate. I am prepared to look at that.
Regarding the noble Baroness's substantive point, I would say that it is not really appropriate for Parliament to get involved in the details of a lease. But I agree that it is absolutely appropriate for the Secretary of State, having entered into a lease on one side, to be questioned about what he has done. I do not think it is an appropriate way, as I said, for the Secretary of State to announce that he has entered into a lease by means of a statutory instrument: but I have absolutely no doubt that when a lease is arranged it will be quite possible, if that were to be the pressing desire of Parliament at the time, to have a debate or, as I said earlier, to address some pretty searching questions to Ministers in the Department. The noble Baroness—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley:I think the point is: how is Parliament to know that this lease is going to be entered into?
Lord Skelmersdale: I was just coming to that: I saw the frown on the noble Baroness's face and I interpreted the signs. How is Parliament to know that this is going to happen? Quite honestly, I am not in a position to answer that at the moment, but I should have thought it was perfectly proper for a Secretary of State—as he does all the time—to announce such a decision to Parliament by means of Written Answer. I will certainly investigate that possibility.
Baroness Birk: How will one know when to ask the Question?
A noble Lord: You get tipped off.
Lord Skelmersdale:I do not think I am supposed to refer to that; but the noble Baroness, I am sure, knows perfectly well how the Secretary of State would deal with such a situation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:I hope noble Lords do not think that I am being unnecessarily concerned about this matter, but may I be permitted to read to the noble Lord the announcement that the Board of Inland Revenue have made to the staff? Then I think we shall see the full significance of it from their point of view. I read:
"Somerset House: Members of staff may be interested to know that the Government have introduced a Bill to enable any part of
666
Somerset House to be leased for purposes other than that of Government offices. The Minister (Lord Skelmersdale) explained that the primary purpose of the Bill was to allow the Fine Rooms (formerly occupied by the Registrar General) to be leased to the Courtauld Institute. He also said that a proposal that King's College should expand into all or part of the areas currently occupied by Government departments was being discussed, that this raised major practical and financial difficulty, and that the Bill should not be seen as prejudging in any way the outcome of that study.".
That is not of course different from the way in which the noble Lord the Minister explained it to the House on Second Reading, but it is a potted version of the whole proposition: and when you consider that it is clear that under the cover of this Bill what is being discussed with the university authorities—that is, to lease the whole of Somerset House at present occupied by Government offices to King's College—is no minor transfer of the occupation of one of the primary historic buildings of London. This is what I am after. I know that Sir Norman Price, in his history of Somerset House, says "There is everything wrong with Somerset House, but we would be very sorry to leave it". I am not really wedded to that sentimental view, but I am certainly concerned about who may occupy all or part of the considerable accommodation which is now occupied by Government offices, and I am trying to find some way of requiring the Minister to notice the importance of this in his relations with Parliament.
If he is given this authority under an Act of Parliament on a matter of this interest and concern to people, I suggest that some way should be found whereby he has to report to Parliament what he is doing or has done. The Order Paper contains a whole schedule of documents which are laid before Parliament in accordance with statutory requirements, and I should have thought that, at the very least, the Act, as it will be, could require the Minister to report to Parliament and to lay before Parliament a copy of the lease or any suitable summary of its conditions for parliamentary information.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, raised a vital point. How are we to know? Indeed, in sonic circumstances the Minister might say "It is confidential. I do not disclose the contents of leases, because the rent and other things are in them which might be a hit explosive and should not be disclosed." Anyhow, in view of what the Minister has said, and in view of the difficulty that we have in dealing with this matter further on our feet, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I express the hope that at a later stage of the Bill further thoughts on both sides might lead us to a suitable accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
8.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 3:
Page line 7, at end insert ("but no lease shall be granted which would permit the Fine Rooms to be used as a Theatre Museum or for a permanent exhibition of the works of a single artist").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord the Minister may well tell me that there is no intention at all of providing that such a use as I seek to prevent shall take place, in which case he will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment, because, if there is no intention to do what I seek to prevent, it does not

667
matter whether it goes into the Bill. If, on the other hand, he feels that there is a possibility that at some stage the Fine Rooms may be used for one of these two purposes, then I should want to press my amendment, because I have some history in this matter which, if your Lordships will permit me, I shall recount, not in enormous detail but to explain to your Lordships why it is that I seek to prevent these two purposes from taking place.
When I became Minister for the Arts in the spring of 1974, I found that plans to use the Fine Rooms of Somerset House as a theatre museum were far advanced. As I have said in a book which I wrote, called The Culture Gap, a copy of which maybe found in the Library—I am not suggesting that your Lordships should buy it—I found the rooms truly splendid but quite unsuitable for any museum, and there was no accommodation for the proposed theatre museum or any other educational or academic development.
I therefore decided that, if I could do so and if the scheme was not too far advanced, I would prevent the use of Somerset House as a theatre museum. But, of course, I first had to find alternative accommodation for the theatre museum, because I was even more anxious that the theatre museum should be built. For that reason, I eventually discovered the possibility of Covent Garden, discussed that with the GLC, got an agreement on those lines and with tremendous co-operation from Tony Crosland, who was Secretary of State for the Environment at that time, and who was himself opposed to the idea of there being a theatre museum in Somerset House, the proposal was knocked on the head. The Covent Garden proposal, which, even when I wrote this book several years ago, I said was taking an unconscionable time in bringing forward a development, is still taking an unconscionable time. But the proposal for using Somerset House for the quite unsuitable purpose of a theatre museum was avoided.
The full story is rather like "Yes, Minister", because my own civil servants were passionately wanting to use it for a theatre museum, whereas the civil servants in the Department of the Environment were passionately against it. On that occasion, the comedy of the situation was in the fact that two groups of civil servants warred against one another. The only quarrel I have with "Yes, Minister" is that the differences of opinion are usually said to arise from personal advantage—the personal advantage of the Minister or the personal advantage of the civil servants. In fact, they usually arise from passionately held differences of opinion on how the public interest is best served. Those are the differences which arise and they are the result of quarrels between civil servants or quarrels between Ministers. This is the real nub and a series along those lines might be equally interesting, more accurate and possibly quite as funny. However, I must not allow myself to stray too far along that path in moving this amendment.
I have tried to make it clear to the noble Lord that, as I think he is already fully aware, there was at one time a proposal to use Somerset House as a theatre museum—a purpose for which the Fine Rooms are totally unsuited. The Fine Rooms are a work of art in
668
themselves, and the purpose for which they would be best used is to display fine furniture appropriate to the rooms, and they should not be converted for a purpose for which they are entirely unsuited. Neither do I think, as was also proposed at one time, that it would be a good idea for these rooms to be used as a permanent exhibition of the works of any single artist, even if it be one as splendid as Turner. To my mind, this would again be an unsuitable use for the Fine Rooms.
For these resons, I seek in this amendment to prevent either of these two uses coming about. I am quite sure that there is no such immediate intention, and it may be that the noble Lord in replying will be able to give me such a firm assurance that it will not be necessary for me to press the matter further. Nevertheless, I think it is desirable that the subject should be aired, because there have been proposals at various times to use these great rooms for purposes which, as I have said, would not be suitable for them and it is my hope that the lease which is now currently proposed will have the effect of making sure that the rooms are used for a purpose which matches their own splendour. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: May I say—?
Lord Mancroft: Will the noble Baroness allow someone on this side to get in a word for a brief moment? When I first saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was getting dangerously near to a good point when he referred to an exhibition of the works of a single artist. I happen to share his point of view, though for a different reason. If you look at the Piper exhibition today, you find that after a while you become glutted, you become sated, with the works of one artist. So it was with the Constable exhibition and so it was with the Crome exhibition at the Tate a few years ago. I say that against my own interests, because three of my own pictures were on exhibition there.
When I saw those words on the Marshalled List, I thought that that was what the noble Lord was getting at, but now I do not think he is. What he is getting at is the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was getting at earlier. They are trying to put into this Bill minor details of administrative restriction on the Minister, which I believe are quite unsuitable for this Bill. The noble Lord may well be right; I am not arguing with him. All I am saying is that this Bill is not the right place to impose tiny administrative restrictions on the Minister, which would be quite unsuitable. I am not arguing about the merits of his points, only with what he is trying to do. I hope that the Minister will see fit to agree with me.
Baroness Birk:Again I imagine that the Minister will tell us that this amendment is unnecessary: that there is no question of the Fine Rooms being used as a theatre museum at any time in the foreseeable or even the unforeseeable future. That point was settled many years ago. To go down the road of nostalgia, perhaps I could remind my noble friend that in October 1974 I was the Minister at the Department of the Environment who was responsible for Somerset House. When it was suggested that Somerset House

