Lords Sitting of 27 January 1986

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

China: Trade with United Kingdom
Lord Gridley: 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 possibilities of the United Kingdom increasing its share of China's rapidly expanding foreign trade.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, China offers great opportunities for British companies which have technology relevant to China's economic needs. As an example, the companies who came on my first mission to China in March 1985 have since then concluded business agreements worth almost £500 million; but to achieve these successes has taken years of patient negotiation. I am sure that further opportunities which were identified during my March and my subsequent December missions will lead to substantial additional business in due course.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether he has seen the report from The Times Peking correspondent dated 18th December 1985, which is complimentary to the achievements of his mission? However, with reference to a statement in that report, where it is agreed that experts should go out to China during the construction that will take place there, and in view of the excellent relations that exist between our country and China in various parts of the world of which I have personal knowledge—I was in the Far East in November—may I ask whether before our experts go there, it might be useful for them to have been apprised with some knowledge of the customs and culture of the Chinese people?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, comments flattering to the activities of Ministers of this Government are sufficiently rare to always come to notice. I was well aware of that notice in The Times. I hope very much that the contribution made by technology of this country is something which is contributing towards the needs of China.
So far as I am aware, our people who go out to China are fully apprised of Chinese customs and culture; and indeed the increasing amount of business that we are doing there bears testimony to that.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on what impact the newly appointed consul general in Shanghai has had? If the appointment has been a success, would he consider establishing another consul general in one of the large cities in Western China?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. The establishment of the consul general in Shanghai was paralleled by the establishment of a consul general of the Chinese Government in Manchester. Shanghai is an important area for trade and is doing great work. I hope that in the fullness of time we shall see other activities, and other consul generals, established in China. It is important to realise at the moment that we have perhaps 2 per cent. of China's foreign trade. I hope very much that one day we shall have 5 per cent.—which is the figure we had in the early 'seventies. I think that then the Foreign Office will no doubt consider expanding our representation in China.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, would the Minister comment on the role of the United Kingdom trade commission in Hong Kong in furthering this trade, particularly with the special economic zones of South China? Would the Minister say whether he is satisfied that the China section of their commission is sufficiently staffed to meet its expanding requirements?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there can be little doubt that in Hong Kong there exists a substantial body of people who know both the United Kingdom and China. Indeed, I have continually advised all those companies wishing to go to China that they should contemplate using Hong Kong as the gateway into China. In doing so, the activity of our trade commissioner in China is to be commended. It is—alas!—not for me to say whether the commission is adequately staffed; but for those who work there and those in this country who endeavour to trade there, I can say that up to now I have heard few complaints about the standard of service provided in Hong Kong and only causes for congratulation.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would be good enough to let his right honourable friends know how helpful, in the absence of a British consul general in Canton, the American consul general's office in Canton is to British interests?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no personal knowledge of the activities of the American consul general in Canton. In relative terms, Canton is not that far away from Hong Kong and many people from Hong Kong travel there and back continually. I hope that we shall indeed see a continuing expansion of our trade throughout all the 14 seaports of China which are now open to foreign trade, and through the many provinces of China.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Minister satisfied that we give as much time and attention to encouraging trade with China as we do in the case of Japan?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in fact I suspect that we have vested more time in China than we have in Japan. Indeed, it is not for the Government to pick those areas of the world in which we should spend our time; it is for British industry and British commerce. The Government's job is to facilitate their inquiries. That, I am told by those in the know, the Government

433
have done; and I pay tribute to the activities of our embassy in Peking for that reason.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in fact the Chinese, too, are showing great interest from their point of view in expanding trade with us? Is the Minister further aware that they intend taking over the whole of Poplar Dock—what was Poplar Dock in other days—and making it a trade centre for China, and that this is very much welcomed by those of us who have any idea of the importance of links with such a country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, what we have all noticed since the historic accord on the future of Hong Kong, which was signed not that long ago, is the increasingly strong links between the most populous nation in the world and the United Kingdom. They are links which I hope will bode well for the economies of both our countries. Certainly on behalf of the Government we are doing all we can to propagate them.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, did the Minister really mean that British businessmen who go to China are fully apprised of Chinese customs and culture? If so, how do they have time to be businessmen?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course not. I just hope that British businessmen who go to China will make the effort, and I am sure they all do, to learn at least enough about the customs and the habits of our friends in China to ensure that they undertake successful business.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House are appreciative of the more welcome future that he envisages for our trade with China, and will he also take on board our appreciation of his recent part in endeavouring to extend that trade? Will he give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will, at all times, take steps to ensure that the aid given to our foreign competitors in China by their own governments is at least matched by our own.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am indeed grateful for the expressions made by those opposite. So far as the second point is concerned, I am sure that the Government will do all that is necessary to ensure that we remain competitive. Indeed, as we see developments unfold over the months to come I am sure that even my friends opposite will be satisfied.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many British firms have been assisted in the way of soft loans in doing trade with China?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the facility for soft loans has been agreed with the Government of China. Very shortly, detailed discussions are to take place under which those who will benefit from this facility will be agreed by both governments. Until that happens, of course, no actual companies have benefited under soft loans agreements.

Smoking-related Diseases: BMA Paper
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: 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 are aware that the British Medical Association has published a paper estimating the cost to the National Health Service of diseases arising several decades ago said to have arisen from cigarette smoking, and whether they agree that the costs are unlikely to be very different from the costs of caring for patients suffering from other diseases, and that professional bodies such as the British Medical Association have special obligations to give a balanced picture.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is no doubt that smoking is by far the greatest avoidable cause of illness and premature death, an issue of deep concern to the medical profession and to the Government alike. We welcome the publicity from The Big Kill, the report issued by the British Medical Association and the Health Education Council. By focusing attention on the scale of smoking-related deaths and disease and the health costs they incur, we believe that a proper emphasis has been given to the problem.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Would she not agree that the statistics, as they stand, are alarmist, misleading and unethical, certainly as coming from a body of the stature of the BMA? Would she further agree that their effect is not to do what we would all like to do, which is to stop young people taking up smoking, but to lead to the harassment of those who, despite knowing the facts, decide to continue to smoke?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the report estimates that over 200 people die every single day from a smoking-related cause. That is indeed an alarming figure, but not misleading. I am sure that the noble Viscount would agree that it is desirable that these facts are fully publicised so that people know the risks that they may run from smoking, and can make informed choices. This must be particularly so as far as the discouragement of young people from taking up smoking is concerned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept my gratitude and, I am certain, that of noble Lords on all sides of the House, for the reply that she has given? In fairness to the BMA, would she confirm that there is no evidence at all that the document that she and I have read, and that the noble Viscount must also have read, provides inaccurate statistics? May I also ask whether she would dissociate the Government from the view expressed to the BMA by the noble Viscount, that early death saves the state from pensions and other consequences of longevity?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I would say that certainly the report known as The Big Kill is supported by other reports, and particularly by the Royal College of

435
Physicians' report entitled Health or Smoking? which in fact puts some of the figures at higher levels. So far as the assessment of the cost of smoking is concerned, health is of course not simply a question of economics and the Government's aim must be to reduce preventable illness and unnecessary loss of life.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of us think that the BMA has done a considerable public service by bringing out so vividly the danger of smoking, and that their report is not, as the noble Viscount opposite said, alarmist, but just alarming?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she is aware that many other organisations, such as the Royal College of Surgeons, also are working hard on health protection? Only last Thursday they had a meeting to discuss methods of preventing spinal injuries. Would she not agree that all these initiatives need encouragement and should be welcomed, but that some, such as cigarette smoking, are easier to cope with than others?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, preventive methods of health care are receiving a great deal of consideration. Certainly the Government's policy, which is a voluntary policy on smoking, is greatly aided by the maximum publicity on the risks involved.

Pound Coin
2.50 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 how many pound coins have been minted and how many of this total are Scottish and Welsh.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at 15th January 1986, 725 million £1 coins had been issued. Of these, 110 million featured a Scottish design and 178 million a Welsh design.
Lord Gainford: My Lords,I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As regards the nationalistic element in British currency, will the same number of £2 coins be issued, which it is rumoured will be circulated soon? Is there any truth in the rumour that such a coin will be circulated?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is to be issued in commemoration of the Commonwealth Games to be held in Edinburgh this year a £2 coin which will be a commemorative piece. The Government have no intention of issuing a £2 coin for general circulation.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many members of the public are finding it difficult to distinguish between the £1 coin and the 5p coin? Are the Government asking the relevant committee to consider redesigning the 5p coin? Are all these coins
436
considered in relation to each other, or are they considered separately?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think all coins are considered together when changes are made. So far as I know, there is no consideration to redesign the 5p coin at the moment. It should not be that easy to confuse it with the £1 coin because the £1 coin is probably nearly twice as thick as the 5p coin. Also, of course, it is of a different colour.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether there has been any change in the velocity of circulation as a result of the issuance of the new coins as opposed to the old £1 note, and whether any such change has had an effect on the Government's favourite monetary variable, Mo?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have an answer to the noble Lord's question. Whether or not such a figure is in fact kept I shall endeavour to find out, and perhaps, if I may, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, is any consideration being given to the issuing of a £2 note?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Not so far as I know at the moment, my Lords.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of voluntary organisations have lost money because people with a small income will put a £1 note in an envelope, or a £2 note, but they cannot put in coins? This is having, not a huge effect on voluntary subscriptions but quite a sizeable one.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware that this could have caused a problem, but on the other side of the coin, if I may so put it, as far as street collections for charity are concerned, I think people are more likely to put a £1 coin into the box than they would have been to have put a £1 note in.

Council Dwellings: Right to Buy Exemptions
2.55 p.m.
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 how many applications have been received from local authorities for exemption orders from the right to buy provisions for elderly persons' dwellings; how many orders have been granted; how many refused; and what criteria have been applied.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, the Government have received 3,075 applications for the exemption of elderly persons' dwellings. Of these, 281 have been granted, 1,695 have been refused and 178 are still under consideration. Following consultations with the local authority associations, the Institute of Housing, Age Concern and other interested bodies, a new

437
circular (DoE 21/84) was issued on 15th August last, which sets out the criteria used by the Secretary of State when judging these matters. Since then, 32 per cent. of applications have been allowed, compared with only 11 per cent. under the old system.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I ask him whether he is aware that I have information from the Institute of Housing which shows that 80 per cent. of the applications that have been dealt with have been refused and 16 per cent. have been granted? It is taking five months for decisions to be made. Does the Minister consider, in view of the 80 per cent. refusal, that the professional officers misunderstood the criteria?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware of the remarks of the Institute of Housing and of the article in a recent edition of Inside Housing which reflects them. But in his approach to these applications the Secretary of State is guided by the wording of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1980, as amended, which obliges him to look for evidence of particular suitability for the elderly and not just suitability as under the Housing Act 1980. This he is doing. It takes a considerable time, because detailed questions have to be answered. Under the new rules it should be very much easier for local authorities to make a proper application. As I said, the results are encouraging in that the success rate (if I may put it like that) for local authorities under the new rules is 32 per cent., whereas under the old rules it was 11 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: But, my Lords, is it not a fact, even with the new figures, that the refusals are at an unacceptable high percentage having regard to what was said in this Chamber by Ministers at the Dispatch Box opposite when these amendments were going through the House and were voted upon? There is a strong feeling among the professional people involved in this matter that the Government have broken their word on it.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. I believe that the new appproach, which addresses the particular suitability of the dwelling for the elderly in its present state and the circumstances at the present letting, is much more rational and satisfactory. Obviously such tests could well be met by older dwellings if they have been brought up to present-day standards. This was proposed in another place and accepted in your Lordships' House without a Division. If I may, I shall quote the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, at the time, who was leading for the Opposition in the Housing and Building Control Bill:
"The criteria are much more clearly spelled out, they are wider and there is less doubt".

Science and Technology in Local Government: Select Committee Report
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee
438
on Science and Technology on Science and Technology in Local Government (1st Report, 1985–86, H.L. 11).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the six years of its existence there has been a conscious progress in the choice of topics for inquiry by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. In 1981, the committee undertook a study of the provision and co-ordination of scientific advice to central government. An inquiry into the scientific and technical capacity of local government was a natural successor. This inquiry was undertaken mainly during the past Session. In context the term "local government" was taken to include all tiers of local authority; that is to say, the Scottish regions, the shire counties of England and Wales, the island councils, the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties, the London boroughs, the City of London and districts of all kinds within the larger tiers.
The main focus of interest of the Select Committee in the course of this inquiry is stated in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of the first volume of the two-volume report. These were, first, to evaluate the quality of science and technological support available to the local authorities in-house or through outside specialists; secondly, to discover how improvements and innovations arise within the system and, thirdly, to assess the capacity of local authorities to respond to new demands and new problems in the areas of science and technology.
For this inquiry the committee was strengthened by the co-option of additional members with special expertise in local government. I should like to express my thanks for their assistance to the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Stedman, and to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. We were advised by three specialists whom also I should like to thank on behalf of the Select Committee, Mr. L. Davey, Professor A. D. May, and Mr. K. M. Spencer, and, as always, we were ably serviced by the Clerks to this House, Mr. Hayter and Mr. Wells.
I should also like to express the gratitude of the committee to the many local authorities who responded to our invitation to submit evidence: to the local authority associations, to the associations of professional officers and other scientific and professional bodies who also provided us with evidence; commercial organisations; and individuals who submitted voluminous written evidence and in some cases assisted us at oral sessions.
On one occasion the committee met in April 1985, in Edinburgh—the first time, I believe, that the Science and Technology Committee had sat in Scotland. I am grateful to the Scottish Office for the use of the Crown Office buildings on that occasion. Mrs. Lynda Chalker, at that time Minister of State at the Department of Transport, kindly joined officials of the department in giving oral evidence to the committee in March.
Dealing with a subject so vast and with local authorities that are so numerous, the committee was forced to place a self-imposed limit on the scope of its review. The committee therefore chose for special but, I should emphasise, not exclusive, attention the following subjects: highways and traffic management; environmental health; information technology and, as an example of a novel function that had been imposed

439
by recent legislation, the subject of the licensing and inspecting of zoos.
A questionnaire, which your Lordships will find in Volume I on pages 77 to 78, was sent out to 100 local authorities. This was a selected sample but it included the Greater London Council, all metropolitan counties, representative regions and shire counties, and districts of all kinds within these upper tier authorities. The responses of these 100 local authorities subjected to the questionnaire were reviewed and summarised by our specialist advisers and are reported on pages 79 to 125 of the first volume.
This report, in its first volume, consists of a short introduction followed by three main sections. Section 2 lists some of the many important requirements for science and technology among the local authorities and the nature of their provision. We called it the "Factual Background", and I hope that it will be useful as such. The third section represents the views of witnesses on the main matters of interest to the committee. The headings again illustrate the topics over which our inquiry ranged. These were strengths and weaknesses, organisation, funding, staff, research, innovation and the dissemination of information. Section 4 outlines the opinion of the committee. Finally, in Section 5, there is a summary of the main conclusions and a collation of the recommendations. I should like to emphasise that the recommendations there are not aimed only at Her Majesty's Government: we also make specific recommendations of which we feel it would be advantageous if the local authorities, the local authority associations and others connected with the local authorities would take note.
The factual background on pages 11 to 25 of Volume 1 emphasises the pervasiveness of science and technology throughout local government. Science and technology provide the underpinning of civilised existence as we expect it in this country. For instance, your Lordships' daily travels, whether you take a long or a short journey, will be immensely influenced by engineering and by road design, layout and construction, and the safe and unpolluting disposal of the various wastes that are engendered by our society involves sophisticated chemistry and engineering, and the protection of the consumer depends on a wide range of physical and chemical testings.
In respect of these fundamental services, the citizen of this United Kingdom, wherever he or she may reside, ought to be confident of an acceptable and dependable level of performance. The committee took notice of the long-standing traditions of diversity in local government, which were often stressed by witnesses. Clearly, there are areas of activity where local needs are different and local views on priorities legitimately diverge. However, there has to be a balance and this question is discussed in paragraph 1.5 and again in Chapter 4.3–4 and summarised in Chapter 5.2.
In discussing this balance, the committee also noticed that the work and the reports of the audit commission tend to press for national standards of uniformity in the area of the commission's concern which overlaps with the Select Committee's interests. The committee were concerned that excessive
440
championing of diversity may impede inter-authority co-operation, may risk under-provision on the one hand and, on the other hand, unnecessary duplication of resources.
In the course of the inquiry, the Committee noticed that there is variation between like authorities in the fields of science and technology. There are differences between one authority and another, differences in the administrative structure of the services, differences in the development of capacity and in the provision of technical equipment, whether in-house or through consultants, and there are also striking differences in the perceived priorities between one authority and another.
This leads to the first recommendation which I should like to emphasise, Recommendation 5.4 on Page 66 of the first volume. The committee believe that central government are at present not as well-informed as they could be about the details of local authority science and technological services. Indeed, in evidence, published in Volume II, page 114, paragraph 2, the Department of the Environment positively disclaimed a direct role,
"in ensuring the adequacy of whatever scientific and technical services are provided by, or are available to, individual local authorities".
Yet, as the same evidence continues—and I paraphrase it—there is at the same time a duty upon each major department of state that is responsible for some aspect of the local authorities' functions to make judgments about the general adequacy of scientific and technical services. A large proportion of the funding of these services comes from national resources, as is appropriate, because, at the same time, in very many fields, the job of executing national policies falls upon local authorities.
New legislation, as we were told, can place unfamiliar demands on local authority services, and it is clear that any new facility that is thereby required ought sensibly to be in place before new laws come into force.
In order to promote efficiency and to limit friction between different administrative tiers of local authority government, it is vital that the central government should possess a detailed knowledge of local functions in their actual performance. At present manpower levels, I find it hard to see how this can be so. For instance, on the subject of contaminated land, which is a major problem in some of the old industrial towns of central and northern England, the Department of the Environment staff consists of one, plus supervision in London, and two to three at the Building Research Establishment, plus research effort elsewhere, as we were told. The committee doubts that the general obligation to understand and to be closely familiar with the functioning of science and technological services in local authorities can safely be jeopardised simply on the grounds of economy.
In the course of this inquiry, by concentrating on science and technology, we obtained, in my view, a new and useful insight into the local government functions and services. It appeared to members of the committee that this particular standpoint was unfamiliar to the local authority associations. The members of these associations, both councillors and officers, the committee believe, would benefit from a

441
continuing review on similar lines to those that the committee pursued. The report therefore proposes in Section 4.20 on page 47, that these associations should themselves establish standing committees on science and technology.
The internal organisation of the local authority associations broadly mirrors that of member authorities, both in numbers and in terms of reference of the committees. This is one reason for the recommendation 5.5 that all local authorities should set up science sub-committees. However, the argument is deeper than this. The committee notes that familiarity with the powers and potential of science and technology, particularly in new and innovative procedures, is thinly spread among elected members and not necessarily universal among senior officers. There is no single route to innovation in local authority affairs. As a generalisation, it arises from a fruitful interaction between one or two officers and one or two elected members. This we saw in council after council.
There is a danger that potentially important initiatives can be stifled. A forum is needed to ensure that a committed group of members, plus officers, continually reviews the exisiting science and technology and explores potential improvements. The proposed sub-committee of the local authorities would provide this forum. The appropriate senior officers to attend this proposed sub-committee will depend upon the tier of local government. At the county regional level, it will be the public analyst plus surveyor or engineer; at the district level, it will be the chief environmental health officer and the chief technical officer.
In the opinion of the committee it is essential that there should be a specialist chemist's view obtainable at all times to the local authority administration. The committee's discussions with public analysts and visits to local authority-maintained laboratories and consultants' laboratories were rewarding and enlightening. The relative contribution of public and private sector public analysts is illustrated on page 18 in the table and in the maps on pages 19 to 20. The present situation is that in England and Wales about half the population are served by private laboratories and about half by publicly-maintained laboratories. In Scotland, the local authority-maintained sector dominates at about 5 to 1 in the number of laboratories and 10 to 1 in the number of people served.
Many authorities, including regions and counties and some London boroughs, are served by a laboratory which is located outside the administrative area of that authority—in some cases at a considerable distance. The committee believe that in addition to his statutory duties, the qualifications and experience of the public analyst can be of value to local government in a much wider field. In some authorities this role is recognised and the public analyst holds the post of scientific adviser; but this is not universal. The committee recommend that it should be so; that at least the scientific adviser should have direct access to the management team with the status of chief officer. The committee recognise that there may be contractual or logistical complications in cases where the public analyst is a private consultant or where his laboratory is located at a distance from the authority
442
that he serves. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that the Government are able to support the committee in encouraging the Association of Public Analysts, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Scottish Association of Local Authorities to enter into negotiations to achieve this objective.
There are numerous recommendations which are laid out in our report in some detail and summarised in Chapter 5. It would be otiose for me to repeat these at length but I feel that they are useful and valuable reading. Where laboratories are concerned, you will see that the committee feels that a degree of regionalisation is desirable. The load must be spread more widely than it is now and the evidence of the Government Chief Chemist and the Association of Public Analysts clearly pointed in this direction. Again, I would be very grateful for remarks from my noble friend on the Front Bench on the view of the Government in promoting further regionalisation of public analyst laboratories.
The problem of research needs of local authorities was one which was discussed at some length. The role of central government in promoting research for and on behalf of local authorities was somewhat contentious. If your Lordships read the evidence closely, you will see conflicting views. But it is clear to the committee that central government have a proxy role and that central government should make an effort to identify issues which are widely seen by the local authorities as being of common concern and should promote research in these fields. One of the major problems is that of funding and accountancy. In the GRE (grant related expenditure) calculations, there is no place for research or for science, as such. This seemed to the committee to create a difficult and anomalous situation and it is one which needs steps to remedy and to recognise more forcefully the value of research to local authorities.
Other areas of concern lie in the field of waste disposal, a subject that has been pursued by the Select Committee for a considerable time. In the view of the committee, there are grounds for anxiety over hazardous waste disposal in Scotland, as outlined in paragraph 4.71, and in Wales we understood at the time of the inquiry that there was review in hand. I should be very grateful to my noble friend if he is able to report to me the result of this review on the role of the district councils versus the county authorities on waste disposal in Wales.
The problem of noise is one which many people count high in the list of nuisances. There is the need for a review of standards for the assessment of environmental noise as a nuisance. Where the Zoo Act was concerned, the main technical problem lies in the provision of veterinarians with experience in the care of non-domestic animals. This is one which seems to be soluble in time; and, for the time being, the committee suggest that the list of veterinarians available to local authorities should be allowed to carry duplications with the Secretary of State's list.
I should like to emphasise on behalf of the committee what we say very firmly in paragraph 4.4 of our report:
"The overall level of expertise and dedication in local government is good and in some authorities it is excellent."

443
There are weaknesses identified in Chapter 3 of the report but none of these calls for urgent remedies. On the other hand, I am covinced that the committee's recommendations are valuable, are worthwhile and, if implemented, will lead to a long-term improvement in the state of science and technology in the local authorities.
I must beg your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments to refer to the issue which I suppose I can encapsulate by calling it "the abolition issue". This is one which came up during the inquiry of the Select Committee and one which I cannot avoid; although I do not want to dwell on it for very long. We recognised very quickly the importance of the English metropolitan counties' and the Greater London Council's scientific services branch as a centre of excellence. The committee expressed their anxieties—I think fairly adequately—in the preliminary report and during the last Session's debates on the Bill as it progressed. But there are areas of concern that remain and I should like to ask my noble friend two specific questions. The first pertains to London. I understand that it has quite recently been decided that all—and I emphasise "all"—the staff of the scientific services branch of the Greater London Council will be transferred to the London residuary body on 1st April and that this will provide the opportunity for decisions about their long-term future. I wonder whether my noble friend can say if this is true or not?
The second question which concerns me deals with the issues of traffic. There is outstanding concern about the arrangements for reporting, analysing and surveying in a productive fashion the traffic accidents on a county-wide basis in the metropolitan counties (or some of them) and on a London-wide basis in London. I should be grateful to know from my noble friend what arrangements have been made to safeguard the existing system in these cases. It is a fat report. It contains a great deal of meat. I beg to move that this House should take note of it.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Science and Technology in Local Government (1st Report, 1985–86, H.L. 11).—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for the very comprehensive way in which he has introduced this report. As a member of the committee, I should also like to thank him for his chairmanship. I think that his lead in the way we approached this very wide and difficult subject was invaluable as were his penetrating analyses of some of the problems that we were facing.
As he indicated, this was a quite unique and novel approach to local government. As a result of our report and inquiry, a number of people (both elected and officers) began to think in quite a different way about the relevance of science and technology to local government services. Science and technology is really a subject which cuts across the present committee structure of local government, and all of us on the committee feel confident that if our recommendation
444
(which was referred to by the noble Earl) that local authorities should set up a science and technology sub-committee of their Policy and Resources Committee, were accepted, it could only lead to the benefit of local government services.
We see such a sub-committee as being responsible for looking ahead and assessing the authorities' need for scientific and technical services as well as having the function of procuring science and technological advice and support across the board, including, as we say, those areas which do not come within the competence of an individual department. This can perhaps be more readily illustrated by the field of computer technology. All departments have a need of the use of computer services to some extent, and it is important that the full scope of computer technology is fully appreciated by all the departments and that it is not allowed to develop in an ad hoc way, perhaps at the whim of the head of one particular department, but to be co-ordinated for the sake of both efficiency and economy. Hence, in this particular area there is a further recommendation that each local authority which is developing computer or information technology capability should devise a strategy as a first step.
A number of the conclusions and recommendations which the committee came to really provide a broad strategy for local government in the whole area of science and technology. As the noble Earl has said, we concluded that we were impressed by the overall expertise in local government, which is good generally and, as he said, in some areas excellent. But we also felt that the scale of the operation was important, particularly in relation to both the quality of the service and to economy, and therefore that this should lead to an increase in co-operation and combined operations between authorities—in our view, preferably on a joint committee basis, where the expense involved in both capital expenditure and expensive equipment could be spread.
Our concern was that despite the value of local initiative and diversity, of which local government and the representatives of it reminded us from time to time with great pride, there is the problem of the conflict between local activity and the need to have a comprehensive service. We indicate in the report that we saw danger signals, particularly with the financial constraints which are now affecting local government and which inevitably are going to impinge on the scientific and technological services.
In paragraph 4.5 of the report we list a number of areas where this is happening. For instance, we fear the limitations on an authority's financial capability to innovate; financial restraint could push training and research even further down the list of priorities; we see that financial constraint could hinder the introduction or extension of information technology, and we feel that recruitment problems and greater immobility could result because of the difficulties of staff now transferring from one local government authority to another because local authorities are not recruiting new staff. So these financial constraints we saw as danger signals which could impede the further development of science and technology. Yet we had to add to that a further difficulty which we saw: that was the abolition issue which has been referred to already.