669
should house the Theatre Museum, it became clear immediately that it was totally unsuitable for such a project. All the Minister needs to do is to say that Somerset House could not be used for this purpose. In any case, we have found another site for the Theatre Museum.
Turning to the use of the Fine Rooms for the permanent exhibition of works by a single artist, that is a matter of subjective judgment. I did everything I could to get the Turner Bequest housed there. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, (although this is water under the bridge now) that the range of Turner's paintings is so wide that I do not believe he would have the same objection to the Turner Bequest being housed in Somerset House as he would to Piper's paintings.
Lord Mancroft: I agree with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk:I was deeply disappointed that the Turner Bequest did not go to Somerset House but, as I say, that is water under the bridge. There is now no possibility of either of those two things happening.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to apologise to the noble Baroness for the fact that in the interests of brevity I failed to pay tribute to the notable part she played in these proceedings a few years ago.
Lord Skelmersdale: For once, I am well briefed on this amendment. I am very well aware of the roles which both Members of the Committee played in this very lengthy but absorbing subject over a considerable period of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and other Members of the Committee spoke about the satiation of the viewing public. I agree. But is that the only purpose for which people will go in the future, if the Bill becomes an Act, to Somerset House? I would suggest that people go many times to all kinds of important buildings in this country. For example, noble Lords may be members of the National Trust. They may have been to Chatsworthon many occasions. I can assure noble Lords that, although no great changes take place in most country houses, people visit them more than once.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked for two assurances, which I am delighted to give. The future location of the Theatre Museum, at present housed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, has until recently been subject to uncertainty. It is now to be housed in the Old Flower Market beneath the London Transport Museum at Covent Garden. This area has been leased by the department from the Greater London Council for 42 years, with an agreed use as a theatre museum for the first 20 years and, during the remainder of the term, as a theatre museum or any other museum or art gallery. Before I am interrupted and asked what will be the effect if Parliament, in its wisdom, decides to pass the Bill on the restructuring of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties, let me say that that will make absolutely no difference to what I have just stated.
The Fine Rooms were, as we have heard, once suggested as a possible home for the Turner Collection. This is now to be housed in an additional
670
wing of the Tate Gallery which is already under construction.
While I applaud the wish of noble Lords to ensure that the number of people who see Somerset House does not decline, I am not convinced that their fears are well founded. I do not believe that there is any firm evidence to show that a permanent exhibition causes the number of visitors to dwindle. If the noble Lord has any firm, scientific evidence, I should be delighted to look at it and probably to revise my opinion. But surely those whose prime interest is in the building rather than in the exhibition would come anyway.
The Government are not convinced that there are reasonable grounds for concern on either of these counts. Furthermore, any steps which would, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft suggested, restrict the options open to the Government at the end of a lease elsewhere could well have adverse consequential effects financially.
For these reasons, again I regret that I do not believe that these amendments are appropriate to this Bill.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord the Minister is not saying that he does not like the amendment because it seeks to prevent something happening which is going to happen. He does not like the amendment because it seeks to prevent something happening which is not going to happen anyway. Would I be correct in reading the Minister's view along those lines? If I am—and the Minister has nodded vigorously—I can take it as sufficient assurance to enable me to withdraw the amendment, which, without further ado, I now seek the leave of your Lordships to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that the lease for that part of Somerset House known as the North Block shall not be less than 125 years.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that the lease for that part of Somerset House known as the North Block shall not be less than 99 years.").
During the Second Reading of the Bill we had a quite lengthy discussion about the terms of the lease. At that time we understood that the lease was going to be for a maximum of 50 or 60 years. The lease is being negotiated by the University of London and the Department of the Environment. I emphasised very strongly during Second Reading that it would be extremely difficult for the Courtauld Institute to raise the funds for which it is appealing if it had to go to potential benefactors, most of whom would be asked to give very large sums of money, if there could be no certainty about the future. Noble Lords will remember that about £1 million are needed for the Fine Rooms in order to make them viable and safe. An additional sum of £4 million is needed to deal with the rest of the North Block, if the institute is to use it as its school and for office and other purposes. At Second Reading the Minister acknowledged that to go with a prospectus

671
like this to potential benefactors in order to raise this sum of money would be extremely difficult.
I am aware that this is an enabling Bill and that therefore the way in which the amendments are drafted would not fit very happily into it. However, I should like the Minister to confirm that a very much longer lease will receive the approval of the department. I put down the two amendments as alternatives—a lease of 125 years or a lease of 99 years. The 125 years lease is taken from the National Gallery's Hampton's site. A lease of 99 years is usually given. I wanted the lease to be for about that period. However, I have received a letter from the Minister, for which I am very grateful, which resolves that point. The suggestion is that there could be a lease of 100 years, with a mutual break point at mid-term. It would mean that either side could break the lease at mid term. This may be in the interests at that time of the Courtauld Institute, or in the interests of the department. It is essential that we should at this stage have confirmation well spelt out by the noble Lord, so that it is on record that there will be a lease given to the University of London, which will then go to the Courtauld Institute, for that length of time.
We have to remember that we are dealing with something that is not a commercial proposition. Somerset House really belongs to the state and it is within the guardianship of the Department of the Environment. When negotiating the lease and the rent for the lease—which I understand is being done at this time—that is a point which should be carefully remembered. Somerset House is part of our national heritage. It is an outrage that it has remained unused for so long. Not only is it visually and artistically an outrage, but there is the matter of expense: when places are left in that way, so the cost of repairs, alterations and decoration increases all the time. It will be very expensive for the Courtauld Institute to carry out the work that is needed, first in the Fine Rooms and then in the North Block.
There are two points I should like to make here. First, on the question of rent, I understand that only a peppercorn rent is to be charged for the first 20 years, with a reduced rent thereafter up to 50 years. We do not know what the market rent is meant to be and we do not know what the reduced rent is likely to be. If the noble Lord can help us with that aspect tonight, it will be extremely useful. I certainly hope that it will be a nominal rent, because the place will be used as a gallery. Like any of the museums, the Courtauld Institute will be putting in costly work and therefore the value of the property will be increased. There is no point in fixing a rent which makes it impossible for the institute to operate there or to carry out the work it has to do.
If all this falls through, we shall be back to the awful stage about which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and myself feel so strongly; that Somerset House—a beautiful place in a prime position—will not be used for the purposes for which it could so happily be used, as a gallery for furniture and pictures. If the institute was not able to put the Seilern Collection in there, as well as its own impressionists and post impressionists, it would be a terrible waste for everyone.
Secondly, I believe that the institute will find it very hard in these times to raise even the first £ I million for the Fine Rooms. That will require help from the Government. We are all aware of the problems in public expenditure and of the squeeze that is going on with the economic situation, but I would press the noble Lord to take up with his honourable and right honourable friends the suggestion that the Government should help on a £1 for £1 basis.
When, some years ago, the British Museum wanted to open the Egyptian sculpture gallery, it was at the time when I was the Minister responsible at the Department of the Environment. I was able to arrange a £1 for £1 scheme, which worked extremely well. For every £1 that was put in by private donors or public benefactors, the Government put in £1. So for many years we have had a beautiful gallery which either would not be there or which could have taken so much longer to build and refurbish that the cost would have increased enormously. I do not see how this project can come to fruition unless there is some input of Government money. It seems to me that the fairest, best and most productive way is through a £1 for £1 scheme.
I hope that when the noble Lord replies, he will confirm that which I have quoted him as saying about the lease, and that he will also undertake to put forward the views I have expressed about the rent for parts of the building. I hope he will undertake also to press very hard indeed for a Government contribution; either in the form of a straight contribution or what I think is a better arrangement—something on the lines of £1 for £1 basis. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness spoke eloquently at Second Reading about the need for a longer lease to the University of London of the North Block of Somerset House for use by the Courtauld Institute. The answer I gave at the time—and I do not want to repeat it now—bore almost immediate fruit. A letter came whistling into the department from the University of London taking up my suggestion that if they wanted it we could, of course, have discussions about the matter. I confirm that readily this evening. But it should be remembered, when considering leases for parts of Somerset House, that we are dealing with a building that is already old. It cannot be considered in the same light as, say, the Hampton's site to which the noble Baroness referred, where a lease of 125 years has been agreed—but for the erection of a new building. That is quite a different kettle of fish from Somerset House which, as we all know, is a building that is already venerable.
In the case of such a building, many factors have to be weighed in the balance, based on the professional advice that is available to both sides. It would be wrong, therefore, to transfer those negotiations to the Chamber or to prejudice them in any way. Further to the negotiations which have now started on the possibility of a longer lease, I have absolutely no doubt that agreement will be reached—but not, I regret, before the Bill leaves this House. If for no other reason, that is because until we have the Bill on the statute book, my right honourable friend will not be able to sign any lease at all for any part of the building—let alone the North Block.

673
As far as rents are concerned, I can confirm that the rent in the lease will reflect the original state of the building as it stands today before any money is spent upon it. As far as a £1 for £1 scheme goes—and, as the noble Baroness knows, life has moved on since the heady days when she was speaking from this Dispatch Box for the Department for which I now speak—I am afraid that such a scheme would not be possible in the current climate. However, I should be somewhat surprised if pump priming money was not readily forthcoming from the Government; although, as I expect I said on Second Reading—although I cannot recall it immediately—I do not see that as being an enormous sum of money.
As the Committee will acknowledge, I have taken note of the view so forcibly expressed by the noble Baroness, and of others to which I have just referred. Negotiations on this point will continue and I am quite confident that agreement not only can be reached but will be reached on a longer term which will satisfy the requirements of both parties and the potential donors with which I know the noble Baroness is concerned. I hope that in view of the assurances I have been able to give, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—who, so far, has been silent on this point—will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Birk: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his reply. I have just two points. The noble Lord kept repeating that it would all work out and that everybody will be happy all round. But he was very careful not to mention any figure at all. I wanted to hear him confirm—and I do not see why he should not, because it is written down—that a lease in the region of 100 years will be acceptable. I think that is what I needed and I wanted to have that on record because this is what the whole discussion was about on Second Reading and what the noble Lord took back; he has been extremely helpful about the whole matter and done a great deal of work behind the scenes since then. I think it is important for the institute, certainly so far as its appeal is concerned, because it feels very strongly that a lease of 100 years or over is going to be of great benefit. If that is what is in mind, as I understand it is, I cannot see any reason why the noble Lord should not say that.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Yes, 100 years is in mind, but I cannot say at this point in time what will be actually incorporated in the lease. One thing we cannot do across the Dispatch Box is to negotiate a lease which is still only at heads of agreement stage.
Baroness Birk: That is perfectly acceptable. I under stand, of course, that we cannot negotiate across Dispatch Boxes. The noble Lord has said, as I hoped he would, that in the region of 100 years would be acceptable.
On the point of £1 for £1, the noble Lord said it is not the heady days. Let me assure him, as he is younger and much newer to this, that he does not realise that the days are never heady when you are fighting for money for the arts; it does not matter which Government are in power, you are always
674
fighting very hard all the time. It was not an easy thing, as my noble friend and I both know from our different experiences, to get this through, and times were hard then. Times are always hard when you want money for the arts—always, always.
I hope the noble Lord is not going to give up as readily as he unfortunately appears to be doing. The £1 for £l is a very good incentive and a way of getting the sort of money the Government are always preaching about and proposing, getting private and business sponsorship. It is one of the best ways of doing it. I can recall The Times through Sir Denis Hamilton playing such a big part in helping to promote this on the British Museum side when I was doing it from the Government side. So I do not think it should be dismissed in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
8.33 p.m.
Lord Houghton Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(" ( ) Any lease granted under this section of any part of Somerset House shall be restricted to bodies or institutions not engaged in commercial enterprise for profit, and shall have regard to

(i) the architectural and historical importance of the building;

(ii) the need to preserve public access to its courtyard; and

(iii) the retention on its present site in the courtyard of the War Memorial to Officers and other ranks of the Civil Service Rifles (15 London Regiment). ").