445
If we pause for a moment and think of the interim report which this committee produced earlier last year, the committee saw the metropolitan counties and the GLC as centres of excellence and we referred to their impressive innovative spirit. In paragraph 35 of that interim report we also referred to the excellent scientific and technical staff the metropolitan counties and the GLC had recruited because they were able to offer a career prospect—not just to the employees of those particular authorities, but to the whole of local government.
In a further paragraph of that report we again refer to the contributions those larger authorities had made to initial training and to in-service re-training and up-grading. The demise of these authorities is going to leave an enormous gap in the whole area of science and technology which the individual authorities, the smaller authorities, are going to find difficult to fill. Therefore, we recommend, as a committee, and we say in paragraph 4.34, I think, that there should be no automatic presumption in favour of self-sufficiency within an individual authority. In other words, we are saying that in the current situation no individual authority should automatically feel it can provide all the services that it needs on its own.
Nevertheless, the committee also recognises, and again it says, that it does not believe that voluntary joint groupings will have the same dynamism as individual authorities. We are contrasting the metropolitan counties with the joint committees that we are recommending. That fact seems to be borne out by the tortuous discussions which have been taking place between the different metropolitan district councils pending the disappearance of the metropolitan counties. I understand that the position in West Yorkshire is better than in most metropolitan county areas. Certainly it is better than the position in South Yorkshire, where I understand that only one county-wide service is to survive the abolition, and that is urban traffic control. All the other services, including, I understand, accident and traffic data, to which the noble Earl referred, will be split between the different authorities, with all the problems that that is leaving for the staff involved.
In West Yorkshire, the position is rather better, although all the scientific and technological teams are by no means remaining intact. Highways, engineering and technical services are to be a single unit providing a county-wide service, but it is to be serviced by some 700 staff compared with a staff of 3,500 engaged under the metropolitan counties. Incidentally, the three top executives—the county engineer and his two deputies, one of whom is responsible for engineering services and the other for urban traffic control—will not be remaining with the unit. So, again, we have an indication of the way in which the teams are breaking up.
There are also a number of difficulties about maintaining an adequate joint committee system. Again using the example of West Yorkshire, I understand that the agreements range from one-year contracts to seven-year contracts. In the field of engineering and traffic control, the contract is for a period of five years. Again, this presents a degree of uncertainty to staff who might feel that they are secure for one, two, three or five years, but beyond that there
446
is no security that the joint service will continue, which inevitably leads to problems affecting the timescale of projects as well as problems affecting the staff.
The Select Committee recommended local authorities who had been innovative in the field of science and techonology to patent their innovations; and, in the case of West Yorkshire, we saw three examples of innovation on which the authority had taken out a patent. These innovations are now under the control of a private company which the county set up because, first, under the local government law it was not itself entitled to sell its services beyond local government; and, secondly, it wanted to preserve some continuity in these fields. But the question arises: to whom is this private company now accountable? There is no county authority, there is no joint committee, and I understand that there is even some doubt as to whether it will be permissible for the company to continue. I should like to ask the Minister what he sees as the future for such organisations.
So those are very real problems which joint committees responsible for joint services within a county area are coming up against. The committee felt that in the absence of a more formal structure, which could, perhaps, deal more effectively with some of these problems, the impetus of the development of science and technology would bring local authorities closer together and cause them to co-operate more—to co-operate in the provision of technical services, to co-operate in the provision of research, to which the noble Earl has again referred, and to co-operate in the area of training, particularly mid-career training, which will be essential if local government is to continue to provide a worthwhile career. The whole thrust of the report has been not only to look at the achievements of local government in the field of science and technology, but to try to assess the way forward in the light of the difficulties that were experienced by the reorganisation of local government last year.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in expressing my thanks to our chairman for the very able way in which he introduced our report today, and also for his very wise guidance throughout the many sittings of the committee. I certainly appreciated the opportunity given to me to serve on that committee and of meeting the witnesses and visiting local authorities. But as our chairman has said, the local authority associations did not appear to see it as their duty to disseminate information. That appeared to be left more to the officers' societies and, at the time, your Select Committee felt that the individual authorities and associations ought to be setting up these special sub-committees for science and technology, which have already been referred to.
I have been talking to some of my friends in the shire counties and I have to say that, on reflection, they feel that so many support service interests are involved that they would prefer something more like our Select Committee being set up—perhaps a non-executive review committee—which would carry out a full review, would report and would then disband, because they feel that this method would perhaps enable more

447
radical ideas to be discussed, that some of the service committees might see it as rather less threatening and that the authorities themselves would not then be cluttered up with sub-committees on every topic that from time to time became of interest to the authority. But no doubt this is a contrary view to that of our committee which will be put to the appropriate places in due course.
Another point on which I should like to touch is that their authorities are finding that they are running up against limitations of the law in trying to exploit and sell their services. They believe that our recommendation needs a lot more consideration and a lot more work doing on it, because they feel that perhaps the law may have to be amended or even eased before they can do those things that we want. Cambridgeshire, my own county, is particularly concerned about this. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has much more up-to-date information on it than I have and I am sure will be giving it to the House this afternoon.
We also in the course of our deliberations interviewed LAMSAC, who reminded us of the change in their funding over the past two years. Only one-third of their income now comes from the local authorities and two-thirds of it comes from consultancy fees, from the sale of software, from organising seminars, and so on and they are taking a much more commercial approach towards the whole business. They believe that the different circumstances have not detracted from the level of service which they offer to the local authorities.
The ADC suggested that the service provided was good, but there appeared to be mixed views among the larger shire counties, and the metropolitan areas; and the Scottish local authority associations have withdrawn their financial support from LAMSAC. But it was the opinion of your committee that, in present circumstances, LAMSAC is now unable to meet its original aims of assisting local government clients. On the other hand, your committee wholeheartedly approved of the Department of Trade and Industry office automation experiment and we should like to see this extended by the Government who could seize the opportunity to speed up the introduction of information technology by demonstration projects and by pump priming for software development and for similar initiatives. As we talked to witnesses and went around the country, there were obvious problems with the compatibility of computer systems, though my impression was that most of the authorities were interested in establishing and extending information technology. But the training of users has been and is a problem in that local government salary scales cannot compete with industry and good, trained computer operators are in great demand.
I believe there is a move towards collaboration between authorities on the growth of powerful microcomputers and small main-frame computers together with more packaged software, which means that each authority can now consider having its own computing capability. But that makes it even more essential that they should have compatibility of equipment within a wider county area to enable the proper interchange of data. We did have a serious
448
complaint from the Association of County Councils on the dissemination of information about research documents coming from Government departments. The Government decide which shall be published and then they are usually sent to Her Majesty's Stationery Office. If they in turn put too high a price tag on the publication, the authorities, these days, cannot afford to buy it. Mr. Robinson, who was one of the witnesses of the Association of County Councils, told us that once upon a time Government used to say, "This piece of research has been done. You will get a free copy and the rest you will buy". He went on to say rather wistfully that this does not happen so much now because there is a fairly strong edict that circulars are a waste of money. That is why the dissemination of research now goes to the county authorities via their officers' societies.
The evidence of the Royal Institute of British Architects also expressed a concern, which was shared by members of your committee, that the present and future levels of joint services and collaboration on research between local authorities should have been very pertinent to the consideration of the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. The RIBA and the members of your committee believe that the various units providing the scientific and technical services within the metropolitan counties and the GLC ought to have been retained intact. Your committee also believe that fragmentation and dispersal of the accumulated experience and data within these units would cause a loss which could take several decades to make good. We considered that it would be uneconomical and wasteful of both financial and manpower resources to allow these teams to disappear completely. The services could only be impaired and the effectiveness reduced if smaller units were established within every borough and district council.
The scientific advice units in the metropolitan counties and the GLC and the land survey and reclamation units are in the same position. Will the boroughs and districts really be able to carry out this work effectively as it has been done in the past, without the expertise and the financial support of the metropolitan counties? Under the Local Government Bill 1985 some of the service responsibilities passed to the residuary bodies which will be wound up in five years' time. Can I ask the Minister what provision has been made so far by those residuary bodies, and what is going to happen in five years' time? How are the residuary bodies dealing with the matters, and what can the Minister tell us about their proposals to date? As the noble Baroness has said, your committee were asked to prepare an interim report before the Local Government Bill was before the House and to make our considerations. We made recommendations but unfortunately this did not change the stance of the Government. In just nine weeks before abolition I believe that we have a right—if not a duty—to satisfy ourselves as to what looks like happening in those areas of our concern.
It seems to me that the Government are standing idly by and there is little knowledge of what the residuary bodies are doing to smooth the transition from the metropolitan authorities and the GLC to the boroughs. We argued for hours and days and even weeks on the 1985 Bill. We argued that it had been

449
hastily conceived and that much of it would be impracticable. I believe that in many areas of science and technology—in the scientific and technical services, in a strategic role for transport, in highways and traffic control, in waste management and disposal, in land reclamation and countryside projects and in information and research—too little has been achieved, and in some fields I regret to say that I think the changeover is going to be quite chaotic and can only be to the detriment of the ratepayers. In all the uncertainty of what the future holds it is a tribute to the staff that their loyalty and morale has held up and I hope that this House will be among those who will recognise it.
I want to look at the fate of these specialist teams of the kind which interested your Select Committee, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the very worrying state of affairs. I am going to use illustrations from the metropolitan counties, and from Greater Manchester in particular since that seems, like West Yorkshire, to be one of the areas that have been trying to make arrangements for their specialist teams. But even the Greater Manchester arrangements fall lamentably short of what is needed to maintain the forward looking and innovative work that they have been doing. Consider the scientific and technological services allied to countryside planning, to the reclamation of derelict land, to research and information, to mineral extraction and to waste disposal.
I have already tabled a Question for Written Answer on how the Secretary of State sees Section 7(2) of the 1985 Act progressing and asking when we may expect that report, so I shall not enlarge on that this afternoon. The countryside units in Greater Manchester have used to the full the scientific services that have been available to them. Now that work passes to the districts, and in this, as with obligations, co-operation to one lead district is not working. I am not "knocking" the districts for taking a parsimonious view of their future responsibilities because they are concerned about the future revenue and capital funding of these services and the financial consequences to them. The rate support grant has yet again demonstrated that the grant system is a lottery with violent and arbitrary changes in grant for the district councils. Your committee commented that resources are short and are unlikely to improve. The Association of District Councils believes that funding in the field of research and development is going to be even more difficult unless some government can devise a simpler and more stable distribution for the future.
There is also a growing realisation that the reclamation of derelict land and the promoting of countryside projects will now have to take their place in the queue for resources for housing, social services, and so on. The relevant scientific and technical expertise of the metropolitan counties' countryside projects is going to be lost without positive co-operation on the part of the district councils which now inherit those functions. In all the metropolitan counties, if the districts do not take over this work, we are going to lose the expertise and the experience that has been put together during the past decade.
Your committee were satisfied, from their visits to West Yorkshire and to Greater Manchester, that there
450
was a case for the continuation of specialist teams on land reclamation and similar projects within the metropolitan areas. We were all impressed by the very substantial inroads that had been made into the wastelands left by the coal mining and industrial decline, but at this moment it looks as if that work is going to be a total casualty. In Greater Manchester the districts have dispensed with the services of the joint reclamation team, resulting in a major dislocation to their programme of work and a loss of the wider perspective of the area of substantial expertise and experience. In the West Midlands, South Yorkshire and Mersyside there were no proposals to keep the skill teams together. It is sad to see major areas of important work collapsing and irreplaceable expertise being just pushed aside.
In our report we considered the scale of services to be provided. We looked at research and information and we agreed (I quote from paragraph 4.23) that:
"The scale of services has to be appropriate to present-day needs… The increasing complexity and range of science and technology make large scale operations more necessary".
Section 88 of the 1985 Act allows metropolitan district councils to do that if two-thirds of them agree that the funding can come from all the districts in the area according to population. That could lead to research and information units being maintained. Alas! it is not so. In Greater Manchester the co-ordinating committee will maintain such a unit but at less than half the size of the present metropolitan team, and therefore they are unable to maintain the current level of service.
Information could continue to be collected for formulation of policy, not only by district councils but also for central Government and other governmental and private sector bodies. But the proposed unit will be split away from the formulation of policy and will have nothing to do with advising on policy and with the best way to deliver the services that local government needs. Information technology will be separated from those who are reliant and dependent upon it. That runs totally counter to the advice given by your Lordships' committee.
Research and information extends not only to town planning but also to transport modelling, to urban traffic control, to highway design, to refuse disposal, and so on. In Greater Manchester there now seems little chance that those extremely desirable connections will be maintained. That means that instead there will be collection of inconsistent data, potential duplication of work, and above all a paucity of policy development. That must be so, with only a partial view of the wider issues of the area.
In the other metropolitan areas the situation appears even worse, with Merseyside hoping that the residuary body will do something about it. There is nothing happening in South Yorkshire. Possibly there will be a very small Tyne and Wear team based on Newcastle, while in the West Midlands there may be a planning and transport data team under Solihull Council but that team will be forbidden to stray into policy; indeed, its very existence depends on the current rate support grant allocation.
The same problems apply to minerals and waste planning. The wide markets for mineral and the wide

451
catchments for waste disposal sites demand more than a local approach. Greater Manchester has made modest progress with a small unit being maintained centrally under Salford Council, but there is worry in Greater Manchester about the adoption of the minerals local plan for the next decade.
A very great deal of technical work has gone into that plan, which will be on deposit by the end of March. This morning, I asked the Minister's office if it might be possible for him to tell the House at the end of this debate—or if not, by correspondence later—that that work will not be wasted and that the plan is likely to be approved very soon.
In the other metropolitan counties the outlook is bleak. In South Yorkshire there is a joint committee but no joint team to advise it. In West Yorkshire the picture looks equally depressing. There are no joint arrangements within Merseyside. There is just a glimmer of hope in the West Midlands that a limited role might be adopted by Walsall. The emerging picture overall is one of indecision, of late decision, or of a determination to go it alone—thus fragmenting the whole effectiveness of that very vital work.
Your Lordships' Select Committee was rightly worried about the short period available for transferring the vital services from the metropolitan counties to the districts. With the transfer only nine weeks away, the emerging picture is one of chaos, of hastily-made and ill-considered decisions, and of a complete inability to sort matters out in the time that is now left. Local councils are fearful of the consequences of making specialised arrangements. The rate support grant formula has a negative influence on the retention and development of specialised work, and the financial restraints on local government are biting hard.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness while she is speaking on the subject of the rate support grant, it is not clear to me from reading the report whether or not the committee was aware, when it reported, of the impending change from target to grant related expenditure assessment as the main means of controlling local government expenditure. Can the noble Baroness say what the committee's view was of that matter while it was deliberating?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, so far as I know, there was no discussion on the rate support grant, and the committee did not know of the proposed changes.
The very fear of those financial consequences is bound to lead to a restrictive view of the work to be adopted and a shying away from any innovative or non-statutory task. In our report, we comment that innovation is not cheap and that the present circumstances were likely to stifle it altogether. I see a very real danger that collective decisions on the future of the services will be dealt with in the same way as current decisions on how to run the service after 1st April—which seems to be a case of reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, entailing a complete lack of vision or perspective, and an inability to seize the opportunities that present themselves.
452
If we are to have policies then they must be well grounded, and the information collected should and must be relevant to the needs of the policymakers. Yet we find ourselves on the brink of losing so much expertise and experience, leading to a very real cut in the level of service in terms of both quality and quantity. We cannot ignore value for money in the quality and quantity of service provided. Your Lordships' committee recognised that and recommended an extension of assessment methods to functions that make major demands on scientific services.
In the current situation it seems to me that the residuary bodies should not be taking such a passive role as they appear to be. I understand that some have not yet appointed any staff although there are only nine weeks to go. In Merseyside, where the residuary body did start to show an interest and became involved, the chairman was removed by the Secretary of State. I could be uncharitable and speculate on whether the activity and the sacking are linked. There must be a moral there somewhere, but I have not sorted it out.
I commend the report of the Select Committee as a fine and serious in-depth study of some of the problems in local government scientific and technological services across a very wide spectrum. If they are given the right help, encouragement and leadership from central government then our local authorities could have the capacity to react to future demands. I will conclude by quoting from our earlier interim report:
"Economic, efficient and forward looking services demand excellence, integration and continuity. The existing services should be improved, not by being dismembered but by being encouraged to progress. Centres of excellence are slow to develop but easy to destroy".
3.58 p.m.
The Earl of HalsburyMy Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House this afternoon I must first thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and his colleagues—many of whom are taking part in this debate—for the hard work and integrity that they have put into writing the report. Secondly, I thank the noble Earl himself for bringing the report to our attention this afternoon and for giving me, among others, an opportunity to comment upon its conclusions. Thirdly, I must declare an interest. It is not a commercial or financial interest but a professional interest in this matter, as a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry's parliamentary and legal committee.
I will say just a few words about the Royal Society of Chemistry. When I was a young man there were a number of learned societies—the Chemical Society, the Faraday Society, and so on—that were simply concerned with the study of the subject and with publishing journals in which new results were circulated to the world at large. There was also a professional body—the Institute of Chemistry—which was not a learned society but a professional institution concerned with educational standards and professional behaviour.
I served on the council of that institute for some time, having registered as a student in it 52 years ago, which is quite a long time in a professional career. It set the standards. In those days you could not be

453
considered as having the credentials for a public analyst, for example, and to carry out his functions unless you were the possessor of an Institute of Chemistry diploma in chemistry, food and drugs. Of course, everything evolves with time and the credentials are perhaps not exactly the same as they were when I was young.
Some years ago all these bodies came together to form one body—the Royal Society of Chemistry—so the chemical profession now follows the standard pattern of the engineering institutions—the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the civil engineers, nuclear engineers, all of them—which from time immemorial have done the combined work of a learned society and a professional institution. I used to sit on the public relations committee of the Chemical Society, and I am now on the parliamentary and legal committee of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
The question of whether I speak in my own name or as an advocate for their views is academic because we speak with one voice certainly in welcoming this report, and also in regretting that the local authority scientific units have been thrust into the political arena. Politics—with which, on these Cross-Benches, I am not concerned—tends to be preoccupied, in part at least, with the relations between employers and employees; with capital and labour, and so on; how society is organised in this respect as opposed to how it ought to be organised, and similar matters. However, professional men do not quite see it that way. As a professional chemist I think of my relationship as that of consultant to client, just as a doctor would think of his relationship to his patient as a relationship between consultant and client, and as an advocate in the courts would think of himself as an advocate in relation to his client.
It is wrong to think of professional men as superior kinds of being. They are not. They are simply different kinds of being. They ought not to be flying around between Front Benches armed with battledores and being treated as shuttlecocks. Therefore, I first plead that local authority science must be given a settled environment. Without it, it cannot work adequately. We must not be made the shuttlecocks in between the rival battledores. Scientists, like other people, need a reasonable allowance of security of employment and funding in order to carry out their work. From this point of view we all welcome the news which came through last Friday that the London residuary body is to take over the GLC scientific services for a period. This will give people time to make arrangements with successor authorities. However, in regarding it as a deliverance and a breathing space, I have to add that it is not yet, from the professional man's point of view, a victory. I ask the Government whether there is any more information available about the future than was released on Friday.
Corresponding to that we are concerned, and I am concerned, that the future of the Merseyside county analyst is still uncertain. I understand that an arrangement had been made which fell through. It is very unfortunate that this should turn the future of local authority science into a highly political issue, which none of us wants.
454
Centralisation gives the advantages of economies of scale, of opportunities for inter-disciplinary work and better career prospects for the staff. Decentralisation can lead to under-funding, inadequate resources and isolation and elimination of the career structure offered by a local authority service to the public. Scientists in local authority employment want to think of themselves as public servants, giving a public service. Local authority science is an area in which science comes very close to the public, and let that always be so. It is important that scientists in this area should be made aware of the public interest, because that is how they themselves are regarded and look on it with pride.
On the question of scale, and its economies, everything has an optimum size. Some scientific experiments entail very expensive apparatus indeed. Unless it is going to be used regularly its installation would represent an uneconomic investment. There is no reason why consultants who possess these expensive facilities should not be engaged in order to render an economic service to local government. For example, there may be electro microscopes installed in universities where the professor of physics or chemistry who is in charge of such a faculty could add his services to those provided as a consultant, in return for a suitable fee.
I remember, back in my own career as a chemist, in one branch of chemistry I had the immeasurable support of colleagues in other branches of chemistry to that in which I was working. I was in a steelworks and my terms of reference were to try and produce an alloy steel which would stand up inside a gas turbine for not less than one hour at 900 degrees centigrade. That was a far higher temperature than was contemplated in those days. I had the services, all run by equally well-qualified colleagues, of a melting shop, where new ingots could be made; a forge where they could be forged; heat treatment shops where I could get them heat treated; machine shops where I could machine test pieces; the creep laboratory was under m} own control; the chemical laboratory would extract the intermetallics from the matrix in which they were embedded to give them their creep-resistant properties; and the metallographic laboratory which examined the internal structure of ingots with the assistance of the X-ray department.
That is how one works professionally inside an environment with the support of one's colleagues. It is right that local government science should be organised in such a way that scientists have the support of their colleagues. I regret that it was necessary in the first instance to compile this report, because of the crisis which led to it, but it is an excellent report and the thanks of this House and of my profession are due to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and his colleagues for the work they have done.
4.7 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I join with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in thanking my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on his most comprehensive report: 125 pages in the first volume and 510 pages of oral and written evidence, in close print, in the second. It is certainly an impressive and stimulating study for, as we all know, local government touches directly the

455
lives of everyone in many different ways. Indeed, a very wide variety of applied science and technology makes vital contributions to the provision of local services. In my view, the tradition in this country of taking independent initiatives at the forefront of technological advance must be maintained.
I congratulate my noble friend and the committee for identifying key issues. My congratulations can be even warmer because I was not myself a member of my noble friend's sub-committee; therefore, I am not in any sense partially congratulating myself! However, I was a member for several years of the main Select Committee and of a number of its other sub-committees as well as of European Community sub-committees of the same kind; including, for example, that on information technology which is now an important service in local government.
The key issues identified in the report are, as I see it, the need to ensure maintenance of high calibre staff specialist services; the need for each authority to keep constantly under review its application of science and technology; the importance of local authorities collaborating to secure greater efficiency, and the essential role of organisations representing local government as a whole.
Many important recommendations are made in this very valuable report covering, as my noble friend has said, highways and traffic management, different aspects of environmental health, hazardous waste disposal, the licensing and inspection of zoos, information technology and computing services, as well as research, innovation and the dissemination of information.
However, I must confess to a certain sense of unease—not too deep an unease, but a certain sense of unease—at the thrust of some suggestions in the report. While one can readily appreciate—and I personally would warmly support—the eminently reasonable motives lying behind recommendations such as the creation of special sub-committees and increased involvement by government departments in this particular area of local government, I only wonder whether we should not think very carefully about the general implications of such developments. I think we need to be cautious about too ready assumptions that central subvention and institutional tinkering are appropriate answers in a field where local initiatives and rapid adaptability must remain essential requirements.
I hope my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will confirm that our main concern must be that the increased role proposed for central government will undoubtedly increase the number of civil servants and lead to increased form-filling, and indeed annoy local government which does not like or readily accept central government departments meddling in its work.
I think that the most important point to recognise is that authorities do provide efficient, appropriate and cost-efficient services for their local communities. It is they who know how to do that best, and it is they who should be accountable locally for their decisions. In my view, and I feel it would be the view of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, it could well be counter-
456
productive to increase central government scrutiny and intervention.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Earl would allow me to intervene, I certainly feel great sympathy with what he is saying, but I am not quite sure at which particular part of the report he is pointing his finger when he talks about greater central government intervention. It seems to me that it does not really point in that direction very much.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, as I see it, it is fairly precise. If one looks at particular passages, i.e., paragraphs 4(5) to (7), there is certainly there a reference to the alleged fall of direct concern by central government. At any rate, as regards those danger signals which were referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Stedman, and indeed to a certain extent by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that is to say matters concerning financial constraints, the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and the alleged fall of direct concern by central government, I think I should recall that of course the Government's abolition policy was well known before the Select Committee settled on this question. The Government emphasised throughout the abolition debates that their objective was that decisions should devolve to successors, and they set up a framework for them to do this either individually or collectively, wherever necessary through co-ordinating committees in London and in each of the metropolitan counties. Indeed, it was in your Lordships' House that an amendment was agreed to strengthen the role of the residuary bodies.
I believe that successors have generally given very serious consideration to the specialist services run by the county councils, and I am personally satisfied—certainly it is the case in my part of the country—that after initial difficulties the co-ordinating committees have been effective in carrying out their responsibilities.
Concerning the loss of career prospects in local government, I cannot accept that they will be seriously affected by abolition. Local government services are there to meet the needs of the authority and the ratepayers. It is for them to decide their staffing according to those needs. There are, of course, clear links with the future of county-wide facilities, and I understand that a number of metroplitan county laboratories are being retained on a county-wide basis. If there are economies of scale then these should be preserved, but in my view the decision on retention or otherwise must be for the successor bodies.
As regards the future of the GLC's scientific branch, I understand that the London Co-ordinating Committee at its meeting last December agreed that a central scientific unit should be retained under the wing of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. I hope that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale can confirm this.
In regard to government funding after abolition, I believe that the Government have stuck to their undertaking that successor authorities receive all—and like my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, I emphasise

457
"all"—the block grant that the abolition authorities would have received had they continued to exist and spent at the same level. Successors, therefore, are in no worse a position than the abolition authorities to support scientific and specialist services, and indeed the rate support grant settlement provides for a significant flow of grant into London.
Finally, in so far as staffing is concerned, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that it is a matter for successors to decide whether to take on all the existing staff of any of the specialist services which are being retained. Perhaps my noble friend can amplify this point.
Whatever implied criticism may have been contained in my few remarks, I should again like to congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and his committee on a tremendously useful and valuable report and recommendations, which draw attention to local government services which do not perhaps always receive the recognition and honour which is their due.
In the current issue of Link- Up, the magazine of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the association's vice-president and general secretary, Professor Douglas Everett, a Fellow of the Royal Society, draws attention to the importance of enhancing the public's awareness of the part that science and technology play in improving the quality of life in the whole community. As a recent report by the Royal Society stressed:
"everybody needs some understanding of science, its accomplishments and its limitations."
The Select Committee's report is certainly a most important contribution to increasing this public understanding.
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I also pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the team that he had round him. He has produced a report of vital importance not only to technology and science but also to the workings of local government. The Select Committee report shows that local government services in science and technology are good and in some cases excellent. That has also been said by noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, so I hope that the Minister will add his tribute to the work that the local authorities have done when he replies to the debate. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, local authorities do not always get credit for the work that they do, and this is an occasion when the Government should add their tribute to them.
I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that the tight financial targets within which local authorities will have to operate in the future may slacken the pace of innovation. We must recognise clearly that science and technology have constantly to adopt innovation. That is what they are all about: progress through innovation. With the formation of the GLC and metropolitan counties, those young authorities quickly moved into the new technologies. Many of them have created leading centres of excellence. Unfortunately in April they are all to be
458
dissipated. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, it is most unfortunate that because of government reorganisation science and technology are being made a political football. That is not the way for them to prosper. But there are a few weeks to go before abolition. There may still be government rethinking about those centres. As has been said, there is still considerable uncertainty about future arrangements.
It is also perfectly clear that some of the major scientific and technical units are in jeopardy, and the people who work in them know that full well. I wish to dwell on only one service. I want to draw attention to a matter that I raised during the debate on the abolition Bill, and that is accident prevention and the accident analysis teams. On page 45 of the report it says that what may have been sufficient for the provision of services 20 years ago is no longer adequate. That applies particularly to accident investigation. That is a very different operation from sticking pins into a map on an office wall, which was the practice before 1944. It is now a scientific procedure.
I think that all noble Lords will agree that road accidents which involve people, and which are often fatal and in many cases serious, cause much personal grief and suffering. Besides that, which is perhaps the worst aspect of a road accident, there are the economic costs, which are well known to the Department of Transport. Those costs are astronomical. To lessen that personal tragedy and the increasing amount spent on hospitalisation, general medical care and insurance, it is necessary to prevent as many accidents as possible.
In the West Midlands, which is perhaps the area that I know best, I understand that the county team is a multi-disciplinary team consisting of eight people. They maintain an efficient accident analysis service which is nationally recognised. That small team is often called on by the Government to analyse many matters, including the effect of wearing seat belts. That analysis forms the basis of remedial action, whether by education or by engineering solutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave information on the reorganisation in the West Midlands. As she rightly said, the central team, which is to be known as the Joint Planning and Transportation Data Team—"deita" or "dahta," whichever one says: has been set up in the Solihull district. It is the co-ordinating authority for planning and highway matters. But, as the noble Baroness said, its terms of reference limit the team essentially to holding the databank, running the transportation model and maintaining traffic volume and accident databanks, the accident figures being provided by the police in the West Midlands. But the collection and detailed analysis of the data will be carried out by the individual districts in the West Midlands. Each will recruit its own little organisation, and that will lead to a multiplicity of teams and a dispersal of expertise and development interest.
I am led to understand that only what is called the trend analysis will be carried out in the future, which really means the collection of annual accident totals and comparing them with those of the previous years.

459
That will do nothing to prevent accidents. The existing county team in the West Midlands will be split up. I understand that the joint data team will include four of its members. The future of the people engaged in accident analysis and possible solutions is undecided.
We need data on the whole picture of road accidents in order to carry out the development work and use site studies to try to obviate accidents, and it is, therefore, important to have complete interaction with a computer. The multi-discipline team needs to work together and with the available technology, with cross-fertilisation of ideas, in order to decide what preventive measures to take to cut down the number of road accidents. It is important, if the problem of accident analysis is to be properly examined, that the data to be analysed are sufficient to be useful. The West Midlands, a completely built-up urban area with motorway intersections, is able to provide a sample of traffic and pedestrian movement of sufficient size. This is essential if one is to produce any worthwhile scientific results.
I have used the West Midlands as one example while other noble Lords have spoken about other areas. The splitting up of a very small team will obviously destroy its effectiveness. It will make for inefficiency. But the worst result, perhaps, is that the use of technology in accident prevention is nullified. That must cause all of us serious concern.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for the manner in which he presented the case to the House. The Select Committee recommended, as already stated, that all local authorities should set up a science and technology sub-committee and each association of authorities, also, a science and technology committee with functions related to the information of elected members, the identification of research needs and application, and the improvement of scientific and technical performances. The dilemma of many of the very good scientific and technological services of the metropolitan counties and the GLC is that they have not been the focus of anyone's serious attention. The Select Committee's work has shown this to be evident.
There is considerable danger that many highly skilled scientific and technical teams, with extremely high reputations, will be dissipated—this at a time when the world of local government needs to be pressing further into science and technology for the improvement and more efficient delivery of its services and, incidentally, to cut costs. Local authorities have often lacked the proper management and political structures to succeed in placing greater emphasis on the enhancement of the role of new technology. They have mainly had traditional departmental and committee structures. That has been the backcloth against which the services have been developed in the last decade.
However, some local authorities are beginning to challenge this in relation to new technological developments. The Select Committee report draws
460
attention to the need for local authorities to have a clear strategy and a policy towards new developments as well as the encouragement of new structures within local government and their three associations. So a new updated structure is really necessary to stimulate development of services. Fortunately, the world of local government management is not static. It is changing, probably at a more rapid pace than at any time in the recent past. Innovations in management are being developed; new attitudes and values are also developing. This can be supported by several developments, and I shall mention some of them.
There is a growing emphasis on management skills rather than purely professional skills in relation to appointments to senior posts in many local authorities. A number of chief executive posts have been advertised in the last few years in which the emphasis has been on changed management and where posts have been open to the private sector and other candidates from the non-public sector. Such appointments, it is true, have usually resulted in those with public service backgrounds being appointed in open competition. But the point, I emphasise, is the seeking out by such local authorities of those with strong managerial skills.
The recent publication on 16th January of the document, Good Management in Local Government: Successful Practice and Action, produced by the Audit Commission, the Local Government Training Board and the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham, is important. This details some of the ways in which approaches to management in local government are changing for the better and gives a wide range of examples of good management practice within local authorities. This is the necessary ingredient for the development of scientific services.
The search for innovation by a number of authorities in terms of different forms of service delivery was noted by the Select Committee. Local authorities in Britain have tended to follow the pattern of self-sufficiency in service provision. By that, I mean that, where a statutory duty is placed on a local authority to carry out a service, it generally provides this by direct in-house staffing and resources. This picture is changing in a number of ways, including contracting out services which are insufficiently provided for by in-house services, developing more joint public-private sector ventures, extending forms of collaboration with other local authorities and other public agencies, creating private companies to carry out work previously undertaken by local government, or as a means of marketing services, and joint ventures involving the creation of packaged programmes of action based on the contributions of a range of bodies and sectors.
This summary portrays a more experimental and innovative style of local government. This development has taken place against a very traditional self-sufficiency type of service dominance. But, unfortunately, the abolition of metropolitan government has produced a reaction that has again brought out a strong individual local authority self-sufficiency model—a reassertion of, perhaps through a feeling of insecurity, and a tendency to return to, the old type. Change this, my Lords, and the way is clear!

461
Undoubtedly, the main concern in this period of reaction is the limited scope of formal co-operation and joint working arrangements for the services. In particular, the districts are determined to keep as little as possible working centrally. Secondly, there is no long-term certainty that co-ordination arrangements will continue. Thirdly, there is a strong likelihood of disagreement in future between the districts over maintenance and central teams. Fourthly, and tragically, the general tendency of the co-ordination arrangements is to produce the lowest common denominator in decisions. In fact, these decisions have to be consensus decisions.
There are signs that the central Government possibly wish to place greater emphasis on local services delivered through appointed panels or administered by quango-type management. The joint boards for police, fire and transport, as successors in the running of three of the services presently run by the metropolitan counties, reflect this approach.
Undoubtedly, the main concern is the specialist services which have to be provided at county level for them to function at all. Unfortunately, as I have said, the district councils take a similar view to that of the Government—that as little as possible of the county council should survive. They do not seem to be heeding the views spelt out loud and clear by your Lordships' Select Committee that in the development and application of scientific services flexibility is required to produce the main solutions which meet a particular situation. Flexibility means good management.
Although central services like the analyst's laboratory and the hazardous waste disposal units will be maintained as single teams, major initiatives in derelict land reclamation and the use of highway design and traffic engineering are very much at risk. It could be that the residents of the metropolitan areas will have a lower level and a lower standard of service than that enjoyed elsewhere in the country. In the West Midlands there have been particular difficulties in the police joint board. This joint board was not within the remit of the Select Committee report. But the fact that disagreement can take place on a statutory body augurs badly for informal co-ordination arrangements.
I mentioned earlier the lowest common denominator of consensus decisions. This has a familiar ring. If one reads the arguments produced by this Government that general managers are required in the health service to manage services—arguing against their previous decision of the early 1970s of consensus management teams and indicating that consensus management teams have been a failure in the National Health Service—it seems that the prospect of consensus arrangements for services in local government may face a similar fate, although, as I have said, there are definite signs of reorganisation of management and a departure from local government's traditional attitudes.
It seems that the reorganisation of local government, although it may have been very desirable for many important political reasons, is, in regard to provision of modern scientific services for the people of the metropolitan counties, in danger of destroying
462
the substantial progress which has been made in the development of these services in the last decade.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the committee on its excellent informative report, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on the way in which he presented it. I want to confine my own remarks to the matter of waste disposal, which is something that has not been discussed a great deal today and is something about which I am very concerned because of its environmental impact.
The establishment of waste disposal authorities in 1974 has brought improvement overall. However, as the committee said in several places in the report, there is still considerable diversity of standards between areas and between different parts of the country. This is particularly significant when dealing with hazardous waste. Speaker after speaker has said that it is essential that authorities should be large enough to support the expertise necessary for their various functions. This, of course, is even more so in the case of waste disposal, particularly hazardous waste.
I do not propose again to go over the evils of abolition, because that has been covered by a fair number of speakers today. However, I should like to make two points. One is about a letter which I received only this morning. I should like to have an answer from the Minister on this; or at least a comment. The letter tells me that the new London Waste Regulatory Authority has not been given planning powers over waste disposal sites. This is a power which is enjoyed by the counties at the moment, and certainly is still enjoyed by the GLC. As the letter goes on to say:
"This could lead to problems as individual boroughs, while persuaded of the need for new sites (whether actual landfill sites or, more likely, transfer stations …) refuse to allow permission for the development in their area".
Can the Minister tell me whether that is so? Is planning power not given to the waste regulatory authority? If that is so, what on earth is the thinking behind it?—because it seems a very strange decision.
The other brief reference to the abolition problems relates to the regulations which came out on 5th December and which set out to deal with the waste regulation and disposal authorities which did not come to voluntary agreements in the metropolitan areas before the appointed day for so doing. It seems to me on, I admit, not yet a very thorough look at the regulations, that they are very little better than the proposals made by the Government during the progress of the abolition Bill, which were condemned on all sides in this House. I do not know whether the Minister would like to comment on that today, or whether he wants to leave that for another day when we can probably give him the opportunity by other means. However, it seems to me that they are a very poor answer indeed to all the arguments which were made here.
Returning to the need for expertise in waste disposal authorities, it is obvious that they should have adequate numbers of inspectors to enforce licence and planning site conditions. Poor quality waste disposal

463
operators are still flourishing, and, because these poor operators can make low disposal charges, responsible operators are being squeezed and therefore standards generally are being lowered. Central Government could help by changes in legislation. For example, the Act on the control of pollution could be strengthened to make breaches of licensed conditions offences in their own right, which I understand they are not at the moment. Waste disposal authorities should be able to consider an applicant's qualifications and previous conduct when determining site licence applications, which again I understand they cannot do at the moment.
The Hazardous Waste Inspectorate, in its first report in June 1985, drew attention to many deficiencies in the operation of the present system and mentioned in particular the need for enforcement of site licensing conditions and the difficulties caused by the weakness of Section 6 of the Control of Pollution Act. I have not seen any Government comment on that report. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any action has been taken on the many points which were raised by the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate; and, if so, where one can find it if the Minister cannot give it to me today?
It is also worth mentioning at this point the need to end Crown immunity in National Health Service establishments in regard to waste disposal. The noxious waste disposed of by National Health Service establishments is equally as hazardous as much industrial waste. Considerable problems are caused by unsatisfactory disposal. I wonder whether the Minister feels that there is a case for ending Crown immunity in these establishments on the question of waste disposal even if we cannot apparently unseat it in any other respect in Crown establishments. It is becoming an outdated system that is falling into disrepute week by week. There seems to me no reason why National Health Service establishments should not be subject to the same control as any other waste producer.
Consistency of controls between waste producers should be matched by consistency of standards between authorities. The hazardous waste inspectorate was disturbed by the wide enforcement disparity between different areas. The Select Committee was concerned to allow for local discretion in some areas of local authorities' responsibilities—and here the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was quite eloquent. However, I feel that this should not be extended to the disposal of hazardous waste. The less scrupulous operator to whom I have referred earlier can too easily transfer his activities across the boundary to a more congenial disposal point. Disposal sites' costs must be low enough to ensure that licensed sites are used and yet high enough to provide an incentive for producers to reduce their waste output and also to cover the costs of adequate site standards.
I am greatly indebted to Mr. Mike Tassel, who is the engineer in charge of waste disposal in Cambridgeshire County Council and who has done an excellent job and can produce many excellent finished projects as examples if your Lordships ever want to see how waste disposal can be managed with benefit to the community.
464
He writes:
"All industries, especially those producing liquid wastes, should be encouraged to reduce their production of wastes".
He points out that waste disposal authorities can offer advice to producers on how to do this. But he adds:
"However, because decisions will be taken on a purely commercial basis, it is unlikely that an industry could be persuaded to reduce a waste stream if this would increase costs unless some form of enforcement or incentive could be introduced".
I wonder whether the Government have ever considered the idea of some sort of incentive for persuading waste producers to reduce their waste output, because this is how we shall have to tackle in future the ever-increasing amount of waste—hazardous and non-hazardous—with which we all have to deal. Again I should like to point out that in the planning stages of new developments and of the production of new products, the waste disposal authorities can give confidential advice and are very willing to do so.
We return to the role of central Government and the need for minimum standards to be set, backed by appropriate legislation. Central Government must also ensure that adequate financial provision is made for waste disposal, because hard-pressed local authorities could well see this service as one of low priority. It is not appealing in itself, and public awareness of the importance of proper control is only just emerging.
Waste disposal authorities already consult with neighbouring areas, with water authorities, and with waste producers. There are also national bodies for the various skills exercised in the authorities. It should therefore be possible to use this network to achieve agreement on a national standard. Unless we can achieve a national standard for waste disposal and the kind of mixture of controls and inducements which will make sure that waste disposal, especially hazardous waste disposal, is dealt with properly and in the interests of the community as a whole, we really shall not know what we are handing on to our children and our grandchildren.
The standards we apply today we think are good in the best cases. We have applied all the science we have at our disposal, and we are doing the best we can in the light of their findings. It is important, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, that scientific teams should continue, and that they should continue in such a way that they are able to develop among themselves an initiative towards what they are doing, but that will not come if they are broken down into small units. The importance of the team in scientific research cannot be too highly emphasised.
Only through this approach will we be able to ensure that what we now take as good practice in fact remains good practice, and that we keep up to date with new developments in the kind of wastes we are having to deal with and in the kind of disposal that is necessary for them. I look forward to the answers from the Minister. If he does not have the answers today, may I ask that he will give them to me when he can?
4.52 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I was not a member of this committee, and I should therefore like to thank

465
and congratulate my noble friend Lord Cranbrook upon an excellent report; a report which makes a valuable contribution in its analysis of, and exploration of, the importance of the scientific services of local authorities. My discussions with people in the shires and the districts have led me to think that some of the specific proposals of the report as to how local government should act in the future to develop these services may give rise to some division of view.
For example, the report sets considerable importance upon the influence of the larger authorities, and we have heard much this afternoon about the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. It is perhaps unfortunate that the report had to come out at the moment of time when the abolition was due to occur, for the abolition is bound to provoke a period of hesitation and uncertainty. It may be that the report, in its recommendations, has been adjusted for a situation which will turn out to be ephemeral and which will be corrected.
It seemed to me that there was a question of principle which lay behind that section of the report. Ideally how would we define what were the best boundaries that could be devised for a local authority? I had the impression from time to time that, because the report was caught at this moment of transition, it came very near to suggesting that the tail of the scientific services should wag the dog of the local authorities. Clearly when one is drawing the boundaries of local authorities ideally one should have an area which is a coherent area; an area, or conurbation, where people live and work. The services that will be provided will be more efficient and more cohesive if they are made available to an area of that kind where people live and work.
Perhaps I may for one moment not concentrate on the scientific services but think of the ordinary services of the local authority. As many of your Lordships will know I was the vice-chancellor of the University of Warwick in the West Midlands. When the chemist friends of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, succeeded in blowing up the chemistry laboratory, the rules forbade that we should ring up the fire station which was just down the road. We had to ring up Birmingham, who then made another call to the local fire station to release the fire services. The same with the ambulance. An ambulance was needed; Birmingham had to be telephoned, and the excellent person at the end of the telephone would frequently not know the name of the street that was being referred to, and frequently not know the district in Coventry.
Therefore, the general principle clearly ought to be that the boundaries of a local authority should be drawn up so that there is a coherence in the services providing for where people live and work. But having said that, the scientific services must be seen as an exception to that principle; for many of them, by their nature, must draw, if they are to be efficient, on an area larger than that of any single local authority.
Indeed, different scientific services may well need different areas if they are to be efficient. Some of the scientific services, if they are to be really efficient may well in the future need areas which may be larger than the existing metropolitan county council areas,
466
although of course in this respect I would admit that London is a clear exception. I do not think that we should be pessimistic about the ability of individual authorities to combine and produce the areas which are needed for the scientific services after the disappearance of the metropolitan authorities. Many local authorities are indeed beginning now to combine, where necessary, to produce the efficient set of services.
Perhaps I may quote again from the West Midlands. The Garrett's Green Laboratories are at present organised and run by the West Midlands county council, and it has recently been agreed that these laboratories will be taken over by the Birmingham district council and run by them on behalf of all the present district councils in the West Midlands. For those laboratories plans are well ahead to expand the services which the laboratories now provide. In addition to providing the statutory type of service for local authorities, the laboratories are planning to expand the service to industry and, no doubt, the industry-based services by increasing the total volume of business will ultimately improve the quality of service that will be offered to the local authorities.
If I may, I should like to deal with the question of the science and technology sub-committee which has been recommended. It is important that the scientific services should not be seen as an end in themselves. They exist to support the whole range of functions and responsibilities which the local authorities discharge. Science and technology are fundamental to that whole range of scientific services and therefore the science and technology should be seen to permeate the whole approach of officers and members to the provision of their different services. It is for this reason, I suspect, that many of those authorities may consider it to be unnecessary to set up a science and technology committee because this might be taken to imply that science and technology are for the local authorities an end in themselves rather than that the scientific services are an integral element in the main services which it is the function of local authorities to provide.
It may however be that there is one important exception. That is in the area of information technology. There may be a useful role for a specialist committee or sub-committee in that area. Computer services have often been seen as being primarily the responsibility of the treasurer for it was his office that originally derived the major benefit from the first installation of a computer. Now information technology has become all-pervasive in the organisation and it is necessary, or it may be necessary, to have some machinery to supervise the collection of information which comes from all sides in a local authority and some authorities have found it convenient to set up a committee to supervise their information systems. No longer is finance the principal beneficiary; but the possibility of sophisticated supervision and control in so many areas of local authority activity through the operation of information technology is now proving so promising that a sub-committee, if it has the terms of reference confined to the supervision and control which information technology can confer upon the local authority, may be the most helpful way of tackling the problem.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we now come to the wind-up, but I do not intend to make a conventional wind-up speech today. Apart from anything else, it would be impossible! I leave that to the noble Lord the Minister on the Government Front Bench. In any case, this is not that sort of a debate.
The Committee was faced with an absolutely impossible task. The brief that it was given was totally incapable of being met in full and therefore we were only able to succeed by, first, focusing our activities on a small part of science and technology in local government. We were also only able to succeed by leaving our political hats outside the door, particularly during the earlier stages of our discussions, when the abolition Bill was before this House. I believe that we succeeded, although the Government Front Bench may not always have felt so. But there was within the committee, to anybody who observed it from outside, very little difference of view on any of the matters relating to the abolition Bill and we tried to leave party politics outside. The major reason that we succeeded, as so many people have said already, is because of the excellent chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, because of the work of our Clerks and the work of the specialist advisers, without any of whom this report would not have seen the light of day.
Many of the speeches today have dealt with the committee's contribution to the abolition debate. I do not want to expand on that any more. I think I can save about 10 minutes out of my speech by forgetting the abolition Bill, save only to take up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, to the GLC. He was correct in saying that until last Friday it was anticipated that the science functions of the GLC were to be taken over by the London Fire and Civil Defence authority. Indeed, I had a considerable briefing to ask questions of the Minister as to the restrictions they were placing on the taking over of that authority in relation to the costs of the boroughs and so on. But I now understand that on Friday last it was decided that the London residuary body would take over these services. I cannot help looking back to those debates that we had on abolition and saying "We told you so!"
Members of the Committee from all sides of the House endeavoured to persuade the Government that the proper place, at least in the short term, to put those services was the residuary body. We were all accused, regardless of from which part of your Lordships' House we came, of trying to set up a new GLC. We said that we were not, but that is what we were accused of doing. Now, at the end of the day, and very late in the day, if I may say so, that seems to be where it is going. What a pity that the people in the scientific services in the GLC were not put in that position three months ago and given the security of tenure that they now have, even if it is limited only to five years. I hope the Minister will explain what the position is now, in case it has changed again, because it is absolutely crucial that we end the uncertainty for those people. There has been an enormous amount of discussion this afternoon on the need for keeping teams together and nowhere more so is that true than in Greater London. I hope that this means that the team of experts will be kept together and that some certainty can come from what the Government say this afternoon.
468
Let me now turn to the recommendations in this report rather than discussing any further the earlier report. First, the conclusions, and recommendation 5.1 is the umbrella under which everything else should be considered. Any hesitancies that we have, any conclusions that we come to, are covered by the umbrella of saying that,
"The overall level of scientific and technical expertise in local government is good and in some authorities it is excellent."
I had no idea when I first started oh this committee how much science and technology there was in local government and of what a high standard it was. If no other message goes out from this report it should be a message of confidence that your Lordships' House and the Select Committee have in the competence and expertise of those people working in the scientific branches of local government.
The next recommendation 5.2, that
"There is a potential conflict between the case for diversity, emphasised by local government, and the citizen's right to uniform basic standards of service"
—is also self-evident. But this apparently is not self-evident to the Association of County Councillors. Noble Lords on the committee probably, like myself, will have received a letter from the Association of County Councillors, in which says:
"The conclusions and recommendations … have not yet been considered by the Association's Policy Committee, but are being discussed at present with those who advise the Association. I attach a note which sets out some initial reactions to the recommendations".
I recognise that they have had only two months in which to read this report and therefore it will take them a little longer, However, I have to say that some of the remarks that were made in this are quite remarkable. In response to paragraph 5.2, the conflict between diversity and local government and the citizen's right to a uniform basic standard of service, they say,
"Why should the citizen have the right to a uniform basic standard of service?"
I accept that the illustrations that they give, which is that in urban areas it may be necessary to cleanse the footways and in rural areas not, is valid. However, frankly, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the standards of scientific service in environmental health, in waste disposal,and in a whole range of matters which have little or nothing to do with the example that is put in this initial response. I do not want to be unduly harsh on the Association of County Councils but I fear that this underlines part of the problem that we are facing. There is a lack of recognition in local government at many levels, particularly among elected members, of the degree of scientific involvement which exists in their own services.
I think it was clear to many of us when we took evidence from the Association of County Councils, and indeed also from the Association of District Councils, that there was no cohesive view as to scientific services in local government. Individual members had their own individual experiences but there was no cohesive view across the association. I believe that this is a weakness, and it is a weakness that we have highlighted in some of our recommendations. We have highlighted ways in which the weaknesses can be overcome.