The noble Lord said: I do not think that in a matter of this importance it is reasonable for the Minister to go from having his hands completely tied to a completely free hand. I think that some conditions should be laid down so that he can be guided in what he does by the wish of Parliament. The Bill itself stipulates that the Minister must have regard to the architectural importance of the building and the desirability of preserving public access to its courtyard. Amendment No. 6 proposes to tighten those conditions up a little.
The first thing I propose to do is to exclude the possibility of leasing any part of Somerset House on a commercial lease, or (shall I say?) a lease to commercial enterprises run for profit. On the Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister and I had a few exchanges about the possible partnerships which might find their way into Somerset House if the Minister had a free hand to let all comers seek accommodation there, at no doubt a suitable rent.
As a matter of fact, the Inland Revenue itself has had some curious partnerships in its time without going outside for them. We had for example, the Canny and Spry partnership, the chairman of the board, Sir Gerald Canny, and the deputy, Mr. Gordon Spry. That was a constant source of amusement in Punch for a very long time. Then we had Gregg and Grigg, Sir James Grigg and Sir Cornelius Gregg, another partnership which excited considerable amusement. I do not want to see commercial or professional partnerships in Somerset House.
In paragraph (i) we still have to have regard to the architectural importance of the building but I suggest the Minister should have regard to the historical importance too. It may be somewhat redundant to talk about the historical importance when you have to have regard to the architectural importance, but there is a history to Somerset House quite apart from its architecture.
The second thing is the need to preserve—not the desirability: the need to preserve—public access to its courtyard. Thirdly, I come to the war memorial. The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, as honorary colonel of the Royal Greenjackets took over responsibility for the Civil Service Rifles, and he has expressed agreement with what I was proposing and sadness that he was not here to support me. If there is to he freedom to move the war memorial, that means that something very drastic and dramatic is to be done with the courtyard; and that. I think, would raise considerations of considerable public interest.
As a member of the Civil Service Rifles myself in the First World War and a colleague of many young men of my generation who died and whose names are there, I feel deeply that nobody within the period of future memory and recollection should move that war memorial from its present site. It is an annual pilgrimage for those who remember and those who share the sorrow of those who cannot forget. So I hope that this condition will be agreed to.
If the Minister feels unable to do it. then I shall beg leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, and reintroduce it and test the feeling of the whole House on another occasion, when I hope we shall not be inhibited by the conditions under which we are discussing this Bill in Committee at this moment. I am quite adamant about this, and I propose, if need be, on a more suitable occasion to make an issue of it. I think I am being reasonable about this. I think also that I am right in saying that Somerset House is not just another Government office; it never has been. It has produced in its time a special and exceptional breed of civil servants known as "the Revenue men", and many of our notable figures in politics and in public life served there.
It may be thought that this is sentiment in modern times where one can bulldoze buildings and put up an iron framework building that is filled with glass in its place, or anything that you like. But I think there is still room in the rat race for some regard to the history and the sentiment in our lives and experience. What else is there to live for, unless some respect can be paid to those who have come through life and endured much for the nation, not only in war but in peace?
Therefore, I feel that it is not tying the hands of the Minister unnecessarily. He is not being tied down to detail by what I propose. He is asked to "have regard to". If he is answerable at any time to Parliament on what he does he must satisfy Parliament that he has had "regard to". If he is emphatic about that, it is very difficult for Parliament to say that he has not had "regard to". It is difficult for Parliament to call a Minister liar and one must accept it in good faith if he says so. But at least he must "have regard" to certain considerations. If any Minister is to tell me that these
676
considerations are unreasonable. I must strongly deny it. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept these additions to the conditions already in the Bill and leave the Secretary of State, in exercising his discretion, to have due regard to the items included in my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mancroft: I am a little worried about the noble Lord's strictures against commercial enterprise. Of course we do not want Somerset House used for any length of time for unsuitable commercial enterprises. I mentioned the three-ring circus a few moments ago. Obviously, that would be totally obnoxious to all of us. However, the Venetian exhibition at Burlington House which we are all now admiring so much is commercially sponsored. The Banqueting Hall is one of the finest and the first Palladian buildings built in this country. It is used for social and, occasionally, for commercial purposes. So are the City Halls, and I believe, the Guildhall and even the Mansion House. With proper control and for proper commercial purposes, and very well looked after, I do not see any harm in this at all. I am not certain whether the noble Lord is restricting the use of Somerset House to exclude long leases or whether he is objecting to Somerset House being used from time to time for commercial purposes. In the case of the latter, I should be unhappy.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I was dealing with long leases, not the use of the building on occasions, of the kind the noble Lord just mentioned with other buildings. I am concerned with long leases and, as I said earlier, a lease that would run for a generation.
Lord Mancroft: I am glad to have the noble Lord's reassurance. That was my point.
Lord Skelmersdale: I believe there is a Noel Coward song in which there is the line:
"He opened up the caviar and said, 'Good God, Alice is at it again.' "
The speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby reminded me of that.
He seeks to limit prospective lessees to non commercial bodies. However, the line between non commercial and commercial is very fine. As drafted. his amendment would prohibit a lease to a body or institution that engaged in any kind of commercial activity for profit, regardless of whether that body or institution is, as a whole, commercial in character and conducted with a view to profit. This restriction could therefore, exclude leasing the North Wing to the Courtauld Institute if it sells, for example, guidebooks at a price which ensures a profit on the cost of the books, I am sure that is not the noble Lord's intention.
Only last month, your Lordships debated the subject of the arts. That debate illustrated the many and various ways in which our major artistic institutions are funded. As my noble friend Lord Mancroft just said, there is an increasing rôle in which commercial activity is involved in the search for funds for our various artistic organisations.
The noble Lord also wants the Secretary of State to have regard to the historical importance of the building. While the building clearly is historic, and no

677
one doubts that, many of the connections which he mentioned on Second Reading—for example, Cromwell's lying in state—relate to the site and the previous building on it rather than to the present building. In my view, the historic interest of the present building is identical to its architectural interest: it is an example of a late 18th century public building, and more especially of the work of Sir William Chambers, its architect. It follows that the insertion of the word "historical" is unnecessary.
Moreover, this word could cause trouble in the future. Indeed, had it been there in the past it would also have caused trouble. Would the noble Lord have us do nothing to the building because of its historical importance? I am sure that in his capacity of representative of the staff who worked there in days past he was active in seeking improvements to the physical conditions in which they worked. Would he stop the clock now, leaving many of the staff in the old-fashioned quarters that I have recently seen for myself? Surely not.
Finally, the noble Lord seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State should pay specific regard to the war memorial to the Civil Service Rifles. This regiment had a distinguished record of service in the Great War and it is entirely fitting that the memorial should be situated in the courtyard of the first purpose-built Government office building. I can assure the House that there has been no thought of moving it, nor will there be. It is now a well-established feature of the courtyard. Since the Government are committed to the preservation of Somerset House, including its courtyards, in its entirety, it seems unnecessary to single out this or any other feature for special mention in the Bill. In my view, and in the view of the department, the war memorial is as much a part of Somerset House as are the Fine Rooms.
The noble Lord started his speech with the most amazing suggestion that 1, as a part of the usual channels and as a representative from time to time of my noble friend the Leader of the House, was treating the House discourteously in the way that I have been conducting the Bill and the way that the usual channels have arranged for its insertion in the Parliamentary timetable. I can assure the noble Lord that if he is unhappy with the remarks I have just made on his amendment he is at perfect liberty to divide the Committee, if that is his intention.
Baroness Birk:May I say a word before we come to dividing the Committee and other drastic steps? It seems to me that my noble friend has some points in his amendment. He has made it quite clear in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that he is referring to long leases for commercial purpose. I feel that he is right about that, unless it got to the point where it was impossible to find another lessee. For example, the Government Bill does protect the Fine Rooms and requires their use for artistic or cultural purposes. But when it goes on:
"In determining whether, and on what terms, to lease any part of Somerset House",
that seems much more open and I should not like to feel that the Courtauld Institute, which is itself far from being a commercial organisation and is trying its hardest to raise money to move into the place, even
678
when it has the lease, was in competition with commercial bodies which would find it much easier to pay a higher rent. That is a worry.
Moreover, I like the addition of the words "and historical importance". I can see no reason why those words should not go in if we all feel happier. I prefer the word "need" to the "desirability" of preserving public access. The word "need" is much more positive and leaves the Bill less open to query than the word "desirability".
The Minister said that it was quite clear that there will be a further stage on this Bill. He has already said that he will take back the words "he thinks fit" to see whether he can deal with those. If he can take back these other points to see what can be done, probably my noble friend and the rest of us will be satisfied for the moment.
Lord Skelmersdale: There was a sting in the tail of that remark. The noble Baroness refers to desirability. What is desirable at the present time—in other words, concerning the lease that we are discussing; or, rather, that we are trying hard not to discuss but have ended up discussing—may very well not be desirable in 50 or 100 years' time. As the noble Baroness knows full well, this is an enabling Bill. I remind her that on another Bill we discussed recently she became fairly irate, practically thumped the Dispatch Box—it was certainly in her mind, even if the action did not flow from her hand—and said, "My Lords, we are discussing the Bill that is before us tonight". Noble Lords will remember that that was the Bill of my noble friend Lord Vaizey.
Even the Courtauld Institute has commercial aspects. For example, very naturally it would want to sell catalogues of a particular exhibition that it was putting on, or perhaps a coffee-table book on one of the artists in the collection that it was exhibiting. In that case it would automatically be competing with a neighbouring bookshop which may be selling the same thing. The argument seems to run that we cannot have a commercial organisation obtaining a long lease. If an organisation, however desirable and worthy, has commercial adjuncts, whether currently or possibly in the future, I do not see that that is any good reason to restrict the lease in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Baroness Birk: It is not a question of a commercial adjunct. I think we cleared that point. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, raised it, and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby answered the point. We are concerned about the whole thing being handed over as a commercial enterprise. That was the point. My noble friend never suggested for one moment that the organisation should not be able to sell catalogues or anything else. That goes without saying for any type of museum or gallery. The proposal is really a safeguard.
There was no sting in my tail. I was trying to save the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, from himself. I thought that he was pressing my noble friend into calling a Division. I was merely trying to save him from that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:I apologise for being in such ill temper. I had better draw my contributions to