469
It seems to me that at the moment far too much is left to the professional associations. Far too much of the information exchange depends upon local government officials actually getting together, either formally or informally, and exchanging information among themselves. That is an important facet and something that should not be disturbed, and indeed should be encouraged. It seems to me that there is also a need for awareness among elected members of local councils to be trained in knowledge of scientific method if they are to be able to understand what their officials are about. If their officials are to get proper recognition from their local authorities, then there is a need for local councillors to have a greater awareness of what is going on in the offices, laboratories and workshops of their own professionals.
On the question of the setting up of science and technology sub-committees, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has referred, he is echoing words again from the Association of County Councils. They say:
"It is quite unnecessary for all local authorities to set up Science and Technology Sub-Committees, and inappropriate: science and technology are of fundamental importance to a whole range of services, and should be seen to permeate the approach of officers and members to service provision".
Precisely: we absolutely agree that it should be seen to permeate the approach. The fact is that at the moment it does not—not across the whole piece. Of course, there are people in local government who, because of outside interests and background, have a scientific training and they play their part, but it cannot be said to permeate the whole piece. The reason why we would want to see these committees set up is that we believe that it should permeate the whole piece, and this is a mechanism for so doing. If people can think of better mechanisms for so doing, then of course we certainly would not stand in their way.
One of the problems that professional staff find is that there is a lack of understanding of the need for additional training, particularly in mid-career, among elected members of local government. Until the awareness of the role which is played by science and technology in their own authorities is better understood, then I am afraid that the officials receive a rather raw deal.
I believe we have had a more encouraging response, certainly on an informal basis, from contacts with the public analysts. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the Royal Society of Chemistry and the work that they do in maintaining the standards. It is through the public analysts that this impacts on local governments at the sharp end. I certainly have been extremely impressed by the competence and the high standards of excellence which exist in that group of people, who really are at the focal point of the chemistry and associated sciences relating to local government. I believe that in some cases, perhaps in many, it can be said that their methodology is better than that of the universities, that their methods of analysis, their ability to carry out those methods of analysis on a day-to-day basis probably are of a higher standard than the work that goes on at universities today, because of course it is different from the day-to-day work that many universities have to do. However,
470
again, I do not believe that the public and indeed, many councillors recognise how high that standard is.
There are one or two matters in the sections relating to the public analysts to which I should just like to draw attention. The question of regionalisation has already been mentioned. I think the committee was widely of the opinion that regionalisation should take place, if at all possible, but again this is a matter that can best be left to the local authorities with a prop from us to deal with the situation in their own local areas. However, there is no doubt that the matter of scale is important in producing the most effective services.
At paragraph 5.17 I believe, from what I have recently heard, that we are perhaps slightly wide of the mark. We say that local authorities should use water authority data in relation to public water supplies and normally rely on such data. I do not think that anybody would disagree in relation to public water supplies. However, there are a number of private water supplies for which the public analysts are still responsible, and I think that to suggest that the public analysts should completely back out of the provision, or the testing of water, and leave it to the water authorities, is going too far and is perhaps not what we had in mind.
On the question of accreditation, I think the public analysts would agree that there needs to be a greater emphasis. Again, I think we would not wish it to be thought that we were being critical of their ability and competence in these areas. It has been said to me that the difficulty they face is that they can be judged only by their failures, which are few and far between and therefore perhaps people do not recognise how high their standards are. When we make recommendations of the kind we have made, I do not think that it should at any stage be thought that we are suggesting that they are in general falling below standards that are required. Certainly, there can be few people in the country with higher standards.
The question of information technology has already been touched on. All I should say there is that I, personally, and from the evidence that I heard, felt that LAMSAC was an organisation that needed looking at very carefully; that it did not appear to be offering in its entirety the service that local government required, and that certainly at the larger local authority level people were finding that they were having to do their own software or go outside to get software. That seems to me to be a pity. How far it is due to the problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, was referring earlier, in terms of funding, I do not know. However, certainly LAMSAC has a very wide acceptance among local authorities, and it certainly is not a substitute for local authorities' science and technology sub-committees, which was suggested in one of the submissions I heard.
Although one could take many other aspects of this report, and deal with them in detail, I think it would be wrong to do so at this stage. I believe that this report makes a useful contribution even if it only awakens in the minds of local authorities, local authority associations and the Government the fact that science and technology is an important part of their function: that hidden away in nooks and crannies of their buildings they will find people doing remarkably good

471
jobs on behalf of the local population, looking after our health and safety, looking after noise pollution, looking after air pollution, saving us from the troubles of asbestos in our buildings. If this report does nothing else but heighten that awareness, then I believe it will have done a good job.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for his very clear and able explanation of the report. The subject of science and technology in local government assumes greater and greater importance and I am very glad that the Select Committee chose to investigate it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I hope that this debate will help to obtain some publicity for the report. It deals with many matters very important to the individual citizen—health, welfare and comfort; environmental matters like noise, air and water pollution and waste disposal. The general public is not very aware of the scientific and technical functions statutorily performed by local authorities.
There seem to me to be two areas of responsibility. There is the public health side which is looked after by the environmental health officers and the public and agricultural analysts, and the very rapidly developing information technology which influences, and can be made use of by, every service that local authorities provide and which need highly qualified and professional staff. The questions that the committee had to ask were these. How can these services be best delivered? How can the best use be made of the expertise that undoubtedly exists? How can well qualified and trained staff be retained and re-trained? How can innovations and techniques discovered be best exploited for the benefit of the consumer and the ratepayer? What should be the relationship between central and local government in these matters?
The committee has made a large number of recommendations, with most of which I would agree; but I shall have some comments to make on others. One of the most important decisions that the committee had to arrive at was the size of the organisation that can best deliver the fast-changing scientific and technical services. Should it be central, regional or local? Can a central or regional provision be responsive enough to local needs which can be very difficult in, say, a rural coastal area like Cornwall and a big city like Birmingham.
The committee came down in favour of large-scale operations, no doubt influenced in part by their knowledge of the GLC's scientific services renowned nationally and internationally, and used by authorities and organisations all over the country. These were dealt with in the interim report but, as that is referred to in paragraph 1.8 of the present report and as the reports really have to be taken together, I think it is in order to mention it today, as others have. I must admit that I found that the interim report had a good deal more punch and impact than the present one. This may have been because of the need to make a forceful case immediately.
What emerged in that report was the excellence and effectiveness of the services provided by large scale
472
operations which could be delivered by councils of the size of the GLC and the Mets. and the difficulties likely to be encountered if these are broken up. Alas! The committee's efforts during the passage of the Local Government Bill were only very marginally successful and we are now—just two months before abolition—hearing of the disasters (not, I think, too strong a word) which are happening to those services and the almost total unpreparedness of the succeeding bodies inheriting them. The London residuary body, to be wound up in three years rather than the five allowed in the Act, has appeared somewhat unenthusiastic about its responsibilities under Schedule 13, paragraph 8, to the Act. This requires the residuary bodies to review the services presently provided by the GLC and the Mets. It seems to be a bit odd, to say the least, that recently the review of the GLC has been conducted by officers seconded to the LRB from the GLC for the purpose. This really seems a rather an Alice-in-Wonderland situation.
I, too, have been able to cut out a large part of my speech because I heard only this morning—others evidently heard on Friday; and there are only two months to go—that the LRB will take on the scientific branch of the GLC; but, it would appear, only for a matter of months. This is very much a temporary respite and leaves the future still very uncertain, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said. Perhaps the Minister can enlarge on this when he comes to reply.
The LRB which, as I have said, is to last for only three years is taking on the central computer services of the GLC and, because of the uncertainty and doubts about the survival of some of the central computer services' customers, staff are leaving the service. The fear is that the service will eventually be split up and/or privatised. The Select Committee chose, naturally, not to return too explicitly to criticism of the abolition of the GLC and the Mets; but their attitude is clearly set out in paragraph 4.8 on page 45 of the report which, because of its length, I will not read out. But it contains fears for the loss of talented people from the local government service, as some of the best job opportunities will be gone. The paragraph ends:
"The Committee consider the issue of career prospects to be important, and note the comment of the Fellowship of Engineering that 'a career in local government at any level is not generally perceived within the engineering profession as highly desirable'."
I think that is a pity.
I have spoken of what is to happen to GLC services in the life after abolition. I should also like to refer to the environmental services following the abolition of the Merseyside County Council. My noble friend Lady White handed me a letter sent to her by Professor Bradshaw, the chairman of the Merseyside Environment Trust, enclosing a copy of a letter he had written to Mr. Kenneth Baker on 17th January expressing his very serious concern at the inability of district councils to make satisfactory arrangements for the maintenance of crucial environmental services from 1st April; land reclamation, environmental improvement, nature conservation, countryside recreation and education, and waste disposal. The Merseyside County Council's invaluable information resource on all these subjects, and more, is in danger of being dissipated or, indeed, thrown away.

473
It seems that the district councils are unable to agree any course of action, either individually or jointly; nor are they willing to co-operate with the residuary body which could provide a temporary home for specialist staff. Professor Bradshaw asks the Secretary of State to take some initiative to resolve this unhappy situation relating to these services. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about this when he replies because I have given him warning of my query.
I return now to the present report and authorities not affected by the Local Government Act 1985. What is going to be the best arrangement for satisfactory provision of all their services? Certainly large scale. There will not be enough expert scientists/analysts willing to serve in small laboratories. It is more interesting, more exciting, to be in larger groups where suggestions can be tested and ideas sparked off. There is, of course, a potential conflict between the case for diversity and the citizen's right to uniform, basic standards of service; but I would agree with the committee that large-scale operations are preferable provided there is some in-house expertise to enable the right questions to be asked. There would then be higher overall quality of staff and greater efficiency at any level of cost.
It would seem sensible for county councils to work in close co-operation with their constituent district councils, or, better still, several county councils and their districts. This has been successfully done with Avon, Somerset, Gloucestershire and their districts. I am aware of the Durham experiment where two councils and one Met. council got together to form the North-East region analytical service. But the service was not successful. It broke down—and I quote:
"due, it is claimed, to misconceptions as to the nature of the service and its true necessity and cost, an unwieldy system of local political control and unsatisfactory arrangements for the fair apportionment of costs".
I know how difficult people can be, but I should have thought that where some councils and districts have managed to work together, a pattern for funding and so on could be worked out.
I have had brief comments on the report from the ACC, the AMA and the ADC. The ADC endorses the recommendation for increased co-operation between authorities and for the provision of services jointly or in collaboration with other authorities, as does the AMA. The ACC, commenting on recommendations 5.11 to 5.17, which are those dealing with joint or co-operative provision, said:
"These recommendations are generally acceptable as a set of principles, but it would not be appropriate to make them compulsory through legislation".
I myself had doubts, as had other speakers, about the value of setting up a special science and technology committee in every local authority and I was interested to see that the ACC felt the same. I was going to quote the piece that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has quoted, but I have no need to do that now. I am more inclined to agree with the ACC because the end is not science and technology but the service, whatever that may require, and I just feel I would not be so dismissive of their opinion.
Similarly, I do not see the need for the public or agricultural analyst in the authorities that have them
474
to be given chief officer status. The recent tendency has been to reduce the number of committees and chief officers as a means of getting a more streamlined, efficient and economical service. But the analyst, of course, should have access to the management team and perhaps prepare an annual report for members, for means must be found to widen the scientific and technical awareness of elected members, as they do not have the professional associations that the analysts have. As the ACC says, the local authority associations are only as good as their members and would not themselves have the expertise to do the education job.
It just might be useful, as the noble Earl said, for the associations to have a science and technology committee to deal with functions relating to the information of members, the improvement of scientific and technical performance of member authorities. That is, of course, important because there are some backward authorities and it might stimulate them. I should have thought that use could be made of the higher and further education colleges, which have all the facilities needed, though of course they would have to be paid. The Open University has done a very good job in the training of governors and, I am sure, could do an equally good job in training councillors in this field.
I turn from the training of members to the training of local authority personnel working in this area. Many of them will be graduates with professional qualifications when they enter local authority service. Apparently, so far, there is little evidence of problems of recruitment except in computer applications, and here some good staff are being lost to the private sector, as I said was happening with the staff of the Central Computer Services for the GLC. The Association of Trading Officers, however, complain of a nationwide shortage of officers and not enough trainees. It is important, as recommendation 5.26 says, that there should be opportunities for mid-career training and updating in such a very fast moving subject. One or two larger authorities may possibly be able to provide some training programmes as can, of course, the Local Government Training Board; but central Government and the MSC should take a hand as well as the professional associations. Greater dependence is being placed on the professional associations, according to the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. They believe there is increasing need for post-qualification training. Again, local universities, higher education colleges and the Open University could be made use of; but central Government—and that means the DoE—must make funds available.
There is a good deal of implicit criticism of the DoE in the report, and the speech of the noble Earl at the beginning of the debate supports this. Recommendations 5.3, 5.4 and 5.37 show that not nearly enough support, financial and other, is given to help with training and research which local authorities, in their present straits, are not going to be able to fund themselves. The IEHO is strong on this and I quote from one of their submissions:
"For the department to reject the idea that it has any responsibility for local authority research is wrong: they obtain benefit and could play much more of a role in co-ordinating activity and directing efforts. This could avoid wasting scarce resources."

475
In parenthesis, it is odd that there is no environmental health officer presence within the DoE and that they receive no support from local government.
A further criticism made by the IEHO is that results from relevant Government-sponsored research and indeed academic research, are not made available to local authorities soon, or clearly enough, even if at all. Central Government should encourage staff to have exchanges with Government-funded research establishments. The lack of skilled manpower is going to be one of the problems of the future, and everything should be done to make trained staff want to stay in the public service. Those who are now highly trained will otherwise do as some of the staff of the CCS of the GLC have done, and use their experience as a springboard into higher paid jobs in the private sector or set up as consultants or join private consultancy firms. Do the Government realise the disaster it is that teams of experts, built up over the years, doing wonderful work, could well be scattered and their services lost? Many other speakers have made this point.
I should like to raise a specific point on Recommendation 5.23 in the section headed "Innovation", which recommends that the marketing of innovative techniques or expertise should be by means of private companies set up for the purpose. I have given the Minister warning of my question, which is: Is it legal for local authorities to set up private companies? The noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Stedman, also expressed anxieties about this. One local authority I know took leading counsel's opinion on this, and counsel's advice was that it would be illegal. Sections 111 and 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 were not considered to give the necessary authority, although Section 38 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 does empower a local authority to sell spare capacity on its computer on a commercial basis.
It is encouraging that a lot of good, competitive work is being done. For example, I heard of the invention of a camera which can do road surveying and find out the cracks in fantastic time—far sooner than many human surveyors could. It is quite natural that if an authority has spent considerable sums on equipment and invented new techniques or new methods, it should want to get back some of the original cost. I am reminded that we had a small further education Bill last Session, particularly aimed at legalising the setting up of companies by higher and further education colleges to market their expertise and their inventions. Were they in a different position from the local authority themselves?
There is the associated question of how members of staff who are innovative can be rewarded. The committee recommend taking out patents. Is it correct that many local authorities are moving towards bonus payments for their more talented employees? I look forward to the Minister's response on this.
What finally comes out of this report are the enormous possibilities for local government to make itself much more efficient and adaptable and to give to
476
the ordinary citizen a much better service and a more attractive way of life. But if central Government—the DoE—do not see the dangers in cutting back on resources and giving adequate support, staff and expertise could well be lost and services built up over the years dissipated or destroyed. Speaker after speaker has emphasised that. I hope the Minister will have an encouraging answer to give to the committee this afternoon after the hard work its chairman and members have put into this very excellent report.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate this evening on behalf of the Government, not only because I have been privileged to respond to such reports before, but because I have followed the deliberations of the committee with close interest. Further-more, the department for which I normally speak has a direct interest in the matter in hand. Indeed, it has submitted oral or written evidence on no fewer than five occasions. This was not all. Eight other Government departments responded.
Looking now at the full weight of the evidence in Volume II, one cannot but be impressed by the thorough and wide-ranging nature of the inquiry. I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken on this. Although, inevitably, the Government will not ultimately be able to subscribe to each and every recommendation, taken as a whole this is an important set of proposals. They deserve very careful consideration by all the bodies concerned, and I can assure the House that they will get just that. However, my response this evening is the Government's interim response to the report. The full one will, of course, have to wait until the early summer or thereabouts.
I find the report's conclusion on the general high quality of local scientific and technical services to be reassuring. It certainly squares with our experience, and I agree with all noble Lords who have pointed to the expertise and the excellence of these local government services. One is always impressed that most local authorities, in discharging a range of duties, are able to meet such diverse scientific and technical requirements so effectively. Confirmation that no major or urgent action is needed to remedy weaknesses is, therefore, to be welcomed and is a justified vote of confidence in the expertise and dedication of specialist staff in local government.
The Government support many of the major themes in the report, such as the importance of scientific and technical services in ensuring the effective provision of services and the execution of legislation at local level. In passing, I would comment that they are perhaps too often an unsung area of endeavour in local government. Then there is the crucial importance of maintaining the contribution of scientific and technical officers at its present high level, so as to enable elected members to discharge their responsibilities to their ratepayers. Not only this, there is the essential role of information technology both in increasing efficiency, at a time of necessary restraint in the use of resources; the need to recognise the essential

477
diversity of local government and, with it, the scope for innovation; and yet, at the same time, the corresponding need to ensure the effective distribution and cost-effective results of innovation.
In agreeing with those points, we must never forget the need for value for money in the pursuit of greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness. I know that I will have an ally here in the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who left me in no doubt about that during the housing investment and homeless debate in your Lordships' House on 24th April last. These are themes which it is essential for local authorities and local government as a whole to develop in meeting changing needs and technological developments. Understandably, the majority of the recommendations by the Select Committee are addressed to local government itself. Like your Lordships, I will be watching developments with the utmost interest and the Government will be consulting with the local authority associations on the recommendations of mutual concern.
Other recommendations, though, are addressed to central Government, as have been many of the questions posed this afternoon, and warrant the fullest consideration by the departments concerned. The House will not therefore, at this early stage, expect me to react in detail to each of them. However, I wish to remark on the central issue of the degree of government intervention in the provision of scientific and technical services in local government.
The department's evidence to the committee outlined the general relationship between central and local government. It stressed that each local authority has considerable autonomy within overall financial limits in arranging for the discharge of its duties and responsibilities. Each authority is answerable to its own electorate and not to Ministers or their departments. We must maintain and strengthen those essential conditions of local responsibility and accountability.
It follows from this that it is not, in our view, for central Government for the most part to determine or influence the detailed nature of scientific and technical services provided by local government. There are, of course, notable exceptions to that principle, as the report states, in the case of the police and fire services. But the principle none the less remains, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Bessborough that, if central Government were to get much more involved than it is, the costs for the taxpayer would inevitably rise. Such fundamental matters, therefore, as the number and type of specialists employed at a given local authority and their training and deployment, are essentially ones for local decision. So is the question of what external sources of expertise should be drawn upon. That was the general theme of our evidence. It applies not least to abolition.
In my family, we have an expression which is used for when we do not particularly want to go somewhere again. It is, "Been there, Gran". This applies today in view of the abolition aspect of the report. Nevertheless, I would be doing the committee less than justice if I did not briefly comment upon it. I note that the myths are already growing. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that abolition stole up on the Select Committee.
478
My noble friend Lord Bessborough dealt firmly with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that the committee was asked to publish an interim report. Who by, my Lords? Certainly not by Her Majesty's Government or, so far as I can recall, by the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that all centres of excellence will go. That simply is not so, as I shall explain.
The Government have emphasised throughout the abolition debate that our objective is that decisions should devolve to successors. We have set the framework for them to do this either individually or collectively, wherever necessary, through the co-ordinating committees in London and in each of the metropolitan counties. Following the various useful debates during the passage of the Local Government Act that followed the publication of the interim report of your Lordships' Committee, we added in this House an amendment to strengthen the roles of the residuary bodies. This was designed to ensure that no worthwhile services were lost simply through transitional difficulties. But the bodies' role is still to facilitate decisions by the boroughs and districts and other successors. It is not to take decisions for them, still less to thrust the Government's decisions upon successors whether they like them or not.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook asked about the future of the research and intelligence function and the London accident analysis unit. These are being discussed between the London residuary body and the boroughs. A paper is being taken by Wednesday's meeting of the London co-ordinating committee. We consider it sensible for the accident data to be considered with the research and intelligence function, and we hope that the boroughs will reach agreement on arrangements for the establishment of a unit to carry out the function.
As to the metropolitan counties, arrangements differ between them. I make no apology for that. The important thing is that the districts have considered this question. The Government stand by the assurances given during the passage of the Local Government Act to safeguard the collection and analysis of accident data. The Secretary of State for Transport is keeping closely in touch with the discussions proceeding between the boroughs and the London residuary body and stands ready to offer any appropriate assistance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, mentioned "tortuous discussions". I do not accept that phrase at all. Successors have generally given very serious consideration to the specialist services run by the county councils. Lead district arrangements have been agreed upon for a good many services. Elsewhere, successors are recruiting individual county staff into their existing departments. I am satisfied that, although there have been initial difficulties, the co-ordinating committees are being generally effective in carrying out their responsibilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, led us into residuary bodies. The residuary bodies have made progress in carrying out their responsibility to review specialist teams. I must emphasise, since the noble Baroness seems to be labouring under a misapprehension, that residuary bodies are not taking

479
over functions from the GLC or the MCCs. They are there to help the permanent successors—boroughs, districts and others—to set up arrangements during the transitional period, if those successors so wish. Generally the bodies' relationship with both the abolition authorities and the successors has been fruitful in bringing individual services and expertise to the attention of the successors and in promoting discussion over future arrangements. In many cases, the successors have said that they do not wish to make use of the residuary bodies as temporary homes, but the Government have made clear that they are ready to transfer staff to the bodies whenever successors ask them to take on specialist teams for which a permanent home is in prospect and are prepared to pay for them. I do not know where the noble Baroness, Lady David, got the idea that the London residuary body is to be wound up after three years, as I think she said. I very much doubt if three years would give it enough time to fulfil the role that I have outlined.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, both, not surprisingly, mentioned the GLC scientific branch. As for the future of this, my noble friend Lord Bessborough is quite right: the London Co-ordinating Committee agreed at its meeting last December that a central scientific unit should be retained under the wing of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. Detailed arrangements are due to be discussed at the committee's meeting later this week. It will be for the fire authority, if the general proposals are approved, to decide how many staff to take on and whether to do so by recruitment or by transfer under which the staff would retain exactly their existing terms and conditions.
I should like to warn the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that he has also very nearly produced another myth. It is not true to say that the London residuary body is taking over. Should arrangements not be finalised in time, then, and only then, will it be possible for the London residuary body to take on the staff temporarily, provided the boroughs and other successor authorities so request. But it is not at this present moment going lock, stock and barrel to the London residuary body.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for this explanation. I am not sure that it does not leave us all rather more confused and perhaps the employees even more confused than that. My understanding this morning was that on Friday a decision had been made that the staff were not now going to the Fire and Civil Defence Authority but were in fact going to the residuary body. The noble Lord the Minister is now telling me that that is not the case and that in fact there is still no decision as to where those staff are going.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am saying that that is not so. I said that it is expected that the fire authority will take over the staff but failing that, for an interim period, the residuary body will take it over. That is only if arrangements cannot be made in time. Therefore I can give the staff the reassurance that the noble Lord has asked me to give them.
480
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, also referred to the shuttlecocks of national politics. I take his point but I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and others, who have suggested that almost by definition teams should stay in being as they have been set up by the GLC or the MCCs. I agree with my noble friend Lord Butterworth that this is for the successors to decide after they have assessed their own needs. I repeat that the Government do not propose to second guess their decisions.
Perhaps I could reinforce some of the evidence that I referred to earlier as being given by my department and other Government departments by touching on some general trends in government policy that have adjusted the relationship between central and local government. First, detailed controls. In 1979 a White Paper announced the determination to reduce substantially the number of detailed bureaucratic controls exercised by Government over local authority activities. As a result, more than 250 minor controls have been removed. There is the flow of information from local to central Government mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Positive action has been taken to reduce the burdens imposed on local government by requests for statistical information. For example, my department has reduced by more than a half since 1980 the number of statistical forms sent to local authorities.
Finally, I would note the changes in controls, as did my noble friend Lord Sandford, over local authority capital expenditure introduced in 1981. This gave authorities the freedom to determine for themselves how available resources should be used as between a variety of services and as between projects within those services. All these measures devolve more choice, flexibility and accountability to the local level. It is against this background that the Government must set the Select Committee's recommendations on their future role on local scientific and technical services. The proposals are that central Government should adopt a more interventionist stance in relation to local scientific and technical services; that departments should conduct detailed monitoring of functional performance by local authorities; and that they should also take on an expanded role on local government research and development. While I would not wish to underplay in any, way the collaborative role which exists in many areas of science and technology between central and local government, I cannot at present accept that such far-reaching recommendations would be beneficial either for central or, more importantly, for local government. I do, however, recognise, as I said at the outset, that they rest on an incisive and balanced review of the field.
I turn to the various points that have been raised this afternoon by your Lordships. Perhaps I can go through them one by one as much as I have time for and respond in writing to those that I fall by the wayside upon—if that is the phrase. The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned the Merseyside environmental services. As ever—and this is a point that I have made before—it is for the districts on Merseyside to decide how they will wish to provide environmental services. I understand that St. Helens has put forward a proposal to take on specialist teams for environmental improvement including derelict land reclamation. It is

481
for them to agree with the other districts whether any or all of them wish to make use of the team, and if so on what terms.
Baroness David: My Lords, I understand that the districts were not agreeing and were not taking on the services. What will happen if by 1st April nothing has been arranged?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the boroughs and districts have to make a positive decision that they do not want something. If they do not want it, to the best of my knowledge and belief that particular something will lapse.
As I was saying, it is for them to agree with the other districts whether any or all of them wish to make use of the team, and if so on what terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, agreed with paragraph 5.39 of the report that local government should set up a technical information service. This is a matter for local government itself to consider especially through the local authority associations. LAMSAC already has a role here and this recommendation might be borne in mind when considering the future development of such central and local government bodies. Academic institutions and units such as the inelegantly named LGORU—the Local Government Operational Research Unit—at the University of Reading may also have a role, but local government itself is best equipped to decide how a dissemination service would be organised, co-ordinated and serviced.
The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Lockwood, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred to a recommendation that local authorities should be encouraged to market innovative techniques or expertise as long as this does not detract from the service provided to ratepayers. Marketing should be by means of private companies set up for the purpose. The Government most certainly agree, and I agree equally with the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, who reminded us that it was a highlight of the Audit Commission's report on good management in local government.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I intervene again? My question was whether this was legal, and I gave warning of it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we will get there with a little patience, if you please, from the House. As the House will know, local authorities have for a number of years set up private companies for a number of purposes. They do so using their discretionary powers under Section 111 and 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. I understand, as does the noble Baroness, Lady David, that legal doubts have been introduced. I am advised that these concern particular types of company in particular circumstances. The precise purpose of a given company and its relationship with its sponsoring authority may, in the opinion of counsel, create problems. Other legal views exist. This is fairly muddy ground and it is still being churned over. I am neither able nor qualified to offer a definitive legal view on the issues involved. I can, however, assure the noble Baroness that the Government are watching developments closely and
482
the Widdicombe Inquiry on the conduct of local government business is expected to offer a general view on companies when it publishes its final report in April. So the point is well noted and we are looking at it.
The concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about the future, following the abolition of a company set up by West Yorkshire County Council to market products of technological innovation, is completely new to me. I shall have inquiries made and will write to the noble Baroness on the results of my research.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, mentioned Recommendation 5.5 concerning local authority organisation and science and technology sub-committees. Like the noble Baroness, Lady David, the Government warmly welcome the intention of the proposal to pool scientific and technical expertise in local authorities, and so increase awareness of the authorities' need for scientific and technical services and improve precision in the execution of local functions requiring science and technology support.
I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Butterworth on this subject, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Baroness Lady David, on the need for the education of elected members; even though I am not an elected Member, I have been highly educated since I arrived in this House some few years ago.
The recommendation that the public analyst service should move towards regionalisation of laboratories provided that accessibility to local authorities is maintained was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Yet again, it is for local government to take the initiative as it sees fit on any reorganisation of the public analyst service. I would say that that recommendation is a departure from our current policy and that it will require a lot of inter-departmental discussion and consultation with the local authority associations before we can accede to that particular recommendation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that subject, does he have any words of comfort for me about the in-fighting in respect of the appointment of the Merseyside county analyst?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not at this moment, but I will write to the noble Earl.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I thought I heard him say that this will be a matter for local authorities but that the Government will stop them if they think fit.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am trying to get through in a reasonable amount of time, and I am attempting to cover as many points as I can. If I am indistinct then I hope that I shall not be so indistinct when the noble Lord comes to read the Official Report.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, I would say that local government does not disseminate its research in a comprehensive and co-ordinated way. LAMSAC and the associations play a role in that, and I note the criticisms of LAMSAC that have been made

483
by several noble Lords. There are initiatives by academics in local government to produce registers, and the department is part-funding one such initiative by Cambridgeshire County Council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked about the future of the minerals plan produced by the Greater Manchester council. I am afraid that in the time available it has not been possible to establish the position fully. I will write to the noble Baroness, but meanwhile I can say that Salford has been nominated as lead district with responsibility for future minerals planning.
I do not believe that it would be right at this moment to go into the details of rate support grant as it applies to the report. The suggestion that scientific and technical needs and capabilities ought to be separately recognised in the grant-related expenditure element is somewhat misconceived. Grant-related assessments are need assessments; they do not prescribe how much an authority should spend on a particular function. Block grant is paid in support of an authority's services generally, so, even if a separate grant-related expenditure were established, the authority would continue to have full discretion to determine the priority that it gave to expenditure on scientific and technical services.
I have managed to get myself in a slight muddle and out of order. However, a few minutes ago I was speaking on the subject of waste. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, based her speech entirely on that subject. Some of the answers to her questions are encompassed by what I have already said, but I shall take the opportunity of writing to the noble Baroness on what I may call her non-report points.
There are a couple of other points also that, in the interests of this House, I shall not go into now. I shall conclude by saying that the Select Committee's report does of course touch on the interests of a number of government departments. I find it particularly useful, therefore, to hear the views of the House as a whole on this matter. We shall take careful note of everything that has been said here today when framing the formal response to the committee.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, despite the kind words that have been said, I found it extremely difficult to introduce this large report, and I was not able to do so fully to my own satisfaction. I was therefore grateful to those fellow members of the committee and also to those noble Lords—which term of course includes noble Baronesses—who picked up issues upon which I should have liked to have an opportunity myself to enlarge had there been time. I should also like to give my warmest congratulations to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, with his difficult job on the Front Bench, for the way he so ably attempted to field the very large battery of questions that were thrown at him.
I should like to take a brief moment to lay a potential myth that my noble friend the Minister has himself brought up. I did not use the words "stole up"; the abolition Bill did not steal up on me. I went into the Select Committee with my eyes open, knowing that it would not be a particularly easy job. What did
484
come up, not as an unexpected surprise but as an entirely open eventuality, was whether or not we should be forced by the issues to produce an interim report. That was an absolutely open question when we started our inquiry, and in my view circumstances justified our action in so doing. However, I do not think it was fair to say that I had pretended that things "stole up" on me—I do not pretend that.
The one thing that I do not want to see run and run is this business of science and technology subcommittees within policy and resources committees. I myself have been a local government man and I have sat on a number of such committees. It is a regrettable symptom of our age that there is resistance to recognising the involvement of science and technology in so many of our activities in life, including local government. That aspect needs to be reviewed, I believe, and needs to be reviewed on a continuing basis—not just occasionally by a Select Committee of this House. I hope that our stimulus will make local authorities undertake such a review. How they do so I do not really mind, provided that it is done on a perpetual basis.
The other points that are made in our report have provided the basis for a very adequate debate. It is my duty now to move that this House takes note of the report. I so move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

External Competence of the European Communities: ECC Report
6.8 p.m.
Lord Templeman Lord Templeman rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on External Competence of the European Communities (16th Report, 1984–85, H,L. 236).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the 16th Report of the Select Committee on External Competence of the European Communities, which the House is now asked to note, is concerned with the powers of the Community to conclude agreements with countries that do not form part of the Community. It is concerned also with the effect of such agreements on the United Kingdom, its law and its citizens. Your Lordships will have seen from the report that the general conclusions of the committee are that the powers of the Commission are very wide and that the effects of the exercise of those powers can be very far-reaching.
I should say at once that the committee find nothing disturbing in those conclusions. As your Lordships will see from paragraph 27 on page 12 of the report, the committee note that in practice any difficulties have been ironed out without trouble and that the exercise of extra powers by the Community into areas not covered by specific powers requires the consent of the council acting unanimously and therefore requires the agreement of each and every member state. I quote the last sentence of paragraph 27:
"The purpose of this report is not to express disapproval of the extent of the powers [of the Community] or to urge the application of stricter legal limits to their exercise; rather it is to draw attention to the far-reaching consequences of the exercises of the powers and to highlight the considerations which need to be borne in mind when agreeing to that exercise".
In brief, the report contains no criticisms of the Treaty of Rome, the Commission, or the European Court of Justice. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be encouraged to note, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penhros, may be discouraged to note, that it contains no criticism of ministers, of any department, or of any practice among those departments. I hope that the report will not be thought to be dull in consequence.
In English law the power of concluding a treaty with a foreign country has always been vested in the Crown—now, of course, advised by the Cabinet. But if a provision of that treaty can be brought into effect only by altering the laws of the United Kingdom then, of course, that treaty provision will be ineffective unless and until Parliament has pronounced on an alteration of the law. To take a very ancient example, when Mary Tudor married Philip II of Spain she was able, as a Queen, to enter into a treaty of friendship with Spain; but she was unable to effect a restoration of property of the Catholic Church unless and until Parliament had repealed the provisions of Henry VIII whereby that property had been confiscated.
In more recent times the United Kingdom Government have been able to enter, and have entered, into treaties with foreign countries for the abolition of tariffs and the removal of obstacles to trade. But effect could only be given to most of those provisions by an enactment by Parliament or under powers bestowed by Parliament which enabled customs duties and other imposts to be reduced.
In English law the power of the Crown to enter into treaties and the supremacy of Parliament over the law are harmonised in a typical compromise way. If a treaty entered into by Her Majesty's Government requires United Kingdom legislation for its implementation then the treaty is not ratified by the Government until the necessary legislation has been passed. Even when legislation is not necessary, the treaty is laid before Parliament 21 days before it is ratified in order that Parliament may express its views and possibly enforce its views. That is the result of what is known as the Ponsonby Rules—so-called because they were enacted or brought into effect, or promised, by, I think, the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. They are the rules which govern the respective powers of the Crown and Parliament with regard to treaties with foreign countries. This aspect of the matter your Lordships will find on page 25, paragraph 69, of the report.
However, once we joined the European Community the power to enter into agreements with foreign countries which affect the trade and other matters which fall within the ambit of the Treaty of Rome passed to the Community and away from the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. This arises partly from the express terms of the Treaty of Rome and partly from a decision of the European Court of Justice. Article 210 of the treaty states:
"The Community shall have legal personality."
The European Court of Justice has decided that this provision means that in its external relations the Community enjoys the capacity to enter into international commitments; in other words, the Community can do as much as a member state
486
government could have done before the Treaty of Rome came into force.
The committee has set out in Appendix 5 what I hope is a convenient summary of the relevant authorities on this: relevant, I hope, and understandable. The quotation I have just given from the European Court of Justice decision is the Kramer case, which is to be found on page 52 of the report. Further decisions have shown that when any question falls within the scope of the express or implied powers and duties of the Community it is a matter for the Community; and individual member states are not allowed to initiate, take part in or execute any agreement affecting such a question. The logic of it is that one could not be a member of the Community and speak with a divided voice. The voice of member states is expressed through the council and through the various committees which, in effect, make up the collective mind of the Community. You could not have one vote and voice on behalf of the Community and 12 discordant votes on behalf of different member states. Your Lordships will find that in the AETR case, which is in the committee's report on page 51, the European Court of Justice said that,
"to the extent to which Community rules are promulgated for the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty, the Member States cannot, outside the framework of the Community institutions, assume obligations which might affect those rules or alter their scope".
There is one area here to which I draw attention; that is, that the Commission claims that member states may not even negotiate with third countries on matters which have not been the subject of internal Community regulations. Where it is said that the Community has power to enter into negotiations on those matters then member states are precluded. Your Lordships will find reference to that in paragraph 23 on page 11. There is a conclusion, or recommendation, of the committee in paragraph 76, on page 26, which states:
"Where there are as yet no internal Community rules, it would … rarely be appropriate to exercise external competence under"
the Treaty. I shall be interested to hear the Government's reaction to that recommendation.
Some provisions of international and third party treaties—as with provisions of internal effect by the Community authorities—are enforceable without any action by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and may even be enforceable by private individuals without any pronouncement by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That, which gives very wide powers to individuals, stems from another decision of the European Court of Justice which is to be found on page 54 of the report and is the case of Van Gend en Loos. The European Court states that,
"the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only Member States but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of Member States, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage."
Your Lordships will see two examples of that in the report. The first is on page 56—the Bresciani case—and the second is on page 57, where for the insular Englishman there is a quite unpronounceable piece of German litigation. In each case a private

487
individual challenged charges levied by his own Government on the ground that those charges infringed a Community convention entered into with various African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. The European Court of Justice held that the individual could apply to his own court and be upheld by that court under the guidance of the European Court in declaring that the national law, in so far as it was in conflict with the European Treaty, was not be to observed.
There arises from that some danger of uncertainty because it is not always abundantly clear whether the provision which is entered into in a treaty is one which an individual can enforce or whether it is one which the individual cannot enforce unless and until his own Government have brought into force legislation in his own country. In that respect your Lordships will find at paragraph 79 on page 27 that the committee do see dangers in further development of this notion, or the direct application of provisions in the Community's treaties.
As to the exercise of the powers, your Lordships will find between pages 36 and 45 of the report, in Sections I to III, an extensive account and list of the number of treaties and agreements into which the Community has entered. They cover a very great variety of matters, and extend over a very long period. At Section IV, which is in the report at page 46, your Lordships will find an impressive list of the international bodies upon which the Community is represented. Those are the powers and the extent of the powers.
I turn now to what I might call the member state safeguards. First of all, the procedure is this: when the Community is thinking of negotiating with countries outside the Community—the United States, any of the African states, or any state which is outside the Community—then it must first ask the Council to authorise the Commission to open negotiations with those foreign countries, and it must not only ask for authorisation, but it must obtain what is called a "negotiating mandate". It must tell the Council what it wants to do and on what terms it will negotiate. It will then be for the Council to decide, speaking unanimously, not only whether the Commission shall open negotiations but whether it shall do so either on the terms requested by the Commission, or on some other terms. When the Commission has received that negotiating mandate, it then proceeds to negotiate, but it is assisted by a committee which is appointed by the Commission. This committee consists of expert representatives from member states. Your Lordships will find that mentioned on page 18 in paragraph 50 of the report, and on page 17, paragraph 45.
So, to begin with, there is the intervention of the Council, which of course includes representatives of every member state, and then the Commission's hand is held to a certain extent by an advisory committee which also includes representatives of the member states. Finally, when the Commission has reached terms pursuant to that mandate with the foreign country, the agreement does not come into effect except by virtue of the Council. The Council is the body which concludes the agreement, and usually it is provided that the Council itself must first consult with the European Parliament.
On page 27 of the report at paragraph 78 your committee have recommended:
"The exclusive nature of the Community's competence and the impact on the powers of Member States need to be clearly understood and should be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government when they consider proposals for the initiation of negotiations".
It is at that stage when a decision needs to be made as to whether the powers sought are within the powers of the Community; if so, they would be approved, because as everybody knows, once the carriage has started and once the negotiations are under way, it is almost impossible for any individual member state, except on a very dire matter, to say "stop".
There is another type of agreement which presents some difficulties, and that is what is known as a mixed agreement. There are some negotiations with countries into which the Community is competent to enter in certain respects, and member states are competent to enter in other respects. Examples in three fields are: taxation, the Law of the Sea Convention and a recent convention under negotiation concerning the conservation of wild flora and fauna. So far as taxation is concerned, of course the Community is vitally interested because of VAT, but at least up to the present it is not for the Community but for Her Majesty's Government to be interested in such matters as income tax and capital gains tax. So if there are negotiations on taxation which concern all taxes, then that is a mixed negotiation and a mixed agreement. The United Kingdom will wish to be there to safeguard its rights and powers as regards income tax; the Commission will wish to be there to safeguard its rights as regards VAT and any other customs imposts in which the Community is interested.
Similarly, in the recent convention on the law of the sea there were some matters which concerned the Community because they affected trade and there were other matters which concerned the member states because they dealt with the question of territorial rights, international rights of passage in the sea and so on. That leads to one difficulty because it is not always abundantly clear where the interest of the Community stops and the interest of the member state begins, and nobody wants a wrangle in the middle of an international negotiation, or any doubt and uncertainty.
In practice we have seen from the evidence which was laid before us that these matters are resolved by the representatives of the Commission and the representatives of the member states meeting beforehand and working out how they will operate the terms of the negotiations. For my part I was filled with admiration at the pragmatic way in which these very real and nutty legal problems were solved by goodwill on the part of the Commission and on the part of those representatives of Her Majesty's Government who were taking part in the negotiations.
In paragraph 80, at page 27, your committee concludes that it is not always easy to identify where the division lies between the Community and the member states in international negotiations, and considers that it will often be desirable to do this in order to avoid any further uncertainty and differences of opinion—in other words, to divide in a separate

489
schedule, as I think the Convention on the Law of the Sea demands, those matters for which the Community is answerable to the international community from those matters which are the responsibility of the member states individually. I should be interested to hear the Government's response to that recommendation.
There is one matter on which the committee thought that there were some defects in the present system. As I have told your Lordships, when the United Kingdom Government are negotiating an international treaty there are arrangements for scrutiny under the Ponsonby rules and no treaty is brought into effect unless the necessary legislation has been passed. But the difficulty which arises over Community matters in dealing with international affairs is this: from the very beginning every internal proposal for a Community law comes to the Parliament of this country, and so to your Lordships' House, for scrutiny and consideration. But in connection with international treaties, as I have told your Lordships, the ball opens with the Commission going to the Council and asking for a negotiating mandate.
The difficulty which arises is that if that proposal were then sent on to member states for the scrutiny of their governments and parliaments, it would necessarily mean that the negotiating mandate would become known to the people on the other side with whom one is negotiating—and nobody likes to enter into negotiations by putting all one's cards on the table, showing exactly what one is after, how far one is prepared to go and generally what is one's negotiating hand. Therefore, proposals for negotiations are usually not laid before Parliament and do not reach your Lordships until the negotiations have been concluded.
When they have been concluded and the Council is being asked to ratify and bring the agreement into effect, the text is submitted for the scrutiny of Parliament. But by then the carriage is not only half way down the road; it is almost entering its destination. The effective power of scrutiny of this House is very much more limited in practice if scrutiny does not take place until negotiations have been finished and there is merely the step of asking the Council to conclude the agreement.
There are some negotiations in which it is difficult to see why they should not be submitted to the House for scrutiny, even at the opening stage of negotiation. For example, negotiations have been begun by the Commission with some foreign countries with regard to the operation of legal professional privilege. That is a matter where the Commission's and Community's hands need not be kept close to their chests, and there is no reason that one can see why the actual proposals for a negotiating mandate should not have been submitted for scrutiny.
On that subject your Lordships' committee make recommendations at paragraphs 83 and 84 of the report. In particular, I should be grateful to know the Government's reaction to paragraph 84:
"The Committee consider that the current machinery for … scrutiny is inadequate in relation to treaty-making by the Community",
490
because it is too late by the time that it finds out about it, and,
"consider that Parliament should be informed of proposals for the initiation of treaty negotiations in the same way as it is informed of proposals for other action"—
that is to say, at the beginning and not at the end—
"whenever that can be done by means which do not disclose confidential matter".
The subject of the report presents theoretical and practical difficulties, and your Lordships' committee was impressed by the understanding of the problems involved on the part of the departmental witnesses and on behalf of witnesses from the Commission, who gladly came over and entered into great discussions with the committee as to both the theoretical and the practical defects. We found that all the theoretical problems to which we referred were commonly being ironed out, and we were encouraged by the degree of co-operation shown among the departments of Her Majesty's Government and the Community institutions.
Nevertheless, the report draws attention to a subject which is of great importance. It is a subject on which we have ventured to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government and departments to the problems involved, so that whenever any new negotiations are proposed, people will draw a deep breath and say, "Do we think that the Community really has power to do that? Is it within its competence, or should it be left to the member states?" And they should consider that problem apart altogether from the merits of the proposals; namely, whether they are a good thing or a bad thing.
This subject is, as far as I am concerned, a hard nut to crack and would, I think, have been impossible without the help of the committee's legal assistants, Mr. Karl Newman and Mr. Jonathan Stoodley. I am sure that I speak for all members of the sub-committee when I say that we should not have fought our way through the thickets of Community law in theory and in practice without their help and guidance. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on External Competence of the European Communities (16th Report, 1984–85, H.L. 236).—(Lord Templeman.)
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, I rise to take part in this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, the Chairman of the European Communities Committee. Unfortunately, she is unwell and therefore unable to be present with us for this debate tonight. I know that the whole House would wish to send her its very best wishes for a rapid recovery. As your Lordships know, she always attends the debates on our reports but only on rare occasions does she feel the need to add to the excellent work of the committees. But she saw this occasion as one on which she should speak, because, as I shall explain, it concerns the whole process of the scrutiny of European legislation by your Lordships' House, and she greatly regrets her inability to be present.
I know that my noble friend would wish me to begin by saying how much the committee is indebted to its

491
legal sub-committee, Sub-Committee E, whose report we are debating today. The sub-committee examines specifically all legal questions arising from the Community's proposals for legislation. Sometimes it does that by holding an inquiry itself; sometimes it makes a contribution to the inquiry of other sub-committees. It examines specific proposals from Brussels and it also from time to time considers general issues, such as the present one of external competence. To show its versatility, perhaps I should mention that it is even now looking at a subject that is primarily of agricultural importance, and that is the cessation of milk production.
One of the reasons why the sub-committee is so formidable to those of us who do not serve on it is that it is traditionally chaired by a Law Lord, and my noble friend and the whole committee are especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, for the work that he has done both on the subject before the House for debate tonight and also in the other inquiries which have been held during his term as chairman of the sub-committee. The sub-committee also has several other eminent lawyers among its members, some of whom are to speak in the debate tonight, and also a few non-lawyers. The latter no doubt have their own special role in ensuring that what the lawyers agree is still intelligible to the rest of us who are not so well equipped.
This report on external competence is of course one of the most important to come from Sub-Committee E in recent years. The noble and learned Lord explained the external treaty powers of the Community and how they can have a major effect on the Government and the Community itself, particularly on the Community's internal competence. Many of us found the report a real eye-opener on the potential extent of Community competence. Each new power gained by the Community is a power lost by the member states. That may or may not be desirable. One would not wish to argue whether the transfer of powers is good or bad, but I am sure that we must make such transfers with our eyes open and not by mistake or by omission.
My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies was particularly concerned to speak on just those paragraphs in Part 5 of the report which deal with the scrutiny of treaty negotiations by the United Kingdom Parliament—the part of the report that the noble and learned Lord dealt with towards the end of his able and clear introduction of what I regard as a very complex report to read.
The House has a very well defined and successful method of scrutiny. It is the chairman's responsibility to take part in that process both by the preliminary sift of documents (amounting, I gather, to some 800 a year) to identify those which need further scrutiny and then by taking part in the examination of witnesses. The House has delegated its powers of scrutiny to the European Communities Committee, and we have an obligation to ensure that the scrutiny process does not miss anything of significance to the United Kingdom. To that extent we have a watchdog function. But there is also a very positive side to the scrutiny function. We believe that our scrutiny and the reports that we produce can be helpful both to the Government and to the Community itself. By airing the main issues at the
492
pre-legislative stage, we may be of help to the Council of Ministers in coming to its conclusions and to the Commission in its formulation of future policy.
The report says in paragraph 84:
"the current machinery for Parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate in relation to treaty-making by the Community".
I should like, if I may, for a few moments just to underline a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, has also made to us in opening the debate on his Motion. This we see as a serious criticism of the scrutiny process of the House. The report goes on to say:
"By the time Parliament is informed of a proposed agreement [for a Community treaty] the text has been settled and it will often be too late for any effective action to be taken. The Committee therefore consider that Parliament should be informed of proposals for the initiation of treaty negotiations in the same way as it is informed of proposals for other action by the Community, whenever this can be done by means which do not disclose confidential matter".
I am sure that those last words are important but, nevertheless, the recommendation from the committee stands as a whole. The chairman of the Select Committee strongly supports the legal subcommittee's recommendation on this particular point. If we, as a committee, are to fulfil our obligations, we must surely have the opportunity to consider the relevant documents early enough; otherwise, our efforts will be ineffective. It is not enough for the House to be informed of treaty negotiations when those negotiations are already complete. We must hear about the proposals in advance whenever this can be done by means which do not disclose confidential matter. We recognise, of course, that in any treaty negotiations, the partners to the negotiations must not be expected to disclose all their hand in advance. This would clearly undermine the negotiations. But the committee is, I think, right in saying that Her Majesty's Government could be more forthcoming than they are at present.
It might be argued that confidentiality was an obstacle. But surely that is not the case. As the evidence from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office explains—this is quoted on page 3 of the report's evidence section—the Commission keeps the European Parliament informed from a very early stage of negotiations. The European Parliament receives information about the Community's treaty negotiations in advance of their commencement, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, has said, and also during the negotiations. Some of this is not made available to the United Kingdom Parliament. Admittedly, the two parliaments are not on all fours. We have different functions and the relationships between the Commission and the European Parliament are different to those between British Ministers and this House. But the Commission's practice shows that there can be no basic objection to giving this House more information at an early stage. It also confirms what all of us, I am sure, feel—that there is a place for parliamentary scrutiny of Community treaty negotiations.
This aspect of the scrutiny role is being overlooked. When we are involved in considering treaty proposals, it is far too late to do anything effective about them. It could be argued that this does not matter and that Parliament, after all, does not control United Kingdom treaty negotiations. But the great value of