679
the discussion to a close. I think that it would be better to postpone consideration of this amendment until a later stage of the Bill. We can then probably consider some of the semantics of the situation a little more pleasantly than at present. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.54 p.m.
Committee stage resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("prepared by the local roads authority")
The noble Lord said: I am sure that this amendment will commend itself to the Government and that they will be prepared to accept it without any further explanation from me. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the words which this amendment seeks to remove distinguish between one local roads authority's list and another's as well as between the list prepared by a local roads authority and that prepared, under Clause 2, by the Secretary of State. In my view—and I commend this view to the Committee—the words are necessary to the interpretation of the clause and should remain. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept that point of view.
Lord Ross of Marnock:No, I am afraid that I cannot accept that point of view. When we dealt with other amendments to Clause 1 we were told that if the list of public roads was mentioned there would be no need to keep mentioning it again. It is being mentioned here for the first time; "the list of public roads". It could be prepared only by the local roads authority; it could not be prepared by anybody else. The words that I wish to leave out are unnecessary. I do not think that the confusion which the Lord Advocate says would arise if they were left out does arise, so I stick to my point. The words are unnecessary.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment no. 8:
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("control") to end of sub section (2).
The noble Lord said: I am really asking for information. The amendment is to,
"leave out from ('control') to end of subsection (2)".
The subsection reads:
"in a list of the roads, highways and bridges under their management and control under section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878".
Do we really need the latter words? After all, we are to repeal that Act. It is interesting that an Act is referred to in Clause 1 when, as far as I can understand from
680
the following clauses, that Act is to be repealed. It is not to be reprinted. It will become a matter of history, and not a matter for reference. What is the point of those words? It is not my idea of modernising and codifying the law, to refer in a Bill to an Act when that Act is to be wiped out by the very same Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:When this Bill comes into effect the provisions of Clause 1(1) will come into effect, and there is a provision there for a list to be prepared. Clause 1(2) is stating what is to be in the first list, and what is to be in the first list is what is in the existing lists. The existing lists are prepared under the statutes which are to be repealed on this statute coming into operation. There are more of them than just the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act. Your Lordships will see that the register of streets under Section 5 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act is also taken in.
Basically, this part of the clause is joining the new administration to the old. One has to say what is to be in the first list under the new system. One takes the existing lists, which are prepared of necessity under statutes which no longer will apply but which exist at the present moment and are the authority for the lists which the local roads authority will have at the beginning. Of course, it is the local highway authority at the time of the changeover.
Lord Ross of Marnock:The local roads authority will still be there. It will still have its lists, and the lists will be legal. Clause 1(1) states:
"all such roads in their area as are for the time being entered in a list".
We admit the other list is there. It is not mentioned there as to how that list is to be drawn up. Frankly, I do not think that references to,
"under section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act",
which is to be repealed, or,
"section 5 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act … or any corresponding local enactment",
which will probably also be wiped out, are relevant. We are starting afresh. We start with lists that are there. Local authorities have them—highway authorities, as we may no longer be allowed to call them. We say so in subsection (1). It is a pointless exercise referring to Section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 when, later in the same Bill, we repeal what is left of it. Frankly, I do not agree with the reasoning of the Lord Advocate.
Lord Hughes:I wonder how many of the officials responsible in regional authorities for the maintenance of this list realise that it has been kept in conformity with the conditions of an Act of 1878, or how many of them, none of whom could have been born at the time, even know that there was such an Act of Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is, with respect, doing something of an injustice to those officials, because the statutory authority under which they keep the list is the Act of 1878 so far as roads and bridges are concerned and the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act so far as streets are concerned. That is the authority under which they

681
keep the list. I should expect that the officials, who are familiar with the work, would know exactly what the statutory authority was for that particular function.
Lord Hughes: I am afraid that my experience of local authority officials over the years is closer than that of the noble and learned Lord. I am certain that they know what their duty is. However, I doubt whether they know the Act of Parliament that requires them to do it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Not only that, but may I say to my noble friend Lord Hughes that many roads are kept under the authority, not of Section 41 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878, but other Acts of Parliament. They may have been added to it over quite a long time. I can remember one or two myself when I served on distinguished committees relating to Scottish legislation. I can remember the committee on private roads that enabled private roads to become public roads and thereafter to be entered on the list as public roads. This is not comprehensive. I say again that it has no real value when we accept them under the first part of Clause 1, saying that these lists of public roads are there, and we give them a new authority under Clause 1(1). We do not require this ancient authority of 1878, imperfect as it is, to give it further authority. The Lord Advocate should make up his mind whether the Government are going to modernise the law or not. One does not modernise the law by cluttering it with statutes that will not be printed or available to anyone.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("free of charge").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment to leave out the words "free of charge". If we do not put in a charge there is no authority to charge, so the lists are free of charge. If, however, you put in "free of charge", one day, no doubt, the Prime Minister will see it and say that this must come out and that you must charge for all these things or at least pay a nominal fee to examine and inspect the list. I ask the Lord Advocate what would be the effect of leaving out "free of charge". An inspection would still be free of charge because there is no authority here for a charge to be made. Indeed, if a charge was to be made it would require legislation to give effect to it, as is done in many other Acts, including the Civic Government (Scotland) Act under which we allow people to inspect certain things and put in a charge for it. If we do not put in a charge, inspection is free of charge. Let us therefore leave out the unnecessary words "free of charge". I hope that my reasoning for the amendment will be accepted by the Lord Advocate.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The reason for putting in the words "free of charge" is to make it absolutely plain on the face of the Act that this is the position. If the words were left out, the result might well be that there would be no authority to charge, but one would have to reach that conclusion by that reasoning, whereas when the face of the Bill says "free of charge" the ordinary person, not familiar with all the principles of statutory construction, will see plainly that this is the position. That is why the words are there.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I suggest that the Lord Advocate looks up other Scottish statutes—those, for instance, in relation to voters' rolls being made available for inspection. They do not say "free of charge". Yet inspection is free of charge. Unless a charge is there, it is free of charge. There is no point in putting in the words "free of charge". And it may alert someone to suggest that we are going to draw up this list and have it made available and if someone is getting them for the person who is inquiring we are entitled to make a charge. It would be far better to leave the words out. They are not necessary and they put ideas into people's minds.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport):The Question is that Amendment No. 9 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?… To the contrary, Not-Content?… The Contents have it.
Amendment No. 10—Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Lord Drumalbyn: May we go back to the Question again? I think I heard the Lord Chairman determine that the Contents had it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If I did so, it was an error of judgment on my part. The Not-Contents have it. Thank you very much.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 6, after ("may") insert (", subject to the provisions of this Act,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that a local roads authority could only enter in its list of public roads a road for which it would be rightly responsible. It would be inconsistent with the rest of the Bill if a local roads authority were even by accident to assume management of, say, a trunk road merely by entering it in their lists of public roads. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that the words are unnecessary. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is falling into the trap of accepting everything that the draftsmen say. There was never any difficulty about this. The list of public roads are those for which the local authority have responsibility—it goes without saying. Therefore, we do not need to reinsert it. This is the type of thing that we have all through the Bill, which to my mind is an absolute nonsense.
I am surprised that a man—I am not going to call him reasonable because we have had too much reasonability about somebody else tonight, and it was unjustified because he proved to be very unreasonable indeed—a sensible man, and a man who prides himself on his knowledge of the law, has accepted this. If we start with the words, "The list of public roads" they in themselves, by the definition we already have, are the roads for which the local authority are responsible. We do not need those words again.
Who talked the Lord Advocate into this one? He is slipping in my estimation. I used to have a very, very high regard for the noble and learned Lord, Lord