493
the Select Committee's report, I would submit, is to show us the possible effects of Community treaties and to make us realise what many, if not most, of us did not see before—namely, the extent to which treaties can gradually extend Community competence and so transfer legislative powers from this Parliament to the Community. Furthermore, and perhaps just as significant, the treaties will often commit this country to change its laws. In some cases, the treaty will even have the effect of changing our laws themselves. We can see that the scrutiny of treaty negotiations really does matter and that Community treaties have wider implications for Parliament than United Kingdom treaties.
I would therefore conclude by underlining and, indeed, repeating the point that was put to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, at the end of his introductory speech, and, on behalf of my noble friend, ask the Minister the following question of which notice has been given. Does she agree that Parliament should be informed of proposals for the initiation of treaty negotiations in the same way as it is informed of proposals for action by the Community whenever this can be done by means that do not disclose confidential matter? I would underline those last few words. In the light of the very important report that we are debating, I do not see how the answer to that question can be anything but "Yes". It may be a qualified "Yes". I know that my noble friend will be only too glad to enter into discussions with the noble Baroness and her officials about the most appropriate ways of improving that aspect of the scrutiny process of the European Communities Commission on behalf of this House. Any change in this House would, of course, need to be implemented in another place. This is not a matter for unilateral action. But the committee looks forward to receiving a clear indication tonight that we can close what must surely be recognised as a potential loophole in our own scrutiny procedures.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, for the way in which he has introduced the report to us this evening. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to Sub-Committee E for the informative report that they have presented on a complex subject. The report throws light on some difficult legal matters. This is most helpful to a layman like myself. I can well understand that those who oppose United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community and who do not think that the United Kingdom should be bound by the Treaty of Rome might find the report irksome reading. But for those of us who believe that our future prosperity and the preservation even of our democratic system depend on increasing European collaboration and unity, there is nothing in it that is disturbing.
The report makes clear certainly that the external competence of the EC is very wide. In fact, after taking into account the express powers, the implied powers, and Articles 100 and 235, the committee say that they find it difficult to identify any clear limit to the possible
494
extent of the Community's external competence. Yet the committee are not alarmed by that. Nor am I. The safeguard, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, is that there can be no extension of the external competence into a new area not covered by specific existing powers unless the member states are unanimous. I am all in favour of more majority voting. I have frequently spoken in favour of it in this House, and I shall no doubt do so again. But this is one area, I feel, where unanimity is rightly required.
At first sight, the implied powers, through the application of the doctrine of parallelism, may appear to offer the widest scope for extension since they permit external competence wherever internal competence exists, whether it is exercised or not. However, as we have seen, any extension of the external competence of the Community into new areas not covered by specific existing powers requires unanimity in the Council. The potential loophole would appear to be the specific power given by Article 113 to deal externally in matters relating to the common commercial policy. As the committee report, there is dispute between the Commission and the Council about the interpretation of this article. The Commision's view, I understand, is that measures primarily intended for a non-commercial purpose, if they have some commercial implication, are allowed. Again, as I understand it, the Council's decision, assuming that the Commission's interpretation prevails, would be by qualified majority. So there could be the extension of external competence into what was in effect a new field without unanimity being required, although not, of course, without the Council's approval by qualified majority. While the committee note this situation in their report, I cannot find that, in their conclusions, they have expressed an opinion about it.
Another matter about which I am a little puzzled is this. Paragraph 24 says that the exercise of specific powers is mandatory. The Community is obliged to act—and those words "is obliged to act" are in the paragraph. But paragraphs 20 and 21 refer to the fact that where the Community, although having competence arising from specific powers, has not yet acted, the member states may act on a transitional and fiduciary basis. Fishing is given as an example. Individual member states impose quotas while awaiting agreement on a Community fishing policy. It would therefore seem that, despite having specific powers, the Community can at least postpone action; and I wonder for how long the Community can legitimately postpone such action.
One point which I noted in the examination of the witnesses from the Department of Trade and Industry was this. They were asked whether proposals for the exercise of the external competence of the Community were tested by the department to ensure that they were within the competence of the Community. The reply was that they were tested as to whether the proposal was good or bad. The implication was that competence would be considered only if the reaction of the department was hostile. The questioner, on the other hand, seemed to be implying that the department should look at competence first. I wonder whether that is right. Surely the legal department of the Council should test the competence to make sure

495
that the Commission is not "pulling a fast one" on them. After that I think it natural that member governments should be concerned with the merits of the proposal and that they should look at the competence only if they were opposed to the course of action which was being proposed.
I agree with the committee that where there are yet no internal rules it would rarely be appropriate to exercise external competence. I agree also that the exclusive nature of the Community competence needs to be clearly understood. I am not so sure that I agree with the committee's opposition to the European Parliament's conversion of the right in some cases, and practice in others, of consultation into a power of veto by refraining from giving an opinion. I do not think that we can blame the Parliament for seeking to gain power by exploiting the procedures. Surely, Parliaments have always done this.
I hope to see the Parliament's role and its powers greatly increased. A modest step in that direction was taken in the Luxembourg summit proposals—now regrettably threatened by the opposition of the Danish Parliament. But if there should be a greater role for the European Parliament there remains an important role for national parliaments and for this Parliament in particular.
Wherever British Ministers, by virtue of the fact that they are British Ministers, are participants in Community decisions, they should be accountable to this Parliament. I agree with the committee that our parliamentary scrutiny of Community external agreements and treaties is not altogether satisfactory. When we are faced with the order necessary for a treaty to be given the force of law in the United Kingdom, as has been pointed out, all has been decided and one is not sure that a speech dealing with the subject matter of the treaty at any length is very welcome at that stage. I was greatly encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said about that.
I support the recommendation of the committee that Parliament should have an earlier opportunity to discuss the subject matter of the proposed negotiations, and, in conclusion, may I once again thank the committee for the useful service which they have performed in presenting this comprehensive report.
6.55 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who has found the membership of one of the European sub-committees an exceedingly educative experience. Certainly on this occasion the combination of the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and the wisdom of our advisers, not least in selecting the witnesses whom we invited to hear, led to a whole area of investigation which I personally did not know existed. I am extremely glad to find that the points that we were trying to get over in this report have already been very fully appreciated by the two previous speakers, who were not members of the sub-committee. I believe that those of us who were members should confine ourselves to highlighting one or two very particular matters, because this was the report of us all.
496
In what I am about to say I do not wish in any way to undermine the message that the report includes: that there is nothing here to cause alarm or dismay, and certainly there is nothing which should undermine our faith in the onward progress of our membership of the European Economic Community. However, there are a few points and I should like to draw attention to one of them which surprised me and may be a matter upon which my noble friend Lady Young would like to come to a conclusion, either tonight or on some other occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, touched upon this point. It is referred to in paragraph 17 of the report. The whole of the doctrine of the competence of the EC is based upon a kind of legal train of thought which—certainly to a lawyer brought up in the jurisdiction of the courts of this country—comes as a certain novelty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, knows all about this and has spoken about it on many occasions. But it is a matter of interpretation of the law which is much more usual in Europe than in this country. Therefore, I confess that, when I first came to this subject and found that we were discussing four articles of the treaty in the way that we were, I was surprised.
The two external treaty-making articles, Articles 113 and 238, if exercised, carry with them a transference of power, as the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has said, not only in terms of external treaty making but also thereafter in terms of what one can do domestically in one's own Parliament—because there must be no inconsistency between what the Community does among the international community and what we do in order to regulate our own affairs here.
In the opposite direction, if the two open-ended articles in the treaty, Articles 100 and 235, are activated in ways which inevitably are not in accordance with the specific provisions of the treaty—because that is why they are openended—then there may follow in the exercise of that power certain inhibitions on this country, like all the members of the Community, in making treaty arrangements overseas. This is the doctrine of parallelism about which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has just been speaking.
I wish to draw to the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, what we say in paragraph 17. I would suggest to the House that there is there a particularly stark example of what this sort of legal interpretation of a text of the type that the Treaty of Rome comprises can lead to. There are the two views put forward. The point is illustrated by the proposition that there should be an external treaty negotiated to protect endangered species by banning their importation into any of the countries which are members of the Community. The Commission, which proposed this, takes the view that if the instrument which is going to carry into effect the proposition that it put forward is of a commercial character, then that falls within the terms of Article 113. The Council takes the view that it is not the question of the instrument but the objective of the proposed international negotiation which matters.
I think that as a result in this particular case the Council prevailed and the matter did not go forward. But one can see that there is room for an enormous

497
amount of dispute about the way in which an article like Article 113 should be interpreted and, according to the way in which one looks at it, there could or could not be room for an almost indefinite extension of the competence of the Community to legislate and, in the end, to legislate in that field exclusively for a particular subject matter.
What seems to me to arise out of that passage—and I hope I have explained it in accordance with the text so that it is comprehensible and I have not muddled the matter—is that departments in Whitehall, when confronted by the proposition that there should be either an external negotiation or an internal directive which could therefore bring about the transfer of external treaty-making powers as well, should just bear this in mind; they should consider—and I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks—not only the specific objectives that the negotiation or the proposed directive itself may have in mind, but also consider the implications, because it is with the lead department in Whitehall that the responsibility primarily lies to consider whether there should be a matter of competence raised at all.
I would suspect that the main achievement of this report, in addition to raising the question of Parliament's scrutiny of international treaties at earlier stages than has been possible hitherto, will be to draw attention to all lead departments in Whitehall that this issue of comptence is a potential matter for consideration on every occasion. Probably in most cases it will not matter, but it is nevertheless something that appeared to me, listening to the evidence, not always to have been taken into account as being anything of enormous importance.
I believe, in view of the ability to interpret these articles in one way or the other, that it is something on which advice should be taken if necessary, and on which an opinion should be clearly formed before our officials and our Ministers go into the decision whether or not to support one of these measures, whether it is internal or external.
Without making too much of a fuss about it, and without suggesting that it is any sort of threat, I believe it is really an issue. It shows how dynamic the Community is becoming both in its own political institutions and in the court and the way the court interprets the treaty judicially. To that extent, I believe that this report may have drawn attention to something which is quite important and which will certainly go on developing, as does the Community.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, this report deals with a matter of great constitutional importance. I should like first to express our gratitude, as your Lordships will, to my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman not only for his conduct, his chairmanship of the committee—you can see how he examined those witnesses and got them to deal with the points—but also for the report which covers so many important fields. It points out not that perhaps things are going wrong at the moment but that there are dangers, difficulties, and defects lying ahead which must be taken into account by the Government and their departments.
498
Perhaps I may just draw attention to those troublesome words, "external competence"—very forbidding they were when one read them—as distinct from "internal competence". "Internal competence" means the Community law of Europe as applying to all the member states of the Community, whether it is nine, 10, 12 or whatever it may be. The internal competence is the community law applying internally to all those states of Europe.
The external competence is when they make treaties. The Community as a body—it is a person; it is a body—can make treaties. It can make treaties which bind the members. The terms of those treaties are directly enforceable in the national courts. Not only that, they take precedence over any of our own laws or treaties which may be in conflict with them.
May I first consider—because the principles apply afterwards—the principles applying to our internal competence. They have been developed by the European court, perhaps in an extended way. There is first the principle of what I may call direct applicability. That is best illustrated by a case from Belgium.
Under the treaty there is to be equal pay for equal work as between men and women, and that is to be implemented by the states' own legislation. Belgium did not implement it. A Belgian air hostess complained that she did not get as much pay as the steward on the plane although they were doing the same work.
There was no remedy in the Belgian courts at that moment because they had not legislated upon it. She went to the European court at Luxembourg. They said that she was entitled to equal pay for equal work. She was entitled to enforce it, and the Belgium courts had to enforce it even though they had no legislation upon it. That is called the principle of direct applicability.
The other principle which has emerged in regard to internal competence at the moment is that the Community law has supremacy over our own internal law. We had a statute which differentiated between men and women in a bank according to their pensions. A lady took the case to the European Court at Strasbourg, and they said that the treaty position took priority over our own statute. Therefore, Community law has priority even over our own statute law. That is the other principle of the supremacy of Community law.
Now I turn to external competence. There the European Court at Luxembourg has applied these principles. If the Community makes a treaty on behalf of the members, that can be directly applied by a citizen in England taking a case in our own courts. It is directly applicable. The committee point out that there are dangers ahead in that development.
Not only that, but if the Community as a whole makes a treaty with others, that excludes any power in us, in our own Crown, to make a treaty on the said subject. That may be called the principle of supremacy in external affairs. In coming to these decisions the European Court has applied methods of interpretation which we would not countenance at all in our courts. We go by the letter of the statute, or the treaty if it comes in.
I am afraid—but it is the Continental policy—that they look at the policy behind it. They do not look at

499
the words so much. Through all these cases which we are considering you will see that they have construed the treaty and its meanings in a rather expansionist way. Expanding according to policy. If one looks at it fairly, it is according to what they think it ought to be; namely, a unified Europe. General laws; treaties to be negotiated—it may be quite right—by the Community on behalf of all. A material question may come before us before long.
Your Lordships will remember that we debated years and years ago a very important report on the Law of the Sea Convention. Year after year the nations of the world have been trying to agree on what the law of the sea should be; whether the territorial waters should be 12 miles, or economically they should be 200 miles or whether the deep sea beds should be international. This was a most important convention ratified by many countries, but not by the United Kingdom. This is considered in the report. It is possible for the European communities themselves to ratify this by a majority without the United Kingdom having ratified it. My Lords, what would be the effect of that? Goodness knows! The European Court or some other body may pronounce upon it later. The report shows that there will be difficulties of delimitation of the powers within the Community and what is left of the powers of the member states.
I have spoken of the dangers and the difficulties, but the defect to which the report draws attention in its last paragraph is that there is no effective machinery at present for scrutiny by this country or its committees of the treaties which are being negotiated in the Community. In our internal law we have the directives being scrutinised by the Committee but at the moment as the report says in almost the last paragraph such treaties go through with a rubber stamp. The report says that that is inadequate for our present system. That has been referred to by others.
I draw attention to these points to show your Lordships that the committee have considered matters of great constitutional importance. They have drawn attention to the whole subject, quite rightly applauding what has been done up till now, applauding agreements within and with all the officials in Brussels and here about what is being done; but warning them of the dangers, the defects and the difficulties. Those are matters of which I am sure Her Majesty's Government and those advising them will take full note because this is a most valuable report and those points should be drawn to the attention of others in the negotiations. We are much indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman and all his colleagues for this most valuable report.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the report on the external competence of the European Community goes widely and deeply into the many problems that arise in this new position of the Community in relation to its treaty-making powers. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, for all the work that he has put into it. I thank him, too, as I read through the report, for the courteous way in which he dealt with the many Commission and council officials who came before him and who tried their best to give a true account of
500
how they saw the problems which arise. It was the questioning of the chaiman of this committee that brought out so many of the difficulties so clearly. We should be grateful, not only for the general tenor of the report but, in particular, for this. I pay tribute to the many officials who came from Government departments who again took a pragmatic view of the work they have to undertake on behalf of this country. I think they came out of this evidence with full credit, and I mention that by the way.
I mention also—the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, touched upon this—the great attention and concern with which reports from your Lordships' House are read in the Community by the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the officials and members of the European Parliament. The very high standard of the reports is highly regarded. I know that this report was read with the greatest concern by all those in whose hands it happened to fall.
Your Lordships have touched on many of the aspects contained in this report, but I shall confine myself mainly to paragraphs 62 and 63 of it, and to paragraph 82, which comes under the "Summary of Conclusions". Those three paragraphs refer mainly to the role of the European Parliament. This is something which could be elaborated on a little further, as it might have given rise to some misunderstandings.
First, we must assume from everything that has been said and from the content of the report that we all believe in the necessity for some form of democratic control over the acts of the executive, whether they be national or European. There must be some form of democratic control, and I think this is recognised, particularly in paragraph 84 with regard to the scrutinising powers of national governments. This is a concern which must affect us all either as Members of your Lordships' House or as members of the European Parliament. As has been said, under the Treaty of Rome and in accordance with the European Communities Act 1972 certain competences were transferred from national governments to the Community, so that the Community now has exclusive competence for participating generally in the conclusion and for overseeing the implementation of treaties which have been drawn up as a result of competence under Articles 113 and 238, in particular.
But also there are certain areas of international treaty law which not only affect the Community but give certain competences which remain with member states. I shall touch on this later. Even under Article 113 members states have access to and participate in negotiations to some extent in and through the special committee, which has representatives of member states advising during the whole of the process of negotiation. But it is the Commission which is responsible for negotiations on a mandate from the council. It is at the stage of the mandate from the council and before the mandate of the council is given that I should have thought national Parliaments should be exercising their scrutinising powers, should a mandate be given by the Council of Ministers, on which there is a representative from every member state government, to proceed with such negotiations. Once that mandate is given we must recall that some of the treaties are concluded by a qualified vote or a majority vote, which means that a member state may

501
have lost all control of such negotiations by the time they are concluded.
While the committee clearly shows concern for the role of national Parliaments in this process, it is only the European Parliament which has the procedural and constitutional ability to scrutinise the Commission and the council. Even if national Parliaments can question their own Minister he is, after all—I have the greatest respect for our Foreign Secretary—only one out of 12 Ministers. So the European Parliament remains the only democratic forum which can scrutinise by the normal democratic procedures—that is, by questions and debates, and so on—both the presidency and the office of the council, which represents the 12 member states plus the Commission.
The European Parliament is by its nature the only body that can excercise this role. The European Parliament does not only have the obligation to scrutinise executive and administrative acts, but also has to be responsible to its electors for the financial implications. It is difficult to imagine, certainly commercial trade agreements, and of course many of the association agreements into which the European Community enters, which do not have financial implications. The European Parliament is one arm of the budgetary authority, with regard to the Community budget, to which I am referring, and there these implications would arise within the terms of budgetary discipline and budgetary decisions.
Furthermore, at the end of the day, it is only the European Parliament that can give the budgetary discharge to the Commission concerning expenditure that has been incurred during the course of a budgetary year. Thus, of course, the implications that might arise, particularly on the financial side, from negotiations that may be entered into by the Community, are of concern to the European Parliament. So, unless the European Parliament exerts this scrutinising role, there could be what is commonly known in our jargon as a democratic deficit: that there would be no democratic control over the treaty-making power of the Community.
This is a particular point to which I wish to draw attention of your Lordships. It has been accepted by this report that the national Parliament appears, at any rate, to have but a very little role in the scrutiny of these treaty-making powers of the Community, and it is only by the European Parliament successively trying to get more control in this field that there is any scrutiny at all. Until the so-called Luns-Westerterp procedure was initiated with regard to Article 113, there was no control democratically of any kind at all over the trade and commercial treaties which were being entered into by the Community.
I should like just briefly to comment on paragraph 63. As I have indicated, successively the role of the European Parliament has been enhanced by better relationships between the Commission and the Council. As a result of the Stuttgart declaration of 1982, the Parliament is now to be consulted on all major significant international treaties. However, with regard to the veto, I know that the evidence that was given to your Lordships referred to internal rules of the Parliament, but I am not certain whether it could ever be that the Parliament could exercise a veto on a
502
Community treaty-making power. The internal rules of procedure of the Parliament refer specifically to Commission proposals to which amendments may have been made by the Parliament.
The two points to be made here are, first, that the Parliament can only delay the vote. It can suspend the vote for a month or two months, as it did, for instance, with the draft Vredeling directive that came before it two or three years ago. But it cannot actually veto and refrain from giving a vote for ever. Secondly, of course, it can pass or adopt a resolution which may disagree with some negotiating terms or as to whether a treaty should be concluded. Regrettably, I must point out, even as a Member of the European Parliament, that the Parliament is only being consulted, and of course there is no obligation whatsoever by the Council to take any notice of what the European Parliament says. The Parliament could vote for a resolution against the conclusion of a treaty but, as I say, there is no obligation that the Council should take any notice of that.
There are only two occasions of which perhaps I may give brief examples to your Lordships. One was on the question of the EEC Turkey association agreement, where the Parliament voted by a majority not to renew and not to resume relations with Turkey under that association agreement, and that advice happened to be followed. Secondly, quite recently, since the Council of Ministers now discusses with the Parliament the question of accession treaties under Article 237, although of course it is not within the treaty that we should be consulted, we had very close discussions with the Council of Ministers in the shape of Signor Andreotti, who was president of the Council at the time, and the only point about which the Parliament felt very strongly—and it was a specific parliamentary matter—was that members coming to the European Parliament from Spain or Portugal should not remain unelected possibly until the next direct elections to the European Parliament, which would have been in 1989. Since this discussion took place before the signing of the accession treaties, a provision has been entered whereby Spain and Portugal have undertaken that within two years of entry into the Community their members will be directly elected to the European Parliament.
Those are the only two cases that I know of where, specifically with regard to accession agreements, the Parliament's advice or request has been met, and with regard to association agreements where some resolution was adopted which was against renewing an association agreement. Broadly speaking, as I say, we are only consulted and it is up to the Council of Ministers either to take that opinion or not.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the so-called Luxembourg reform package. If it was to go through, then the position of the European Parliament would indeed be changed because under new proposals in that so-called draft Act, as it stands at the moment, it is proposed that the European Parliament should be given the right, both under Article 237, with regard to accession, and Article 238 with regard to association agreements, to assent by a majority of its component members to proposals for ratification of a treaty. Of course, this radically alters the position of the Parliament, so it is no longer just being consulted:

503
it would be voting on whether or not to accept ratification of a treaty. As we know, this is not yet in force. It will be a matter for the Danish Government, as we know, to decide whether to sign this agreement. This is an agreement which will undoubtedly be debated in both Houses at Westminster before it is ratified. At least, I should imagine that there will be an opportunity to debate this very important document which is awaiting a signature.
I wish just to comment on the certain kinds of treaty such as the Lomé Convention, where both the Community and member states are directly involved. As your Lordships know, in this particular convention, which is a relationship between the 12 Community countries and about 68 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, there are tasks which are allocated to the Commission, such as the management of food aid, and there are tasks which remain within member states' competence, such as the organising of buffer stocks. These are very real problems. It is in such areas that I certainly should hope to see a much closer co-operation between the relevant committees of the European Parliament and the Departmental Select Committee of another place and possibly the Scrutiny Committee.
This is much more a matter for on-going management and exchange of dialogue than one where a member should be invited to come and give evidence, such an invitation as your Lordships so courteously extend to Members of European Parliaments from time to time at your own subcommittees and your own Select Committee. However, I rather feel that in this case we might perhaps be considering some kind of way in which perhaps the senior members of the relevant committee of the European Parliament should from time to time be in dialogue with the Select Committees of another place in order precisely to discuss these kinds of problem, where the competences are divided but are extremely important.
In conclusion, I should say that there is a need for the work of the European Parliament to be extended, in so far as it scrutinises the administrative acts of the Commission and the political decisions of the Council of Ministers. As we all know, even these commercial treaties which look as though they are dealing with some quite abstruse matters, in fact affect the rights of individuals. I, as a member of the European Parliament elected by the citizens of this country, have a duty to protect the rights and interests of individuals who elect me to represent them in the European Parliament.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree that, although the European Parliament is sometimes represented in the popular press as an irresponsible body, it is not such an irresponsible body as many people like to think. It does a good job. It has a task to do. I should hope that your Lordships will give full support to the work of the European Parliament in the task of trying to scrutinise the work of the Commission and the Council in relation to the external competences of the Community.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, a couple of weeks ago I was asked by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
504
the Central Office of Information to take part with some Oxford colleagues in briefing a number of American journalists who were making a tour of Europe. They had already visited, I believe, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany and Belgium; and this country was their next port of call. One of the first questions we were asked by this party of journalists was this: "We have been to several European countries and have asked them about the EEC, the Common Market; and we get very optimistic, up-beat replies. We come to Britain and immediately we get downbeat replies and criticism. Why?"
The answer I gave, as noble Lords may expect, is that by now, except in very specialised quarters, the original gilt has come off the European gingerbread, the countries look to the institutions of the Community for what they can get out of it. The group had been to countries which, on the whole, believe that they have done well out of the EEC, and perhaps rightly believe that they have done well out of it; then they came to a country which is still uncertain as to whether the pluses outweigh the minuses. I do not believe that their tour was going on to Denmark, or they might have found an even greater set of queries.
What I believe is the case, however, is that in some quarters in Europe—and it applies of course to nationals of this country—in the Commission and in the European Court and, in a rather different way as I think my noble friend Lady Elles has just pointed out, in the Parliament, they are anxious to increase their powers and authority and will go on using the treaty in every way they can as a basis for extending that authority. As I believe I pointed out in your Lordships' House when we debated the proposed Act of European Union, they do this the more eagerly the more they are frustrated about their ability to attain the original objective of a Community which was the creation of a genuine European common market.
It seems to me that it is only if we realise the degree of pressure that exists for perfectly honourable reasons—and those concerned are disciples of Jean Monnet—to extend the area of competence of the European institutions that this particular matter (which was the subject of the report of the subcommittee) can properly be judged. This is because it has been laid down by the court, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in another connection, that there are possibilities of the direct application of Community law, that treaties make law and that therefore the treaties can be used to extend competence even in areas where it is not by any means clear that the treaty allots to the Communities that kind of competence.
There is, as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross pointed out, some difference between the legal advisers to the Commission, on the one hand, and the Council, on the other, as to the legal method or the legal argument by which some of this activity can be sustained. But there is no difference between them, as we point out in paragraph 23 of our report, about the fact that in judging the question of competence they can look at the broad objectives of the Treaty of Rome rather than—as we would: and as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would—at what the treaty actually provides.
We pointed out that their enthusiasm seems here to run beyond the decisions of the court upon which they