683
Mackay of Clashfern. He is not as good as he was. He has been far too long away from Scottish legislation. He is not as sharp as he was. He is swallowing all the bait that is handed out by these draftsmen who want to be so sure of everything that they make the legislation almost unintelligible. I hope that he will think about this again. He has plenty of time now. We are not going to take the Report stage on the day after we come back from the recess. He has time to think about it long before we get to the Report stage. I am perfectly sure that he will come hack and say that on second thoughts or even third thoughts, "You are quite right about this. It is quite unnecessary". Why clutter up the Scottish statute book when we are seeking to modernise it?
Viscount Hanworth:I am really rather surprised. Normally in this House we say that Acts are not clear because they do not say precisely what they mean in terms which are intelligible to the layman. We are always told that to do so means redundancy. Having listened to the arguments, at last it seems to me that here we have a Bill that does say what it means. It may be redundant, but should we not applaud this just for once instead of carping from the Opposition Benches on this particular point?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I renew my Motion that this amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("or abutting")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11 and I would also like to direct your Lordships' attention to Amendments Nos. 53 and 134:
Amendment No. 53: Page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (8).
Amendment No. 134: Page 90, line 7, at end insert—
(" " frontager" in relation to a road means the owner of any lands and heritages fronting or abutting or comprehended in that road;").
All of these amendments bear broadly on the same aspect. The words that I propose to delete in Amendment No. 11 appear on page 2, line 11. I shall read the beginning of the paragraph which says:
"give notice thereof to the owners of all lands and heritages fronting or abutting the road".
Anyone in the building profession or anybody who has bought or sold a house, or indeed any lawyer who has acted for them, will be familiar with the term "frontager". That is a term which appears later in the Bill. In fact, Amendment No. 53 is to leave out a subsection in Clause 13 which defines "frontager". The interesting point is that the definition of "frontager" is somebody who owns:
"any lands and heritages fronting or abutting that road".
As I have said, the term "frontager" is well known to people in Scotland and therefore "fronting" is quite natural. But one has certainly never heard of an "abuttager" because when we are dealing with property which abuts it is covered by the term "frontager".
So it seems to me that, in this first reference, it would be perfectly satisfactory just to talk about "fronting". As "fronting" is at present not defined anywhere in the Bill whereas "frontager" is defined but just says that it is one whose lands and heritages front or abut the property, it really does not take us very much further. Later in the Bill there is reference to "fronting" or "abutting" or "being comprehended in". I had the advantage of an informal discussion with the Lord Advocate before we went to dinner, and he said that "being comprehended in" covered a different subject—it was dealing not with an exisitng road but with a road which was yet to be built or constructed and. therefore, one does not know just exactly what is going to be covered by it. So this wider term was used there.
In the village in which I live there are quite a number of houses which neither front nor abut a road but which have entry to a property behind, perhaps from a narrow close or from a wider pend, so that their only contact with the road is this small entry. They neither front not abut. I am quite certain that in this village the roads have been taken over; and it happens that the pavements are also made, so no liability is likely to fall on any of these people because it is now the local authority's responsibility.
However, there are many cases where a road has been made and taken over by the authority but where the pavement (or, as we now have to call it, the footway) has not been constructed, and at some time the local authority can call on the frontagers to make it good. Generally what happens is that the local authority does the work itself and then levies the charge on the frontagers, but it can only levy on those who actually front the road. In these circumstances I think it is quite wrong that the people behind, who have the use of the road and who have the use of the pavement in the same way as those who actually front it, should not have any liability.
In a more modern context, we all know in how many of our communities houses with very large gardens have disposed of part of their garden on which another house has been built. In one case I can think of in Broughty Ferry, a family sold the large mansion in which they had lived for many years and built a smaller house at the end of the garden for their occupation. The access to that is only by right of way through the grounds of the original house. Although I admit that almost certainly the disposition of the land will include an obligation to pay a share of any charges which might fall on the frontager, that suffers from the drawback that if the second party declines to pay the frontager can only get his money back by going to court.
It seems to me that if, in fact we are seeking to modernise the legislation in relation to roads, we ought to take account of the fact that there will be much more of this, that there will be many people who realise that, because of the increased values of land, half of their garden is probably worth more than the whole house and garden was ever contemplated to be worth. So we shall have more of it. I do not think it is right that, when we have the opportunity to legislate to take care of a situation like this, we should neglect it on the basis that people have a remedy by litigating, if that should prove to be necessary.
The three amendments to which I speak have the effect of referring to "frontaging" and "frontagers", and they seek to define what "fronting" and "frontager" mean. I mentioned earlier that "frontager" is defined in the Bill in Clause 13. At the botton of page 14 of the Bill, in Clause 13, it says:
"(8) In this section 'frontager', in relation to a road, means the owner of any lands and heritages fronting or abutting that road."
Then we go on to Clause 15. These are the only references that I have found in the time, but there may be others. Clause 15(2) says:
"In subsection (1) 'above—frontager'was the same meaning as in section 13 of this Act".
My amendments take out these two definitions of "frontager" in Clauses 13 and 15 and, instead, substitute the most wide-ranging definition of "frontager" in the interpretation clause, which seems to me to be the right place to have it and the easiest place to look for it if you want a definition of "frontager". In the time available I have not been able to come up with what would be a reasonable definition of "fronting". However, I think it would also be reasonable to define that to make certain that it took care of abutting or any other way in which there could be a possible liability for any part of road charges.
When we were discussing in the corridor—and I am not quite certain how legitimate it is to mention this here—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said something to me which I thought was very reasonable. He said that in a Bill of this kind it is very difficult to draft across the Floor in Committee. I have made a number of suggestions here which I put forward as no more than a basis for consideration. I do not ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to agree to these amendments tonight, but in better time than perhaps has been available since I tabled these amendments, because it was only a few days ago—and I accept the difficulty of doing this in Committee—I ask him to undertake to have a look at them and perhaps contact me before the next stage of the Bill so that he can let me know whether he proposes to take any further action on the Bill, or whether it is necessary for me to put down amendments again at Report stage. I hope that in this at least conciliatory way of approaching the matter at this hour that my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael will go with me in practically withdrawing the amendments before I have finished moving them. I beg to move.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the way in which he has approached this matter. I certainly accept that the problems of drafting and how best to express matters as complicated as the fundamental concepts we are dealing with here are matters that require time, and it is useful to have the kind of exchange that we have just had. So far as the Amendment No. 11 is concerned the reason for having the word "abutting" in is that it takes account of situations in which a property could not be said to have its front on a street because it is a much shorter boundary that is to the street than perhaps the other boundaries of the property. You might say that it is end on to the road or street. That is the reason for abutting, and fronting
686
or abutting in that form has been in our legislation for quite a long time. The frontagers are those whose property fronts or abuts in this sense. That is all I have to say about Amendment No. 11.
In view of the fact that the noble Lord mentioned the other problems may I say a word about them. The existence of the word "abut" in this kind of clause takes account of a good number of the problems that the noble Lord raised where somebody has the ownership of a lane, say, that goes down to the street or road, because such a lane would cause his property, if he owns that lane, to abut on the road. Therefore, he would be caught.
The situation is perhaps a bit more difficult where someone is set far back from the road and all he has is a right of way to the road with no property fronting, or abutting, on the road at all. That is the problem that the noble Lord mentioned to me earlier, and it is difficult to see where you draw the line in that. Does a person who has only a right of way to a road have responsibility? So far the legislation, and this Bill also, draws the line at owning property to any extent with a common boundary with the road. However short the boundary is, so long as it is a boundary on the road that would be good enough. The noble Lord wishes to have me consider whether we could go further, and I am certainly content to do that. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock:There are many properties that both abut and front a road. If the road winds right around it both abuts and fronts. Of course, it is expensive if it happens to be a private road which is going to be made up. They have a double charge because they both abut and front a road. I am prepared to go along with my noble friend who has studied this deeply, and he has now got the Lord Advocate embroiled in a further study in depth of this important subject.
Lord Hughes: When I was seeking to take "abutting" out it was not because I did not realise that there were circumstances when you could not properly say that a property fronted. The place which immediately springs to mind from my local knowledge is Arbroath, where it is common for the gable end to be that which is on the street and the front of the house, sensibly, faces not a fairly uninteresting road but looks into the home garden. The way I looked at it was that if "frontager" could be defined as meaning one whose property either fronted or abutted, it seemed to me that it would be quite reasonable in the same sort of light to talk about fronting and then define it as including fronting, abutting, or, I would hope, the other. It has not been done in the past. But the dividing up of large gardens has become fairly common, and as land becomes more and more expensive, will almost certainly continue to be a feature for a number of years ahead. As we are seeking to modernise the circumstances, it would be better to have equity.
Later I have an amendment in connection with the apportionment of charges. In another part, the Bill contemplates different ways of apportioning by a local authority; perhaps by the length of frontage or by

687
reference to the rateable value. On that basis, if the others were brought in and there were no definition of "apportionment", somebody might find that his share was related to 35 feet of frontage, yet the man who had an equally good house behind him and had all the same benefits of the use of the road once it was constructed, had only 3 feet to pay for because that was the width of his entry. There is no equity in that.
When, as in this case, we are bringing the law up to date as well as consolidating it, we should try to take account of these circumstances, if it is possible. If at the end of the day the Lord Advocate says that, with the combined wit of himself and the draftsmen, they cannot find any way of putting it in to words, I should have to submit to that. But I should be very disappointed at such a confession of failure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("their") and insert ("the")
The noble Lord said: I hate to say it, but we might be on the verge of a momentous occasion where the Government have to accept an amendment. It is my purpose and my hope that I shall be able to present that to them.
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("their") and insert ("the")—t-h-e—let us not quarrel about spelling. I can always remember the Scotsman who came down to plead to a commission about a water scheme, and in Scotland they pronounce it "watter". The English man who was in charge said "How do you spell water?". He said, "With two t's and we spell 'mainners' with twa n's".
The fact is that if the local authority are to add a private road to a list of public roads or delete a public
688
road from the list, they have to do certain things. One is to advertise their intentions in at least one newspaper circulating in their area. I suggest that "their area" is far too wide. It should be "the area"; in other words, the area where the road is.
This takes us back to what the local road authority may be. There is one local road authority that stretches from Oban to Ballantrae and skirts round to Beattock. I will not mention all the other islands comprehended within Strathclyde. There are many newspapers in "their area", but if one wants to apprise the people of the district about what is happening to a public road which will be deleted from the list, or a private road that will be added, surely the people most concerned are the people in that area.
It is because the regions are the road authorities and they stretch so far that this obligation could be legally met without a single person in the area concerned knowing anything at all about it. One meets that point by scrubbing "t-h-e-i-r" and putting in "t-h-e—whether it is pronounced "ther" or "thee".
Lord Stodart of Leaston:I should like to support this in connection with an smaller area; namely, Lothian. Under this drafting, it would be perfectly proper for the road authority for the region to advertise in the Scotsman a road which is out in the Dunbar area of the East Lothian District. I am sure it would be right to see that it was advertised in the local paper, the East Lothian Courier, and, if it is so wished, in the Scotsman as well. I certainly see all the town and country planning matters that interest me in the local paper rather than in the Scotsman. I support the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am prepared to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 15, after ("which") insert ("is made").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I am giving the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, with Amendments Nos. 13 and 15, the opportunity of showing the same degree of magnanimity as he has just displayed. On page 2, lines 15, 16 and 17 read:
"and shall consider any representation which, within 28 days after the requirements of paragraphs (a) and(b) above have been fulfilled, is made".
If that is a translation from the German, it would be perfectly satisfactory to finish with the verb. But who, when either writing a letter or making conversation, would finish three such lines by putting the words "is made" at the end? The effect of my amendment is to make the lines read:
"and shall consider any representation which is made within 28 days after the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) above have been fulfilled".
It does not alter the decision in any way, but I think it puts it in, if not necessarily better English, more modern, everyday English. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I certainly accept that the words "is made" come in what might be regarded as an unusual place. But the problem is that if one puts them in the more usual place, which is the place the noble Lord suggests in his amendment, it is difficult to he certain that the "within 28 days" affects the "is made" rather than the consideration. As amended, it says that they
"shall consider any representation which is made within 28 days".
The way that the noble Lord has put the words "is made" in that position leaves it open to a good deal of doubt whether the "within 28 days" refers to the consideration or to the time within which representation has to be made. It is to make certain that the time, the 28 days, applies to the making of the representation rather than to the consideration of it that has led us to put it in this way.
I accept that the wording is a little unusual, but I have explained the purpose of it. I think that the amendment which the noble Lord has suggested does not quite deal with that point. I am happy to consider whether there is some better way of coping with the matter, but so far the amendment which has been proposed does not appear to me, with respect, to meet the point exactly.
Lord Hughes: I must say that my first reaction is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has accepted this stretching of "draftsmanese" to the very limit. Quite honestly, I do not see how anybody could possibly take the view that the "is made" in the position I have put it has any reference other than to the representation. However, the noble and learned Lord has said that he will consider it. I do not think that we should legislate in a type of English which nobody would dream of using in everyday life, if it is possible to do otherwise. I think that what the noble and learned Lord has said is very thin indeed, but, as he has said he is prepared to consider the matter further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 15, after ("28") insert ("full").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment: page 2, line 15, after ("28") insert ("full"). Why do I suggest that? Because we have an interpretation clause, and that defines "day", and a day is a clear day. I can appreciate many uses of the phrase "clear day", whether it he in a popular song or a rhyme that we used to learn to know how many days there are in the various months, for instance:
"…which has but 28 days clear and 29 in each Leap Year."
I think most people talk about a clear day as being a rather fine day in which you can see fairly well ahead.
If we leave this clause as it is, we have to take the definition of "day" as it is in Clause 143. By the way, I have an amendment down to wipe that whole thing out. What I am suggesting, however, is that it is really worrying the Lord Advocate; and if it is worrying him and also the whole legal fraternity in Scotland and if it is worrying the draftsmen, as it certainly seems to be, the one thing we do not want is to put in a word as vague as "clear". The provision does not apply if it is raining. I suppose, or if it is misty or snowing: it has to be a clear day. "A day clear" might have a different meaning, but that is not what the interpretation says. So I suggest that we have "a full day", and that would get the Scottish Office out of a difficulty that they have got themselves into by feeling that they had to define "day" and defining it as "a clear day". It is most unsatisfactory as it is, and once again I am helping out the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He accepted my reasoning the last time. He can now do the same thing: make it two in a row. I challenge him. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord quite so early hut there may be other times yet. The situation really, so far as I am concerned, is this. I should think it unlikely that anyone coming to this Bill would think that "clear", used in the interpretation clause, had the meaning which the noble Lord has assigned to it. I think such a person would understand it in some other way—as sunny, or not raining, or whatever. The phrase "clear days" has been used in statutory definitions to have the same sense as full days, whole days, for some considerable time: as long ago as 1809, to go back, and as modern as 1975, to come forward. So I think that the phrase "clear days" is one which has stood the test of time. The meaning, in my submission, is reasonably clear. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I will not carry the argument on, but the fact of the matter is that there is more than one meaning and it may be clear to some people but it is not clear to others. It was once again interesting to note that the Lord Advocate, in his explanation, said "complete day" or "whole day". If that is what it means, why not put it in? If that is the way you talk when you want to explain this as a "whole day", then put in in like that and do not put in "clear day", which for many people will have an entirely different