505
in part rely. I would not dissent from the view of the sub-committee that at the moment no disaster has taken place as a result of this extension of powers. But, as other noble Lords have pointed out, there is a series of precedents being set which at some moment might bring us up against a derogation from the sovereignty of our own Parliament to which we would otherwise not assent.
I would point out to your Lordships, if I may, that the representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whom we examined specifically used the analogy of the American constitution, the American federal system, as a justification for the use of treaty-making powers as a source of law. And the same argument was put forward by a learned professor of law, Professor Francis Jacobs, in his evidence, both written and oral, to the committee. It seems to me that if you are going along that path, you are going a great deal further than we undertook to go when we signed the Treaty of Rome. We did not imagine that we were going into a federation, least of all, a federation whose courts could rely upon the often extremely general language of the treaty itself.
Like, I think, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his feeling that the officials of the government departments here were perfectly right in dismissing the question of competence as one which was a matter for the lawyers of the Commission itself. I may say as a non-lawyer, as a token lay person on this committee, that I was very shocked at their apparent indifference to competence; because what this indifference means—and if it were extended to our domestic departments we should be very worried—is that a department may do anything if it thinks it is a good thing to do, whether or not the powers to do it are actually conferred upon the department by statute or in any other way.
I was even more shocked that the learned professor seemed to give his adherence to this extremely dangerous doctrine. I would say in defence of Whitehall—not a role I often assume—that other government departments, notably the Revenue Department and the Home Office, when questioned, said that the question of competence is one which they would certainly look at when proposals came before them.
To my mind there are always phrases, there are always words, which sound a bell of alarm. I thought that this came in the evidence of the Director General of the Legal Services of the Commission—and I agree with my noble friend Lady Elles that they were extremely helpful and courteous in their submissions—said that what you needed in order to interpret Article 113 about the scope of commercial negotiations was a more philosophical approach. Whenever I hear the phrase, "a more philosophical approach", I believe that someone is trying to get round the letter of the law.
I think people may feel that these anxieties are a little far-fetched, but again the learned professor, Professor Francis Jacobs, said he could see the time coming when the Commission of the Community might extend its competence to the field of education, because it already had the right to intervene to assure proper provisions for the education of the children of
506
migrant workers. This does not seem to me an area in which we have contemplated abrogating sovereignty.
The general reply to those who, like myself, express worries is, "No matter", because in the last resort in most cases, though not in all cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out, unanimity is required in the case of a treaty and therefore our own Ministers have the last word. But it seems also that if they are to exercise this restraining power, the assistance of Parliament ought to be welcome to them; and it seems to me to be difficult to resist the view that there is no obvious reason why, when we receive proposals or draft proposals from the Communities for legislative action, we should not also at that stage receive any draft proposal for entering into negotiations—subject of course to all the normal caveats about confidential information, giving away one's negotiating hand, and so forth.
I may say I am not inclined to the view that we could, however, in our own Parliament emulate the kind of contact which appears to exist between the Commission when it is negotiating a treaty and the European Parliament. As we understood it from the evidence, and set out in the report, this is done by informal and oral discussions with the relevant committees of the European Parliament. I cannot myself see how we could, in a very different kind of Parliament, assent to discussions of this kind: informal, oral and presumably unrecorded. It seems to me that would lead to an almost endless vista of argument and I am surprised that has not so far happened, if this is indeed what normally goes on in the European Parliament.
Therefore it seems to me that we have really only one serious point on the questions which are within our own power—that is, parliamentary procedure—to put to Her Majesty's Government; namely, that it would be helpful at least if we could know about the Community's intentions in the sphere of treaty-making as we are informed about its intentions in regard to internal legislation.
For the reasons that I have given, the powers that are present or claimed for treaty-making are so important and could add so much to the competence of the Communities that this seems to me to be a precaution which a wise Government in the United Kingdom would readily embrace.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, this Committee, cujus minima pars fui, was indeed fortunate in the high quality of its chairman, and the noble and learned Lord has given further examples of that high quality in the speech which he made to your Lordships today. We were also fortunate in the high quality of our legal advisers, to whom again he has fittingly paid tribute. We were fortunate, too, in the quality of the expert evidence that we were able to hear, not only from representatives of the major Government departments in this country but from the Council and the Commission, in the distinguished persons of Dr. Glaesner and Dr. Ehlermann, both of whom I hold in high personal regard although, like my noble friend Lord Beloff, I do not always or necessarily agree with them on all these matters.

507
This is a complex technical subject as well as an important one. But three basic factors, I would think, lie at the heart of the matter. First, in an economic community of nations, seeking to operate in unison for the common economic good, the power of the Community to enter into such commercial treaties and agreements is reasonable and to be expected, provided always that it is done in a constitutional manner. Secondly, as your Lordships know, there are express provisions giving such power contained in Articles 113 and 238 of the Treaty of Rome. Thirdly, this external confidence is exclusive: that is, it passes in toto to the Community and deprives member states of the power to enact internal laws conflicting with those obligations. It is this third factor which gives rise to the important constitutional implications so properly recognised in this report.
There are two particular respects from the point of view of a national Parliament, and in particular a legal committee thereof, which give rise to concern and which require attention. First, there must be consideration of the means whereby Parliament can seek to ensure that proposed agreements are properly within the scope of Community competence, as expressed in the provisions of the Treaty of Rome; and, secondly, consideration of the adequacy of the machinery to enable Parliament to discharge its functions and to supplement it where necessary or desirable. The first matter raises the question of vires, and the second that of scrutiny.
As to vires, although it is reasonable and no doubt beneficial for the Community to exercise powers of external competence where a treaty so provides—that is basically in accord with Articles 113 and 238—it is also proper and equally important to confine such exercise within the treaty powers. This is of great constitutional and practical importance because the exercise of such powers, as I have said, excludes the exercise of similar powers by member states, exercising a national jurisdiction: that was a point so well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
The constitutional position, I would think, is clear. In the course of the proceedings I put this question to the Foreign Office witness (Question 24 on page 14 of the evidence):
"Is it not the case that even in the European Economic Community the question of vires has to be dealt with before questions of policy can arise? As a matter of policy, the Council cannot take powers which are not given to it by the Treaty. That is clear, is it not, from Article 4: 'Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty'? That is the basis of the Community structure, is it not?"
The witness said, "I agree". We have to be particularly watchful of the use sought to be made of Articles 100 and 235, the ones relied on for an implied power to extend the activities of the Community beyond those for which express provision is made in the Treaty of Rome. The reason, of course, is that the extension of Community jurisdiction into spheres not contemplated by the treaty or authorised thereby involves a corresponding diminution in the sovereignty of national Parliaments.
Of late, there has been a tendency to regard Article 235 as a sort of Open Sesame provision and increasingly to invoke it to justify Community
508
legislation in wider spheres—a tendency fortified by the thinking and aspirations of the authors of the Spinelli draft treaty on European union, with its federal implications. Left unchecked, this use of Article 235 in the context of external competence, and indeed well beyond it, could drive a coach and horses through the articles of the treaty itself, the basic philosophy accepted by member states on adherence to the Community.
How, then, can the jurisdiction and actions of the Community in this regard be monitored and controlled, and how can our Parliament usefully contribute to this end? That brings me to my other point—that of scrutiny. The procedure for scrutiny is dealt with in paragraphs 65 to 67 of the report, and is summarised in paragraph 83. That summary states:
"In connection with treaties two proposals are usually submitted by the Commission for action by the Council, one for the opening of negotiations and the other for conclusion of the agreement. Usually only the latter is submitted for scrutiny by the United Kingdom Parliament".
This is a matter which has been expressly referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and we are looking forward with interest to the responses to the questions that they have specifically put.
The position is obviously unsatisfactory as it stands, and is so recognised in the report. Her Majesty's Government should press for an amendment of these procedures whereby, as the noble and learned Lord has said, the information extended to our Parliament should include the opening of negotiations, thereby giving the opportunity for comment and suggestion at the formative stage of the proposals. This would bring the British Parliament closer to the position of the European Parliament in this regard.
My noble friend Lady Elles has referred to the position of the European Parliament, with all her distinguished experience of these matters, and it is set out at paragraph 62 of the report, to which she referred. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff. We cannot altogether share the position of the European Parliament in this, because their position derives to some extent from the ambience in which they operate, the geography of the matter and the personal relationships which they and their committees have with the Commission.
I do not grudge the European Parliament their privileges in this respect. I retain an affection for the European Parliament but, of course, it has changed a good deal since the days of my membership. It has changed in one very significant respect, in that the links between national Parliaments and the European Parliament are now more tenuous and less effective than they were in those days. I see my noble friend Lady Elles nodding assent. I hasten to say that there continue to be some valuable links, not least in her charming person.
But we should be giving consideration—and this in the wider context, and not today—to strengthening those links in some of the ways she suggested just now, and certainly in getting a closer rapport between the members of the national Parliaments and the European Parliament, now that those links have weakened. The privileges of the European Parliament, which as I say I do not grudge them, are no substitute

509
for similar provisions in national Parliaments. On the contrary, they are a reinforcement of the need for us to have powers of scrutiny here, not perhaps on all fours, for the reason I have given, but certainly more effective than at the present time.
Therefore, I conclude by saying that my submissions in regard to vires, with special reference to Article 235, are endorsed by paragraph 26 of the report and my submissions in regard to scrutiny are endorsed by paragraph 72. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us that they are also endorsed by Her Majesty's Government.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I propose to concentrate on those aspects of this report which seem to me to be of special concern for practising barristers and lawyers; in particular, the impact which the conclusion by the Community of international treaties can have on the law of the United Kingdom upon which barristers have to advise their clients. I shall be focusing on a very small part of this report—Part 3 in particular—which deals with the effect of the Community treaties on member states.
Under Article 5, which is in very strong terms, member states like the United Kingdom,
"shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EEC Treaty or resulting from actions taken by the institutions of the Community."
The text continues:
"They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this treaty."
That is a very broad article, covering a number of activities binding on this country.
In the normal course of events, looking at the United Kingdom in connection with treaties negotiated by the United Kingdom, as we all know Parliament is normally asked by Her Majesty's Government to pass legislation needed to give effect to its treaties in terms of United Kingdom law. The rights and the obligations relating to private individuals which result from such treaties are contained in precise terms in easily identifiable and readily available legislation. Perhaps that is a view that may not be shared by my noble friends on the Front Bench or by noble Lords opposite. But suffice it for the moment to be there. The lawyer advising his client can find the law in a familiar form in this sort of legislation. He can ascertain how it is likely to affect his client's affairs, because the law is expressed in a form appropriate to regulate relations between different legal persons within the United Kingdom.
In contrast, treaties concluded by the Community can be given effect by specific legislative enactments, though in this case Community legislation, such as regulations or directives, may be enacted in place of United Kingdom legislation. The text of those regulations or directives is rather harder for the practitioner to understand than our own laws, but they do not present, so I understand, too insuperable a problem. But that is not the only way a treaty concluded by the Community can become law in the United Kingdom.
510
Perhaps I may now direct your Lordships' attention to the Select Committee's report at paragraph 39, on page 15, headed "Direct Effect". In part it states:
"Under a doctrine developed by the Court, certain provisions of treaties concluded by the Community can have direct legal effect in Member States, without the enactment of any implementing measures by the Community or the Member States".
The doctrine applies to all the formal acts of the Community institutions and stems,
"from the notion that all the Community Treaties, legislative instruments and other formal acts of the Communities constitute a new legal order for the benefit of all citizens of the Community".
It is that principle, which was established as long ago as 1963 by the European Court in the Van Gend en Loos case, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, referred at the beginning of the debate, which enables individuals in certain circumstances to rely directly on Community provisions and even, where necessary, to disregard conflicting provisions, perhaps hallowed by time, of their national law.
This doctrine of "directly applicable law" applies to treaties entered into, as we know, by the Communities because they are "formal acts" of the Community. There can therefore be provisions in a treaty concluded by the Community which, without any further enactment, create rights and obligations enforceable in the courts of the United Kingdom. An important consequence of this is that a practising lawyer can no longer, with confidence, advise his client solely on the basis of existing Community law or of existing United Kingdom legislation and case law. He must ascertain whether there is a relevant treaty in force which has been concluded by the Community; and if such a treaty is in existence he must then discover whether the relevant provisions of that treaty are of the kind that make "directly applicable law".
This begs the question: what makes a provision in such a treaty "directly applicable"? The European Courts have given an answer to this question, and that answer is given in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the report. The treaty provisions,
"must be clear and precise so that the rights and obligations arising from them can be recognised and identified with accuracy; they must require no further elaboration or implementation by an institution of the Community or by Member States in order to render them operative; and they must be unconditional, leaving no discretion to Community institutions or Member States".
Paragraph 40 states that it must be clear from the context of the agreement that direct legal effects are intended and are required for the treaty to operate satisfactorily.
These tests are helpful, but the practising lawyer still faces difficult and serious problems. He needs to be aware of the existence of a legal instrument, a treaty. This is not of the kind he normally deals with since its terms govern the relationships between countries. He has to form a view, by applying the tests I have just recited, on the direct application of the terms of the treaty or at least some of them. This is not at all an easy task. The report at paragraph 42 recognises that such a doctrine introduces an element of uncertainty into the law of the member states which could produce unjust results. The position is aggravated by the fact that the directly applicable treaty provision may sometimes conflict with the United Kingdom's national legislation.

511
The lawyer therefore faces the difficult choice of advising his clients to comply with the law of the United Kingdom, or to disregard it and instead to rely upon a treaty provision which may overrule that law. I hope that I am not exaggerating the point (for it really should not be exaggerated) but the Select Committee report notes that the European Court has so far,
"only rarely accorded direct effects to treaty provisions",
and then only to enable individuals to enforce the obligations undertaken by the state concerned under the treaty. I refer of course to treaties like Yaoundé and Lomé, to which my noble friend Lady Elles has already referred.
However, it remains to be seen whether this doctrine can be applied in relations between private individuals. Even if this doctrine applies only in relations between states and their subjects, it represents a serious problem for practising lawyers, and it seems to me to be appropriate to highlight the reservations expressed on it in the report. The report says at paragraph 42:
"It seems to the Committee that this doctrine of direct application of treaty provisions does not fit necessarily, or even comfortably, into a structure where the Community is the party to the treaty and the Member States are not themselves parties, but only bound by the treaty in consequence of membership of the Community. The Committee consider that it would be more satisfactory"—
—and I am sure it is undoubtedly true—
"for obligations always to be translated into specific Community or national law."
Finally,
"the position would be markedly less satisfactory if the European Court were to hold provisions to be of direct application where they create rights and obligations between one citizen and another".
It seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to express the emphatic hope that the European Court will never do so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, in closing his address, said that some of us were ably assisted through the thicket. I was ably assisted, yet I still feel that I am in the midst of the thicket; but that is entirely my fault.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I feel that I did not really know that the thicket was there until I read this report and having been in one move introduced to it by the report and taken at least three-quarters of the way through, I should like to start by expressing more than usual admiration for one of the products of the subcommittee of our European scrutiny committee.
The report in its modest way is not only important but is even almost sensational in the extraordinary clarity with which it sets out a matter which though not simple is equally not tremendously complex and which nobody really knew about. I do not know whether other former members of the European Parliament now present will share with me the feeling that I had on reading the report. I sat in that Parliament for many months and years and tried to see the wood for the trees. I did not find it at all easy to do so. That was no doubt more by my fault than by the fault of any institution which was seeking to blindfold me. Now, thanks to the report, it is a great deal easier to see just what is happening. I believe that the report and also the speech of the noble and learned Lord,
512
Lord Templeman, in introducing the debate, are material to put on the bookshelf quite close to one's left ear, to turn to on future occasions of doubt and perplexity.
I wish to mention two minor points before the major one. On the question of confidentiality, the report, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and other noble Lords, have said that they want this Parliament to be fully informed of what the Community is up to in its treaty-making function within the bounds of confidentiality. The report then uses some rather generous phrases about that, implying that if a matter is declared to be confidential, then it need not be reported to the parliament—at least not on the first of the two occasions when a report is made.
It seems to me that it should not be too difficult to report the mere fact of the intention to open a negotiation with some third country to national parliaments. Let us suppose that the Commission and the Council thought it would be a good idea to have, say, a fisheries agreement with Mongolia. There can be nothing confidential in revealing to the French, British, German, etc, parliaments that they think that such is desirable and even the reasons why they think such is desirable—or even in revealing—shall we say?—that they propose to go about it by trying to negotiate catch quotas, rights of access to certain stocks, and so on and so forth. There is nothing confidential there. What would be confidential would be what they proposed to ask for and what they proposed to settle for if they could not get what they asked for.
One could reveal everything that was of political significance or of major economic significance while yet retaining the negotiating details in a way that is done normally by every government in the world towards its own parliament. So I hope that our Government and other governments will not be too overawed by the necessity of preserving European confidentiality in such communications, which we must increasingly expect. The purpose of my remark is to endorse what the report says about that matter but not to worry too much about the confidentiality aspect.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, introduced what is perhaps the hottest case of matters that fall between the two treaty-making stools of the Community and the member nations at the moment—or soon will be. I speak of the international convention on the Law of the Sea. We know little about it in this country; but we know that the Council of Ministers of the Community have discussed whether or not the Community as such should sign, accept and ratify that convention. If they do so, it will be on behalf of their member states, as we have been discussing all evening. They would do that only in respect of those areas of the convention where they have competence. Britain has not ratified; we have declared our unwillingness to ratify the convention on the Law of the Sea. What happens if the Community does so? I hope that it may be possible for the Minister of State to say a word about that matter this evening.
We have been hearing—and the report makes it rather clear—that the action of the Community would

513
override our own national unwillingness to ratify the convention and would make us parties to that convention, at least in certain respects. How will that look on international legal paper? Can one take a pair of scissors to a United Nations convention and chop out certain parts that one has been made to ratify willy-nilly by a regional, quasi-supranational organisation such as the Community or not? If not, then what does happen?
Politically, I hope very much that the Community will ratify that convention in so far as it is capable, and that the Government will, without too much bad grace, accept the decision of the larger democratic Community of which it is part and will join the rest of the civilised world, the rest of their partners in the Community, the rest of their fellow members in the OECD, and the rest of their fellow members of the Commonwealth—make the best of a bad job, and accept that important international convention.
I come now to my major point. What is at stake here and what should we worry about? I believe that we are too much used by now to dividing along the lines of Europeanist or nationalist and saying that we must be careful not to infringe the time-honoured powers of this Parliament in Westminster, or that we must hurry up and pass as much as possible from this Parliament, which, however time-honoured, is only national, to the new Continent-wide Parliament in Strasbourg.
I do not think that that matters very much. There is a far greater principle at stake—that is, democracy itself. It seems to me that by far the greatest danger lying in those competing competences is the danger that a given area shall fall to executive decision without any democratic control at all and fall between two stools—between Westminster and Strasbourg. There are some hair-raising examples given in the report of cases where that has very nearly happened. There are other examples—less hair-raising perhaps—where it has happened.
To remind ourselves of the potentialities of irresponsible executive action that lie within the machinery of the European Community, it is enough to remember that about 10 years ago a couple of Italian bureaucrats with the Commission were on holiday in Italy. They looked down on a crowded beach and said, "If Europe can't do something about the disgusting state of our beaches, then it does not deserve our membership of it." So they drafted a Commission Directive to say that nowhere on the coasts of the European Community should there be found at any time of the day or night more than 15 persons for every 100 metres of beach.
Those bureaucrats were very pleased with themselves and introduced that Directive, and they took it a certain distance before anybody got around to pointing out that such a Directive was hardly necessary between Cape Wrath and Wick; and was hardly possible anywhere; and that it was in any case beyond ridicule. It seems absurd to mention such a case, but there are others of a more sophisticated kind always in the pipeline of the Commission. I was amazed in the European Parliament to catch sight of them flashing past; they were almost always sat upon.
I believe that what should guide us and Members of all Parliaments, both national and European, is the
514
fear that by any action we take, by any negligence of which we are guilty, we may enlarge the possibility of irresponsible executive action and reduce the area of elective democratic control.
I would say to those in the Council of Ministers, and through them to the Commission—if they ever read the House of Lords Hansard, which I have reason to believe many of them do—that the more they in the Council and the Commission seek to keep the European Parliament at arm's length and to deny it a de facto increase in its powers and influence, the more they make it inevitable that the national parliaments will wake up through national reports—I hope as good as this one—to the fact that there is an area between the two stools; and the more national parliaments will try to regain national control of areas that are at present under European control but are not democratic, on the grounds that there is no democratic control. They will be justified in trying to do so. If they do so, they will simply de-Europeanise the situation to that extent. They will turn it into national fractions once again, with all the reinforced authority of an assembly that has regained a lost power as opposed to that of an assembly that is seeking to gain the corresponding power for the first time. That could be a sinister development for those who want to see more and more pass into the European bucket.
Therefore, I again congratulate all the members of the sub-committee, and of the European Committee, on this outstandingly good report, in a good run of reports. I hope that the Government will, above all, pay attention to ensuring that democracy comes in somewhere.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and the other noble Lords who sit on Sub-Committee E, for this most impressive report. The House is also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his admirable opening speech, which gave us a clear exposition of the problems involved in this study.
We have had a most interesting and important debate, with informed speeches from all noble Lords who have taken part. I knew that there was a problem, I knew vaguely that a problem existed; but, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as I read the report I became more and more aware of its crucial importance. In the arguments which have gone on since the 1960s about the Common Market the central theme has always been national sovereignty and the extent to which this is encroached upon in various ways by our membership of the Community. I think we all accepted that a measure of sovereignty had to be conceded, but we were also concerned to ensure that where this happened we knew precisely what was involved and precisely what we were conceding, nationally. By "we" I mean, of course, the British public in general and the Parliament of the United Kingdom in particular. This report goes to the heart of that argument because, as the noble and learned Lord has so lucidly explained, the Community has the power to negotiate and conclude treaties with countries outside the Common Market. This so-called

515
external competence is extensive, as Appendix 4 on page 35 of the report demonstrates in detail.
The committee makes many telling points which the Government will, I am sure, consider very carefully. For example, it says that the negotiations conducted by the Community have dealt with matters for which there was no specific provision in the Treaty of Rome. The committee says that these treaties negotiated by the Community have far-reaching consequences for this country and other member states, upon which they are binding, and that sometimes they become law here and elsewhere without further enactment of Community or national legislation.
Finally, if the Community has exercised this external competence then that area, that subject covered by the treaty, is not one in which the United Kingdom or any other member state can thereafter conduct any independent negotiations. Most of the treaties under discussion, as we see from the report, are concerned with trade of one kind or another. As a trading nation all this is, therefore, obviously of considerable importance to the United Kingdom.
Because it alerts us to these developments and their implications for the United Kingdom we warmly welcome this report. I think it may well be one of the most important of all the reports published by the European Communities Committee of this House. It is also very timely in view of the accession of Spain and Portugal, and also the debates about the Luxembourg reform proposals now going on.
The legal authority of the Community is growing significantly, but it is growing unobtrusively and it is vital that Parliament should be aware, step by step, of what changes are taking place. The committee is in no doubt, and makes that clear in plain language in paragraph 72. I quote briefly from that paragraph:
"The Committee consider that the current machinery for Parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate in relation to treaty-making by the Community. There is no effective democratic control".
That is what the committee of this House says. It continues:
"The influence which Parliament can bring to bear is less than that which it has on international negotiations undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, and the opportunities for scrutiny afforded to Parliament are less than those offered to the European Parliament".
That is the judgment of the committee.
We are all sorry that the chairman of our Select Committee on the Communities, my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies, is unable to be here today. We are extremely sorry to hear that she is unwell, and we wish her a speedy recovery and an early return to the House. I know that this is an area in which she is most interested. We are grateful to my noble friend Lady Serota for her excellent speech, dealing with Part V of the report, delivered on behalf of my noble friend. I shall come to some of the points made by my noble friend in due course.
I noted that the noble and learned Lord referred to the Ponsonby Rule. As he said, it is of considerable interest for more than one reason. As far back as 1924 the need to bring Parliament more effectively into the treaty-making process was debated in another place when the Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Bill, which arose out of the Treaty of Lausanne, was before Parliament.
516
The Minister who spoke in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and who enunciated the rule which bears his name was, as the noble and learned Lord said, Mr. Arthur Ponsonby. In the debate Mr. Ponsonby said:
"It has been the declared policy of the Labour Party for some years past to strengthen the control of Parliament over the conclusion of international treaties and agreements".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/24: col. 2001.]
Erskine May, as we have already been reminded, defined the Ponsonby Rule as one whereby when a treaty requires ratification,
"the Government does not usually proceed with ratification until a period of 21 days has elapsed from the date on which the text of such a treaty was laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's Command".
As the noble and learned Lord said, Mr. Arthur Ponsonby was the grandfather of the Opposition Chief Whip, who sustains me and many others in this House, including, I think, the Government Chief Whip, from time to time.
The argument advanced over the years is that parliamentary scrutiny cannot be improved because it would breach confidentiality—a point made by several speakers. I am glad that the committee decided not to accept that argument in its entirety. It deals with this on pages 24 and 25 of the report, and it compares treaty negotiations by the United Kingdom Government and by the Community. It makes the point of which we are well aware that:
"There is no direct parliamentary involvement in the formal conclusion of treaties by the United Kingdom".
The committee then goes on to emphasise that parliamentary consent has to be invoked in several practical ways. In other words, we are far better covered in our national Parliament than we are—with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—in the European Parliament. These points are dealt with in paragraphs 69 and 70 of the report.
Paragraph 70 makes an important distinction; namely, that whereas for national treaties ministerial responsibility to Parliament extends to the negotiations as well as to the conclusions, for Community treaties it applies only to Ministers' conduct when the Council takes decisions on the negotiation or conclusion of the treaty. In paragraph 70 on page 25 they say:
"Ultimately Parliament's opinion is decisive where a treaty negotiated by Her Majesty's Government will affect internal United Kingdom law; on Community treaties … Parliament can only exert some indirect influence".
The point is clear. Democratic control is inevitably more remote in the conduct of Community affairs, and in the case of external competence it is made even more remote by the manner in which treaties are handled. In my view this is unsatisfactory and the Government must look urgently at the development, as otherwise we may have bureaucrats controlling our destinies. That has not happened thus far, but that is the danger.
Further, on the question of confidentiality we should carefully note paragraph 71 of the report, where we are informed:
"Members of the European Parliament told the Committee that there has been no problem in preserving the confidentiality of this information"—
that is, information passed by the Council to a committee of the European Parliament. I see no