691
meaning. However, I will not continue the argument now because the noble and learned Lord has got plenty of nice clear days and maybe some thick nights coming along over the next day, or fortnight or so, and I know he will be contemplating nothing but the future of this Bill. Therefore I am prepared to withdraw the amendment for the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I must advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 16 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 17.
Lord Ross of Marnock moved Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, though there is not much danger of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accepting it. It is far too complicated for a simple Scottish lawyer. Subsection (5) begins with the words, "The requisite number of persons". It almost presupposes that we knew something about the number of persons before, but this is the first mention of it. Then we read on and discover that, eventually, we have to go to subsection (9) to find out what it is all about. With all due respect, if we are modernising and clarifying the statute, let us have something much more clear.
What the Government want to do is to give a right of appeal to certain people. This is something which is already in a celebrated Act which I have already mentioned. I was involved in the Committee stage, although I was not responsible for it. I am not sure whether it started life as a Private Member's Bill. It is the one on which Emrys Hughes spoke for at least two days, because he was slightly troubled about the Marquess of Bute getting some advantage from that Bill. But I had better not say any more, because the noble Marquess is a friend of mine and he is my chairman on the Scottish National Trust.
But the point is that the Government want to give a right of appeal to certain people when a road is to be taken over or deleted. They do not want to give it to any single person; they want to give it to a number of people. Would it not be better to state, first, the right and, then, what is the requisite number? Do not just mention the requisite number so that you are wondering what it is all about, and so that even when you have read the whole subsection you still do not know what the requisite number is. You must go to subsection (9), which defines the requisite number.
Whatever else is wrong with this Bill, subsections (5) and (9) should be together, and I do not think it is well drafted to begin with mention of a requisite number when it is a completely new subject which nobody knows anything about. It is simple English to say what is the requisite number. We have never heard of a number before. The Bill should state what is the right of appeal, and should then state that it can be exercised only when there is a certain number of people. The people should then be defined in one subsection and they are the majority of the people concerned, or the
692
people who are in a majority in relation to the payment of rates—the frontagers, the abutters and so on. That would certainly be understood.
But there is no justification—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not defend this subsection too determinedly—for having subsections (5) and (6), then going on to something entirely different in subsections (6), (7) and (8) and, finally, coming back to the requisite number in subsection (9). That is not good drafting, it is not good legislation and I earnestly appeal to the Lord Advocate—although we have had some fun and some lightness—to believe me when I say that I am not feeling light about this amendment. This is extremely bad drafting and it should not be allowed to remain. If the noble and learned Lord does not like making up his mind across the Committee in a question and answer session, I can only ask: how else can we do it? We saw this Bill for the first time only a fortnight or so ago. We have been given no opportunity to contribute anything to the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will surely agree with me that this ought to have been dealt with by a committee. It ought not to have been brought to us "cold", like this, without anybody having looked at it. It has lain about for so long that even the civil servants do not seem to have looked at it until after its Second Reading. That is one of the reasons why so many amendments have been put down by the Government to this ancient Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:I understand that the noble Lord does not wish to delete the right of appeal?
Lord Ross of Marnock: No.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:He wishes to change the way in which it is expressed. Clause 5 sets out the right. It cannot be explained all at once; therefore we have to put in something which refers to the number. However, I concede that it might be an improvement to put subsection (9) after subsection (5), which would necessitate the renumbering of the subsections. I am happy to consider that suggestion. It is not covered exactly by either of the two amendments, but I am happy to consider it for the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock:I do not wish to deny the right of appeal which is contained in the present statute. This is a bad compilation and bringing together of what is contained in the statute. I believe that one should state the right of appeal and thereafter the requisite number of owners of the heritages and the limitation which, under subsection (9), should follow. Subsections (5) and (9) should be together. They should not be separated in this way. It does not make sense.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for what he has said. We are trying to be helpful and to make some sense out of the Bill, but there is a limit to what we can do. If the Lord Advocate believes that it is unfair on him to have to do it across the Floor of the Committee, all I can say is that we are using the only avenue which is available to us to approach him. I am grateful to him, as I have already indicated, for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("to") to end of line 32 and insert ("give effect to his decision")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 would not have been possible, as the Deputy Chairman of Committees said, if the previous amendment had been agreed to. The second part of the subsection as drafted reads:
"His decision thereon shall, subject to subsection (6) below, be final and may require the local roads authority to delete from their list of public roads the added entry or, as the case may be, to reinstate in their list the deleted entry".
The effect of my amendment would be to make it read:
"His decision thereon shall, subject to subsection (6) below, be final and may require the local roads authority to give effect to his decision".
That covers exactly the same point as the much more cumbersome wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:The necessity for the words which the noble Lord seeks to delete is to indicate what the powers of the sheriff are on an application. If this provision is not included, there is no clear specification of the powers of the sheriff on a reference being made to him. This, therefore, serves the dual purpose of the phrase which the noble Lord seeks to put in its place. It also serves to define what decision the sheriff is empowered to take. In the light of that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hughes: No, I do not. Further up the subsection we read:
"The requisite number of persons to whom notice of a proposed addition or deletion is given under subsection (4)(a)above may, if that addition or deletion is subsequently made, refer the matter by summary application to the sheriff'.
The first four lines of the subsection make perfectly clear what it is that the sheriff is considering. He is considering whether the addition to the list or the deletion from the list should be made. That is the matter he has to decide. Therefore I do not believe it to be necessary to repeat at the end of the subsection what appears at the beginning. That is why I feel it is sufficient to say:
"give effect to his decision".
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Speaking as the simplest of farmers and as the most elementary of laymen, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is talking extremely good sense. If his amendment were accepted I could read no other meaning into what was required. But, needless to say, if my noble and learned friend says that his wording is essential for the proper interpretation of law, who am I to argue? But I am bound to say that I should have thought the shorter wording made sense.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:In my view, it is wise to have these words in the Bill in order to define the powers of the sheriff on the reference of this matter to him.
Lord Ross of Marnock: But, with all due respect, we do not. What we use is the word "may". It is not what
694
the Sheriff may do; it is what the local authority may do. The local authority
"may require the local roads authority to delete from their list"—
or add to their list. Is the noble and learned Lord honestly telling us that when a matter comes before the sheriff as to whether he has to add it or delete it—because that is what will be before the sheriff—he will not know what he has to do, without those words being in the Bill? I become more disappointed with every amendment we get. Are we saying that we are to give an order to the local roads authority, but if the sheriff did not know of and read those words he would not know what to do? He does not have to do it—he only "may" do it, because those are the words which are there. It is not very good advice to a sheriff—but, quite frankly, the sheriff does not need the advice. He knows what he is doing. He gets an application before him, on which people are appealing against the road being added or being deleted, and he knows what he has to do.
It may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is tired. In that case, it is time that he retired for the night. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, is absolutely right: it can have no other meaning. All that the local authorities have to do and must do is give effect to the decision of the sheriff on the appeal to him. The noble and learned Lord has said enough. Unless he can respond with something more satisfactory he would do better to retain some of his reputation by saying nothing at all and by letting the amendment be defeated.
Lord Hughes: On the front page of the Bill, after the words "Explanatory and Financial Memorandum", it states: "The Bill codifies and modernises"—but surely, if we are to take the word "modernises" literally, we ought to try as far as possible to put legislation into terms which ordinary people can readily understand. It may well be that for 50 years or 100 years or 150 years it has been done in a particular way. But it is not so many years ago since this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, took the decision that it did not need to be bound by decisions which the House had previously taken. If the House could do that in relation to giving decisions on law, surely we do not necessarily need to stick to the form of words which has been hallowed by use over decades—or, as in the case of this legislation, for more than a century.
I suggest that the noble and learned Lord, as my noble friend said earlier, is falling into the trap of feeling bound to defend everything that is in the Bill. That is a good quality in somebody who seeks to be loyal to the staff of his department, but it can be carried to ridiculous extremes. This is an example of that. If any sheriff or any lawyer misinterpreted the wording I have suggested in the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate implied is a possibility, then I would say one of two things; either the sheriff is not fit to be on the Bench or the lawyer is not fit to have a client.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("(as distinct from any road carried by it)").
The noble Lord said: This is merely a probing amendment. The clause as it stands reads:
"and without prejudice to sections 76 to 78 of this Act, until such acquisition the authority shall not manage and maintain the bridge (as distinct from any road carried by it)".
My amendment is to leave out the words
"as distinct from any road carried by it".
Quite frankly, I find it difficult to understand how anybody can maintain the road, which in any commonsense point of view is part of the bridge, without having responsibility for the bridge. What struck my mind immediately was bridges like the Tay Road Bridge and the Forth Road Bridge, which of course are not covered by this clause because both the road and the bridge belong to the bridge authority. But imagine a situation where it was not the bridge authority which owned both the road and the bridge. Imagine somebody coming along and saying, "The road is getting in to a terrible state of disrepair; it is full of potholes", and somebody else saying, "Well, it is not my road; I own the bridge but not the road". Where does the road end and the bridge begin?
I do not know what the answer is. I started off by saying it was a probing amendment to find out exactly what this clause means and how it can be given effect to. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can enlighten me. I may say I am not the only member of the Committee who has doubts as to what this clause means. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The situation is that the road includes the bridge, generally speaking. but there may be situations in which the maintenance of the bridge and of the road are not in the same responsibility. Let me give one illustration. The bridges which cross the Caledonian Canal are required to be maintained by the Caledonian Canal Authority, whereas the road which crosses the bridge is maintained by the roads authority. Of course, what happens is that they apportion the responsibility for the whole thing between them. But one has to distinguish between these and one has to be careful not to put on the roads authority the whole responsibility for maintaining a bridge just because the road goes across the bridge. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hughes:I have one further question. If the bridge authority fails in its responsibility and the bridge falls, taking the road with it, does the road authority have a claim against the bridge authority for negligence?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It would depend upon the circumstances, but one would think there would certainly be a very good case.
Lord Hughes: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Lord Ross of Marnock:There is a very great danger of it. The noble Lord the Lord Advocate has already said that he would look at the drafting of subsections (5) and (9) together. I have no intention of moving Amendment No. 19.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("half or more") and insert ("not less")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 go together.
Amendment No 21: Page 3, line 26, leave out ("half or more") and insert ("not less").
The Bill as it stands says in line 20 "include half or more than half of the boundary". My amendment is to make the words "not less", so that it would read "include not less than half of the boundary". It has the advantage of being slightly fewer words, and I suggest it is the way in which we would talk about it. If you wanted to make certain that it was at least half that was being considered as the minimum, you would normally say "not less than half", which has exactly the same meaning, I think, from a common sense point of view. But I shall not be at all surprised if I am told that, legally, "half" or "more than half" have a different meaning than "not less than half". I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:I am going to surprise the noble Lord. I am very happy to accept this amendment. I am grateful to him for moving it. It is an improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 21:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern:Equally, I accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Amusement Machines Bill [H.L.]
10.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
Clause 1: [Conditions and Operations of Amusement Machines.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, ("licence") insert ("for the premises").
The noble Lord said: This is a clarifying amendment. It marries with Amendment No. 25. This amendment, No. 1, is self-explanatory. It was spoken to on Second Reading at column 770. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("a") to end of line 10 and insert ("reasonable fee determined by the licensing authority in accordance with subsection (1A) below.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move this amendment and at the same time move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1,line 10, at end insert—
("(1A) In determining the amount of the fee under subsection (1) above the local authority shall seek to ensure that from time to time the total amount of fees receivable by the local authority is sufficient to meet the expenses of the authority in exercising its functions under this Act.").
As is self-evident, the purpose of these amendments is to allow for flexibility and to allow for the fee to be fixed in accordance with the particular circumstances which prevail at the time, according to the level of inflation, and so on. This is an amendment which meets the requirements of the local authorities and I have the assurance of the AMA that it is a necessary amendment. Moreover, I have discussed it with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is equally in agreement with the spirit behind it. However, I am aware that the wording is open to criticism. Therefore, I should like to present this amendment as something that is required, but to look again at the wording and to bring it back on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The amendment is wholly acceptable. It seeks to reflect, in principle, paragraph 18of the Second Schedule of the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but the drafting went adrift and it will be returned to on Report. I support the amendment.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, after second ("money") insert ("of the value in aggregate of 5 new pence or more for a single operation of the machine")
The noble Lord said: This is a qualifying amendment. It was spoken to on Second Reading at columns 769 and 786. It is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("either affords") and insert ("may afford either")
The noble Lord said: The next three amendments are little more than drafting amendments. I think that it will be agreed that the words "either" and "affords" should be transposed and that the word "may" should be added. While the machine "may afford either the
698
freedom of further operation", it also certainly may not. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, after ("operation") insert ("of the machine")
The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting amendment. It is a clarifying matter to insert the words "of the machine" after the word "operation" in line 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("value") and insert ("cost")
The noble Lord said: I need not remind your Lordships of the definition by Oscar Wilde of a cynic. I think that it will be agreed that even a cynic will see that in this case when we speak about the money put into a machine we are talking not about "value" but about the "cost". I therefore beg to move that the substitution be made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("sections 32 and") and insert ("section")
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. It was spoken to on Second Reading. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("regards") to end of line 6 and insert ("amusement machines")
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the interests of brevity. We have already defined in Clause 1(2) the meaning of "amusement machine". Therefore, as the meaning of the phrase has already been defined, the words "amusement machines" can be substituted for the four lines which I intend to delete. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 11:
Page, 2 line 10, leave out from ("any") to ("the") in line 11 and insert ("permit granted under")
The noble Lord said: Again this amendment is in the interests of brevity. In lines 10 and 11 there is a reference to:
"any licence, direction or permit granted pursuant to such provisions of the Gaming Act 1968".
The existing premises function under a permit granted under that Act and not under any direction or licence. Therefore it is unnecessary to include those words. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
(" (5) If within the period of 3 months from the commencement of this Act an application in writing is received by the local authority for the grant of a licence pursuant to the provisions of

699
subsection (1) above the provisions as to number and lay-out of machines under section 2(1)(b), and the provisions of section 2(2)(a) and (b) shall not apply unless at the time of such application, or at the hearing thereof, the number of machines mentioned in subsection (2) above situate on the premises exceeds the number so situate at the commencement of this Act.
(6) Such licences as may be granted pursuant to the provisions of subsection (5) above shall, if the applicant has carried on business on the premises within the meaning of subsection (1) above far a period of at least 2 years prior to the commencement of this Act, be granted for a minimum period of 2 years with effect from the date of application.")
The noble Lord said: These are transitional provisions. They were spoken to at some length on Second Reading. They are self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): I am sorry to check this marvellous career through legislation. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on the extreme swiftness with which he is conducting his business. I am sure that the Government can take lessons from him both in that and in the ready acceptance of clarifying amendments. But I think that it is a moment to pause. It is the traditional occasion for the Government to make clear their position. I do not wish to detain your Lordships long on this clause or indeed on any other.
In the course of the Second Reading of this Bill I made it clear that the Government recognised the concern over this subject and explained the consultation and consideration that was being undertaken. I also said that legislation ahead of consultation was perhaps not the best way to proceed and suggested to my noble friend that he might consider withdrawing his Bill while consultation took place. He decided not to do so and we did not obstruct him on Second Reading. Nor would we wish to obstruct him now, but we cannot support the Bill or, more important, devote resources to any attempt to correct what amount to a number of severe and, I fear, in some cases, irredeemable defects in it.
Since Second Reading, there have been some developments of which I should inform your Lordships. Arrangements are now in hand for my right honourable friend the Minister of State to meet representatives of the Amusement Arcades Action Group in the new year. I also understand that the Department of the Environment will shortly circulate for comment a draft revision of the development control policy note on amusement centres. Until the need for legislation is firmly established—and even those pressing for controls recognise that this is necessary—we cannot consider the form that such legislation might take. I know that my noble friend disagrees with me on this, and I think that we shall have simply to recognise our differences.
Although there was general support for the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, there were noble Lords who differed from my noble freind on the detail of what was proposed. This illustrates the need for consultation. Our view is that this ought to be carried
700
out without the constraints imposed by my noble friend's Bill and without diverting resources away from consideration of the subject and towards the Bill. As at Second Reading, I shall note the points made in debate and take account of them in our further consideration.
I do not wish to comment on every defect in the Bill, but Clause 1 is now before the Committee and there is a major defect in Clause 1(4) to which, as I am speaking, I feel I should draw attention. The clear intention is to disapply the provisions of Section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968 to machines located in premises licensed under this Bill. The effect of such a change would be that the monetary limits prescribed by Section 34 of the Gaming Act would also be disapplied. This would mean that machines licensed under this Bill could offer far larger prizes than machines which complied with Section 34 of the Gaming Act.
Coupled with amendments to be moved to Clause 2, this would permit the local authority to set the maximum charges of playing machines and the maximum prizes the machines may offer. This could lead to different authorities following totally different approaches. At one extreme, it could lead to an unreasonable restriction on what is, after all, a legitimate commercial activity: at the other, we might end up with a British Las Vegas. Even if the disparity was not as wide as that, the position of the Gaming Board would be undermined and central control would be lost. The desirability of this as opposed to the existing uniform system whereby the Gaming Board makes recommendations to the Secretary of State and any changes in stakes or prizes are made by regulation is something I leave for the Committee to consider. It would certainly open the way to potential abuse. Local authorities could be pressed to boost prizes, while machine manufacturers would have to have different equipment for different areas. Other premises, such as pubs and bingo clubs, in which similar machines might be located, would inevitably press for comparable payouts on machines located there.
There is another effect of Clause 1(4). By removing certain machines in premises licensed under the Bill from the restrictions in Section 34 of the Gaming Act, the effect of the provision is to make them wholly illegal. That is because Section 35 of the Gaming Act has a blanket prohibition on the use of these machines except in certain circumstances. These do not include the circumstances set out in this Bill.
As for the rest, I shall be brief. On Second Reading, I mentioned the difficulties over definition, including the definition of "amusement machine", which is at the heart of the Bill. Although my noble friend sought to clarify, at col. 777, the type of machine he had in mind, the definition in the Bill seems to be simultaneously too vague and too wide. The main problem is that the Bill seeks to tighten controls over machines which are already subject to control and at the same time to bring within its scope machines which do not come within the ambit of the gambling laws. I am also doubtful of the soundness of my noble friend's drafting as it relates to licensed premises. For example, off-licences would be exempt from the licensing provisions of the Bill as would other premises on which drinks were sold.

701
I do not wish to say any more but I hope that what I have said has served to illustrate that the whole question is a great deal more complex perhaps than this Bill is at present equipped to deal with. That complexity is what we believe time should still be spent on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Let me say in answer to my noble friend the Minister that of course every consideration will be given to every point of criticism, as it will be to the defects which he has just mentioned. But I have given thought to his criticisms about the legal analysis. I have been wrong on many occasions, but I think that my noble friend and his department are wrong, misconceived and totally in error in their legal analysis on this occasion. If only my noble friend had had the time or the courtesy to afford an opportunity for leisurely and objective discussion, instead of coming to your Lordships' Committee to criticise the drafting in this way, we could no doubt have gone along the road a little further. Perhaps the less that I say the better. Time is short. I do not expect support from my own Front Bench, and I am seldom disappointed.
Lord Kilbracken: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I should like to add that I feel that the definition of "amusement machine" is not as good as it might be, and that the simple way out is to use the same definition as that which appears at the beginning of Part III of the Gaming Act 1968.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs:I should like very briefly to say that I accept the criticisms of the noble Lord the Minister, but I would ask him to remember the expressions of concern that came from many speakers on Second Reading and which had already been voiced in the debates on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year. I hope that the noble Lord will bring on with a certain amount of urgency the research work that is now going to be carried out into this very worrying aspect about which teachers and people in the youth service are genuinely very concerned.
Lord Elton:I do not want to be put into a false position. I welcome what the noble Baroness has said because, indeed, we are bringing this work on and I have already announced two stages this evening. Nor do I wish unnecessarily to offend my noble friend. Nothing could be further from my intentions. I had hoped that the conversations we had already had with him at the department would have eased his way to seeing our point of view, and that the criticisms which I made would be regarded as a helpful indication of what might be done at Report stage. If that is not the case there is no point, of course, in my giving further criticism at the other stages of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down I should like to say that he referred to conversations in the department, and I can do so, too. None of the criticisms which he has mentioned from the Front Bench was made to me at the short interview at his department on the eve of the Second Reading. Had they been made they would have been considered. That is my complaint.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:I follow the point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter between now and Report stage. It is the general view of many in the Committee that this is a worthwhile Bill, and we want to see some progress made on it. We all know perfectly well, if I may say so, having occupied a job not dissimilar to that held by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that when one hears words like "full and detailed consultation", or words to that effect, in many cases it means a great deal of inactivity for a very substantial period of time.
The Government have to recognise that there is widespread concern as regards this particular problem, and we do expect and hope to make some progress on it. What the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said a few moments ago indicated some slight shaft of hope; namely, that if a number of amendments are put down between now and the Report stage of the Bill the Government may (if I understood him correctly) change their attitude towards the Bill. I very much hope that that is, indeed, the position, because I think many of us would deeply regret it if the Government took an entirely negative view of what is, in fact, an entirely worthwhile measure.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: From these Benches I was encouraged that the Minister used the phrases "recognises the concern of Her Majesty's Government", "did not obstruct on Second Reading", and "does not intend to obstruct in the future"; these are all generous and encouraging statements. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government realise that there is very widespread concern about the moral issues behind what is apparently a rather straightforward and even mechanical Bill, because there are grave moral dangers lying behind this.
Those of us who have done some research into it would like to urge the Government very strongly to look with some sympathy on this Bill and to help with the work on Report, so that the very criticisms of Clause I which the Minister has so trenchantly put before us can be ironed out with the help of the Government. In that way a Bill of fairly widespread importance throughout the country may not be killed and then left for a long time. This is an issue on which I believe time is not our friend, and therefore I hope that the Government will feel strongly urged to act and to improve what is before us in preparation for the Report stage.
Lord Elton: I made the Government's position pretty clear on Second Reading and I shall not repeat the arguments now. I shall refer noble Lords to Hansard. We recognise the great concern that there is; we also recognise the conflicting views about what needs to be done and we think that there should be a degree of agreement about this before we launch on legislation. This cannot be achieved in the span of time or, indeed, under the constraints of the proceedings of this Bill. Equally, we do not wish to oppose the Bill. I had hoped that by pointing out defects as they occurred to us it would be possible to be of some assistance to my noble friend. I cannot devote the full

703
resources of the department to producing an effective instrument and, therefore, neither can I promise time for this Bill in another House. I made that absolutely clear on Second Reading, and anything else I did was intended to be constructive. But it is taking time and I do not think my noble friend wants to take advantage of that, so I shall merely sit here and not obstruct further.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Licences]:
10.23 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 15, which in turn should be considered in conjunction with Amendment No. 14, which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and is intended as an alternative to it.
Amendment No. 14: Page, 2 line 24, at end insert ("including maximum monetary values of means of single operation of such machines.")
Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("and
( ) to limit the maximum cost, and the maximum return payable, in respect of an operation of the machine.").
When I tabled this amendment, No. 13, it appeared that the local authorities would be given just about all the duties of regulating the conduct of business in general upon these premises, and, as I said on Second Reading, I felt that it should be specified, particularly that they should lay down both the maximum stake for which one plays and the maximum that one can win.
Amendment No. 14 states that the:
"maximum monetary values of means of single operation of such machines"
should be decided by the local authorities. My amendment puts it in rather simpler language—that both:
"the maximum cost and the maximum return payable, in respect of an operation of the machine",
should be decided. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, I see the strength of his argument that both the maximum stakes and the maximum payout should be the same throughout the country. If that is the case, it would require a completely new clause which would have to be drafted at a later stage. However, in the meantime, as it has to be laid down in the Bill that both stakes and winnings are subject to control, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 as a paving amendment to Amendment No. 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 15:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("and
( ) to ensure that the licensed premises and persons there are adequately supervised at all times when the premises are open to the public;").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 16 and speak to Amendment No. 17.
Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("and
( ) to regulate the numbers of persons on licensed premises at any one time and to ensure that adequate means of escape are provided in case of fire.").
Again, the purpose behind these amendments is self-evident. It is clear that they are to provide safeguards which will help to combat the dangers which we discussed at Second Reading. The dangers are prostitution, the incidence of pickpocketing, and any kind of criminal activity generally that could go on in these places of entertainment. Again, Amendment No. 17 is to facilitate the means of escape in case of fire. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there will be orderly conduct in these places of entertainment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 17:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("( )the applicant is unsuitable to hold a licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason;").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to render the present wording in the Bill more explicit. However I realise, and it has been pointed out to me, that the drafting of this amendment is not acceptable. I should like to take advice on it and return to it at Report when, as the Minister has already said, there will be a great deal new that will go into it. I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("previously").
The noble Lord said: This is drafting. I suggest that the word "previously" in line 33 is unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("unless it be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such breach").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to insert at the end of line 34,
"unless it be shown that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such breach".
I feel that it is fair that these words should be inserted in view of the great difficulty in ascertaining in many cases whether a child is, or is not, under the age

705
of 16, and it should be a sufficient defence to show that all possible steps have been taken to prevent such persons from entering premises. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am not going to delay the Committee, but I should like to register the point that I am not clear what the effect of this amendment would in reality be. If one is going to create some form of defence of this kind, I am not sure how the term "reasonable precautions" would be interpreted in the courts. I make the point today, but I may conceivably want to come back to this on Report, because if this Bill is, as I hope, going to proceed further we must be clear that it is undesirable to put in forms of words of this kind which could drive a coach and horses through the meaning of this particular Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:I agree in the main with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this is a matter with many other matters, which requires leisurely consideration on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Financial Provisions.
—

(1) All expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Act as approved with the consent of the Treasury shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(2) The prescribed maximum fee mentioned in section 1(1) above may be varied from time to time by order of the Secretary of State.

(3) The power to make an order under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) All fees charged under this Act shall he paid into the Exchequer.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this formally because I am accepting Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved, as amendments to Amendment No. 21, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to the new clause, which will now take effect with the insertion of my amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments to the amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 21, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 24:
Insert the following new Clause:
Interpretation
(" . "Local authority" in this Act means the Council of a district, a London borough, or the Common Council of the City of London.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is simply to give the exact definition of a type of authority, either county, district or London borough. It represents the normal interpretation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I assure my noble friend that I merely want to he helpful in drawing to his attention something that was brought to my attention this morning. I am not certain whether he is aware—it would seem not—that the whole subject is a transferred matter for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. As such it would normally be dealt with by a Northern Ireland enactment. Northern Ireland has its own legislation on the control of gambling. I do not think that that has been taken into consideration in the drafting of this Bill. As it appears under Clause 4(3) that the Act is intended to apply to Northern Ireland, I should be less than helpful to my noble friend if I did not point this out.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:May I express my unreserved gratitude to my noble friend the Minister. I had not considered that and I am indeed grateful.
Clause 4 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 25:
Line 1, leave out ("amusement machines") and insert ("premises upon which certain amusement machines are situate.").
The noble Lord said: This is little more than a drafting amendment; I seek to change the wording of the Title to read:
"An Act to provide for the licensing of premises upon which certain amusement machines are situate".
It is the premises that are licensed, not the amusement machines. But if this amendment is accepted it will not. I suggest, be necessary to amend the Short Title which can still remain the "Amusement Machines Bill" since it is concerned almost entirely with amusement machines. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Milford Haven Conservancy Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eleven o'clock.