517
reason whatsoever why that precise information should not be disclosed on the same basis to a committee of the British Parliament.
The whole Community treaty-making process is dealt with in some detail in Part 4 of the report. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, to whom we all listened with great respect because of her long experience of the European Parliament, dealt with these procedures in some detail, and we are grateful to her. I think that the point to note is that only in the final stages does the European Parliament have the chance to scrutinise the treaties. It may be said that it is the same here in the United Kingdom, but surely this is not so, since if Parliament protests against a United Kingdom negotiated treaty it can be changed, because only two countries are involved. In the case of the European Community treaties, first 10 and now 12 countries are involved, which is a very different kettle of fish.
Further, as paragraph 39 makes plain, Community treaties have direct effect, which is a point of the utmost significance—
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene on this point. I think that, as regards the information given to the European Parliament, there is an ongoing process from the time that the negotiations are opened by the Commission until the signing of the treaty. So to my knowledge the relevant committee of the European Parliament is kept informed of progress at regular intervals. I am not sure whether that point was fully apparent from the paragraph which the noble Lord read out.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness, and so, I am sure, is the House, for that additional explanation. Of course, that makes it all the more necessary for the British Parliament to be kept informed—or an appropriate committee of the British Parliament, because the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to information being passed to a committee of the European Parliament and not to the Parliament itself.
I was referring to Community treaties having a direct effect and I think this term is extremely important. The effects are immediate and we are stuck with them, whether we like them or not. In my view this is a significant development and I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's view about it. Direct effect in relation to individuals can have unpredictable ramifications and we need a clear statement from the Government. I think this was the point stressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when they spoke. I believe that a relevant case is pending before the court at the present time and I hope that the judgment there will help to clarify the position.
The problem assumes an even greater significance when we look at paragraph 27 of the report, where it says:
"the Committee find it difficult to identify any clear limit to the possible extent of the Community's external competence".
My own attitude to the Community has always been one of general support, but I also think that the Community must learn to walk before it can run. The
518
great danger is that practices may develop and precedents may be established unobtrusively and without the full appreciation of the peoples and parliaments of the member states. We do not like that sort of thing happening in this country and we have resisted it throughout the centuries. Why therefore should we accept it as a fait accompli now that we are members of the Community? I do not see the necessity for it at all.
In her speech my noble friend Lady Serota asked a crucial question about the devising of adequate machinery. I agree with her that it seems essential that some parliamentary machinery is devised to ensure that the negotiating mandate is reviewed at a much earlier stage, and that a power of amendment is part of that mandate. I had the impression that this was one of the points which was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. A proposal may be perfectly respectable, but we must be able to challenge the Community's competence to deal with it and we must be able to decide whether we wish to surrender irrevocably that particular area of competence.
All in all, we have a report with profound implications for the future of this country and for its democratic procedures. We may be told that we are too sensitive, that now that we are in the Community we must embrace these developments and make the most of them, and that we must make our proper contribution through democratically elected members such as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
There is a great deal in that argument which is difficult to resist, but in my view we must also be careful not to move too rapidly. I am prepared to go along with the noble Baroness when I am satisfied that the democratic base is secure. The lesson of history is that eternal vigilance is required to secure the democratic base. On this question of external competence I have very considerable doubts that the interests of this country are entirely safeguarded at the present time. In thanking the noble and learned Lord and his committee once again, I urge the Government to heed the warnings of their report.
8.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, as is only to be expected, we have had a very good debate this evening. The subject of the Select Committee's report is important, though I must say that I agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, when he said at the start that the subject he described was a hard nut to crack.
Right at the beginning of my remarks I should like to say that the Government welcome this opportunity to respond to the Select Committee's extremely well researched and comprehensive report, produced under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. The extent of the Community's powers and the way in which they are exercised can have a profound effect on the rights and obligations of United Kingdom citizens. It is therefore right that your Lordships' House should take an interest in the Community's powers with regard to external agreements. The Government welcome the willingness of the Select Committee to tackle this important and complex subject.

519
It is right that the Select Committee in its report does not aim to question the extent of the Community's powers. Those powers derive from the Community treaties, which fall to be interpreted by the European Court of Justice. The United Kingdom is party to those treaties, which implies acknowledging those powers. That is a central consequence of Community membership which is not at issue. It does mean that the scope for questioning the extent of Community powers is very limited.
The committee has given us a comprehensive description of the Community's powers with regard to external agreements and drawn attention to the consequences of their exercise. This in itself is no mean achievement—a fact referred to by almost every noble Lord who spoke in the debate—as Community case law on the subject is developing rapidly. The Select Committee has, however, applied itself to the task with its customary thoroughness, taking evidence from a wide variety of sources, and its report has proved to be a valuable re-examination of Community competence. It has been very carefully studied throughout Whitehall.
Before responding to the individual conclusions which are summarised on pages 26 to 28 of the report, it may help if I remind your Lordships of the legal powers under which the Community is able to enter into international commitments, either in the company of one or more member states or on its own. Generally speaking, the Community participates in international agreements wherever these agreements concern matters wholly or partly within the competence of the Community. Matters fall within Community competence where the Community treaties confer such competence, either expressly or by implication. All other matters fall within the competence of the member states.
The EEC Treaty confers express treaty-making powers on the Community in two areas. The first is the common commercial policy which is dealt with under Articles 113 and 114 of the EEC Treaty. These include wide-ranging agreements, such as the trade agreements with Norway and Sweden and other countries of the European free trade area. The second is association agreements between the Community and one or more third countries or an international organisation for which express powers are provided in Article 238. These include the important agreements with Mediterranean countries such as Morocco and Egypt.
The European Court of Justice has ruled that treaty-making powers are not confined to matters covered by the treaty articles that I have mentioned. They may be implied from the existence of internal rules laid down, for example, in Council directives and regulations. The case which gave rise to the ruling involved drivers' hours. There was already internal Community legislation, and the proposal was to have an agreement with other states on the same subject. The court held that the implied power for the Community to enter into treaties existed whenever (a) the Community had laid down common rules to give effect to common policies and (b) it became necessary to conclude external agreements relating to the subject matter of those rules.
520
In such cases, it is for the Community and not the member states to conclude treaties affecting those rules. The reason for this is that it cannot be right for member states to agree on common rules to give effect to a common internal policy and then to undermine that policy by subscribing to international obligations which may contradict or conflict with the agreed rules. These ground rules are explained in greater detail in the Select Committee's report.
Certain witnesses in evidence to the committee argued that Articles 100 and 235 of the EEC Treaty could grant external competence to negotiate with third countries on any matters falling within the objectives of the Community, even when these matters have not been the subject of internal Community rules. That was a point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, referred. The court's case law on this matter is not entirely clear. However, the Government fully share the committee's view that in practice it will rarely be appropriate to exercise external competence under Article 235 without first adopting internal rules. If there is no need for internal rules to govern the operation of the common market, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which it will be necessary to conclude an external agreement in order to attain one of the objectives of the Community.
I turn now to paragraphs 28 to 31 which cover competence deriving from non-binding agreements. The Select Committee also points out in its report that there are different views on the extent to which the Community can assume competence by virtue of its involvement with internationally agreed resolutions or recommendations and similar non-binding agreements. If the Community were to assume competence in this way, the powers of member states would, of course, be correspondingly reduced. Indeed, the Commission has gone further and argued in evidence that member states may not act in a way which might hamper the future development of agreements on the subject in question.
This is a grey area. It is clear that it is not open to a member state to enter into a political undertaking that runs counter to an existing Community obligation. But the Government take the view that, in general, only a subsequent legal agreement is capable of "affecting" (to use the court's expression) an earlier agreement. The Government therefore generally endorse the committee's conclusion on this point. It should, however, be emphasised that only the court can provide a definitive interpretation of the law in this area.
It will be clear from what I have said that the Government fully endorse the committee's view that it is essential that the exclusive nature of the Community's competence should be clearly understood by all those involved in negotiations concerning the Community's external agreements. The possible impact of such agreements on the powers of the member states is most carefully examined when the Government consider proposals for the initiation of negotiations and throughout the course of such negotiations.
In each case where an extension of Community competence is involved, we consider whether it is right that the activity in question should be carried out at

521
Community level rather than at national level. Arising from the point raised by my noble friend Lord Colville, perhaps I may say that I am confident that as a result of the debate the Government will be even more thorough in that consideration. In many, if not most, cases this will be quite appropriate and to the general advantage, including that of the United Kingdom; but in a few it may clearly not be, and the Government will firmly oppose the relevant provisions. I think that it is fair to say that we have something of a reputation among our Community partners for examining these questions very closely.
I turn now to paragraphs 39 to 43 of the report dealing with the doctrine of direct effect. Again this was one of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. In its case law, the European Court of Justice has held that certain provisions of an agreement between the Community and a third state might, in principle, be directly effective in the courts of member states. An example is the EEC agreement with Portugal which applied before Portuguese accession to the EEC. This contained a provision for a lower duty on port wine, and the court held (in the Kupferberg case) that an importer could rely on this provision alone, after conclusion of the agreement, to claim the lower rate of duty. At present the doctrine is confined to provisions imposing obligations only on a state. The Government agree with the Select Committee that there are dangers in any further development of this concept. There could be considerable uncertainty in the law if one individual in a dispute with another individual were able to call in aid the provisions of an international agreement.
The Government also share the committee's view that in order to avoid any doubt, obligations entered into under international agreements should, wherever possible, be transformed by legislation into explicit Community or national law. It must, however, be acknowledged that the practice of recognising direct legislative effect for international agreements is widespread in other member states and, indeed, is the practice in the United States. It was my noble friend Lord Beloff who referred to the United States, and I mention the United States only because it in fact recognises direct effect for treaties and not in any way in connection with its federal system.
Up to now I have been able to agree with all of the Select Committee's conclusions. I must now turn to a point on which the Government and the Select Committee are not entirely at one. The committee considers that in order to avoid uncertainty an attempt should be made to identify which matters covered by a "mixed" agreement fall within Community competence and which fall to the member states. An example of such a "mixed" agreement is that between the European Community and its member states on the one hand and Turkey on the other, concluded in 1963. It covers subjects beyond the scope of the European Community treaties.
The Government acknowledge that this argument has considerable attractions in principle. But, in practice, as the committee recognises, treaties tend not to be drawn up with internal Community distinctions in mind, and the respective responsibilities of the Community and its member states may not always be
522
capable of precise definition. It may therefore be difficult to identify where the division lies, not least because the respective responsibilities of the Community and the member states may evolve as time goes on. It has not, therefore, been the practice for a precise distinction to be made.
Other states associated with the Community's external agreements have generally been content that the Community and its member states will between them implement the obligations incumbent upon them. Few problems arise as regards the preparation and presentation of the Community position in negotiations since it is the normal practice for member states to co-ordinate their positions on matters both within and outside Community competence.
It is therefore extremely doubtful whether the Commission and our Community partners would agree that it was necessary systematically to draft statements about Community competence. Indeed, any attempts to do so would not necessarily lead to an outcome which was desired by the United Kingdom. Moreover, internal debates in the Community on competence could well delay progress in negotiations and lead to the Community missing opportunities on the substance. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these are cogent arguments and that what might be desirable in principle may not in practice achieve the right results.
I should like to say a word about the way in which the Council's powers to adopt Commission proposals relating to the initiation of negotiations and the conclusion of agreements are exercised. Many of your Lordships referred to this. As the Select Committee's report points out, the EEC Treaty is not entirely clear about the majority required for certain decisions of this type. For example, in the field of transport policy, Article 75 provides for internal rules to be adopted by qualified majority but does not mention external agreements. The legal services of the Commission and the Council have adopted differing views. The Government generally agree with the Select Committee that the most sensible solution is that the majority required for the opening of negotiations should be the same as that required for their conclusion and that this, in turn, should be the same as that required for the enactment of internal rules. In practice, of course, it is normal for the Council to attempt to reach unanimous decisions on the negotiation or conclusion of agreements.
Perhaps I might refer at this time specifically to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. The United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany have not signed the convention. The European Economic Community has signed. But the director general in the legal service of the Commission, in evidence, said that action by the Community would require unanimity. Action by the Community is only possible in fields under its competence. Many topics in the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention are within national competence.
I turn now to the powers of the European Parliament. The Select Committee heard in evidence that, in areas where consultation of the European Parliament is mandatory, the Parliament had sought to increase its influence over Council decisions by

523
declining to provide an opinion until the Commission agrees to take on board its views on the proposal in question. The court has indeed held in a case relating to isoglucose, a product similar to sugar, that a particular regulation was invalid because the opinion of the Parliament had not been received. But the Government fully agree that attempts to take full advantage of the ruling to create for the European Parliament an effective right to veto have no foundation in Community law. The Government believe, moreover, that this practice has not resulted in any delays to Council decisions on external agreements which have been harmful to Community or United Kingdom interests.
The Select Committee also considered the role of Orders in Council under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 in the United Kingdom ratification procedures for external agreements entered into by the European Community. This was a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. The committee concluded that parliamentary consideration of Section 1(3) orders should not be regarded as a substitute for normal scrutiny procedures on Commission proposals relating to the conclusion by the Community of international agreements. The Government agree that the two procedures serve quite different purposes. A council decision is necessary to enable the Community to conclude the agreement. The purpose of the Section 1(3) order on the other hand is to provide the powers to enable the United Kingdom to implement its obligations under the treaty. Commission proposals relating to the conclusion of external agreements by the Community are therefore deposited for scrutiny by Parliament, whether or not a Section 1(3) order is to be presented. In practice, however, as the Section 1(3) procedure requires an affirmative resolution in both Houses, it may sometimes make sense for all Community aspects to be taken into account during debate.
I turn to paragraphs 72 to 74 on parliamentary scrutiny. These were the paragraphs referred to, I believe, by almost every one of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. The matter was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, in opening, and by the noble Baroness. Lady Serota, who put the case quite forcefully on behalf of her noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies.
The last of the Select Committee's specific conclusions concerns the opportunities available to Parliament to influence the course of negotiations on external agreements to be entered into by the Community. The Select Committee considers that Parliament should be informed of Commission proposals relating to the initiation of negotiations in the same way as it is informed of proposals for other action by the Community, wherever this can be done by means which do not disclose confidential matter.
The reasons why Commission proposals for the initiation of negotiations are not at present submitted for scrutiny were set out in the Government's evidence to the committee. These documents contain the Commission's proposals concerning the instructions to be given to the Community's negotiators. In many cases they indicate not only the Community's initial
524
position but the margin of discretion which should, in the Commission's view, be given to the negotiators. In the case of a fisheries agreement, for example, the instruction might specify whether payment of a fee is to be offered and what reciprocal concessions will be insisted upon. They are, therefore, quite different in character to other proposals by the Commission and for this reason are not published in the Official Journal or communicated to the European Parliament. The sensitivity of these proposals is clear, as are the practical difficulties which could result for the Community's negotiators if their mandate were known beyond the responsible Ministers and officials in the governments of the member states. It therefore remains the Government's view that it would not be appropriate to submit these documents for scrutiny.
I should add that, following publication of the Select Committee's report, the Government sought the Commission's views on how the proposals in question should be handled. The Commission confirmed that they were to be treated as confidential documents. We have also inquired as to the practice in other member states. Our inquiries have shown that none of our partners submit the documents in question for parliamentary scrutiny and that it is most unlikely that they would agree to our doing so.
The Government have therefore considered very carefully whether it is feasible to make any other changes in the way in which Parliament is informed of external agreements under consideration by the Community. The Select Committee itself acknowledges that the possibilities open to the Government are limited by the need to preserve confidentiality—a point stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Serotaand does not press for the transmission of classified material.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that general accounts of our negotiating approach and objectives are already given—often in considerable detail—in debates, when Statements are made after meetings of the Council, and in response to parliamentary Questions. It is also always open to any Member of your Lordships' House or of another place who wishes to discuss a prospective negotiation to write to, or seek a meeting with, the responsible Minister. I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that these procedures work well in practice. I am, of course, always happy to meet any Member of your Lordships' House who wishes to discuss a particular negotiation.
I should not conclude without saying something about the outcome of the intergovernmental conference and the proposed amendments to the EEC Treaty. Your Lordships' House will, of course, have a full opportunity to consider these amendments in due course and I shall therefore confine myself to one or two general remarks.
The agreement reached in the intergovernmental conference at the end of last year represented a worthwhile step forward in the development of the Community. The changes which will be made to the EEC Treaty will strengthen the Community, and placing political co-operation on a treaty basis will usefully reinforce foreign policy co-ordination.
We have consistently pressed for the objectives now set by the conference: to complete the common

525
market by 1992; to speed up decision-taking; to strengthen co-operation in foreign policy; and to ensure that our efforts in research and development are geared to the exploitation of a growing market. We have agreed to procedural changes to improve consultation between the Council and the European Parliament. But these will not affect the balance between the institutions: the last word on all Community legislation will remain with the Council. This was a point to which my noble friend Lady Elles referred. I should add that in neither of the cases mentioned by my noble friend Lady Elles under Articles 237 and 238 will the European Parliament acquire powers at the expense of national parliaments.
The outcome of the intergovernmental conference should improve the speed and effectiveness of Community decision-taking, particularly in matters affecting the internal market. Unanimity has been explicitly maintained for all decisions on taxation, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employees. We also retained the right to take national action where required to protect public, animal and plant health.
The results of the intergovernmental conference are still subject to general reserves entered by Italy and Denmark. I hope very much that these reserves can be lifted as soon as possible so that the texts can be finalised, signed and submitted to national parliaments for approval.
I hope that I have dealt with all the conclusions set out in the Select Committee's report. I conclude by saying that, although I have not been able to agree with all those conclusions, I think that it will be clear that the Select Committee's report with its thorough analysis of the current state of Community law will become an invaluable work of reference for future years.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Baroness resumes her seat, may I put one important matter? The noble Baroness has made a full and detailed speech for which we are extremely grateful. But she has not moved an inch in the direction of the committee or any of the recommendations that it makes. For example, Paragraph 84 criticised the lack of adequate machinery. The answer by the noble Baroness to that was to say that nothing more can be done.
My noble friend Lady Serota suggested that there might be a meeting between the noble Baroness and the chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities in this House to discuss the devising of new machinery which might improve matters. The noble Broness made no reference to that.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness may not be in a position to make a firm commitment tonight, but can the noble Baroness say that she is prepared to discuss these matters with my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies, the chairman of the EC Committee, so that a start can be made to looking at the possibilities of improving the machinery?
What happens in other countries is no business of ours. What we are concerned with is the democratic process in this country. If the noble Baroness were to
526
say that she would convey this to her right honourable friend, then this House, I feel sure, would be extremely grateful.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, should feel that I have not dealt adequately with any point in the committee's report. As I indicated to the noble Lord, we agree with almost every point that has been made.
There is this very important matter, and I recognise clearly, from having listened to the whole of the debate, the strength of feeling on this matter in your Lordships' House, which is reflected in what the committee has said. I have tried to explain why the Government have taken the view that they have. I shall of course read very carefully what has been said when Hansard is published and I shall consider this matter, particularly the quite specific request that has been made for a meeting to discuss whether or not there are some further measures which we could take.
As I am sure the House will appreciate, I could not undertake anything further than that point. But I hope in saying this that others of your Lordships will look carefully at what I have said on this point about the very many opportunities which are presented to our Parliament for looking at treaties at an early stage, particularly the numbers of times when there is a full statement to Parliament after a Council meeting. That of course usually indicates the first stages of a treaty, when there are opportunities to comment and all the other opportunities which can be taken.
However, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said. I shall also look again at what the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has said on this matter. As I said, I cannot give any guarantees that there is anything further that I can add to this. But I shall certainly look at the suggestion which has been made.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, on behalf of the Select Committee I should like to express gratification for the contributions which have been made to this debate. Those contributions have endorsed the decision which was made by the Select Committee to investigate this very difficult but important question; and have endorsed all the main conclusions of the Select Committee with the exception of the scrutiny proposals, to which I shall refer in a moment.
In general, may I say that I thoroughly agree with the Minister's opening remarks, which went to the point that we must operate Community law through Community institutions; and that the place to do that, when questions of competence arise, is through the Council and through our representatives on the Council. That must be coupled with the acceptance by the noble Baroness of the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who said that we must be watchful, and that departments must be watchful, so that Council representatives are fully instructed on this question of competence.
Your Lordships will echo the expression of regret by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and the reason for her absence. We all know the great interest she takes in all the affairs of the Select Committee. It

527
was on the question of scrutiny that the noble Baroness was most concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, was inclined to leave questions to the competence of the council and its legal advisers. With great respect, the Community think otherwise. They think that member states should, in the first place, consider any proposals from the point of view of competence; they should then consider the implications of the proposals with regard to competence, and should then turn to the merits. To consider the merits of a proposal first of all and then to consider competence at the end of the day is really to stand the proper procedure on its head.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was I think surprised at the extent of the implied powers and parallelism. But as the noble Baroness said, and the Minister said—and I would agree—one must now simply apply this through the machinery of Community law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with his usual lucidity and clarity, explained the effect of direct applicability and the dangers involved in that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, stressed the views of the committee on the helpfulness of witnesses from the Community and from the department. She gave us an illuminating account of the role of the European Parliament with which I think we are all sympathetic. The only doubt cast by the committee was on the use of their powers so as to create a power of veto.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was rather wary of what he called the expansion of powers by Community institutions, which, as I have said, we take the view can only be dealt with by our own adherence to those communications. He referred to himself as a token lay person. Those members of the committee who served with him would not accept his self-deprecating remarks. Most of his observations are far more penetrating than he would lead the House to believe.
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has experience on these matters both as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament and as a former member of the European Parliament. He stressed the importance of exclusivity, and used the expression, which I have taken from him, of the necessity for being watchful. The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred to the practical difficulties confronting lawyers where Community law is, or is not, directly applicable. Of course, the difficulties of lawyers are compounded by the difficulties of their lay clients when they receive advice from lawyers who are cast in the middle of the Community thickets.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had a point to make on confidentiality. He stressed a point, on which I would venture to disagree with the Minister; namely, the cloak of confidentiality and sensitivity. It is a negative attitude to allow this cloak to be cast round all negotiations simply because in some of them there may be sensitive or confidential matters. I think all the Committee would ask is that the problem should be looked at in general and in particular to see whether it is really necessary to have a cloak or blanket over the whole scheme, or whether there could not be some method whereby we were informed of the principles in advance.
528
Certainly the committee's understanding is that there is a defect there at the moment; that we do not get sufficient warning of the opening negotiations when it comes to international treaties. We do not get the same warning as we do with other Community proposals. We would respectfully suggest that that could be looked at again.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, I think agreed with all the proposals made by the Select Committee. So far as concerns the Minister, I went through cheerfully ticking off all our conclusions. I have only two question marks. One is that she frankly said—and I can understand the reasons—that the Government did not wholly agree with the proposal that the Community and member-state area should be defined in a treaty. My recollection is that in the Law of the Sea, or certainly in one of the conventions, the other negotiating parties have positively insisted that the Community and the member states shall, in an annexe, set out what they conceive to be their different functions and their different responsibilities. For my part, I see the full force of the case made by the Minister on the recommendations in paragraph 80 and I would not dissent.
That leaves only one bone of contention, which is the scrutiny proposals in paragraph 84, the last conclusion of the Select Committee. Again, I see the force of the Government's attitude, and I see the difficulty where confidential matters are intertwined. But where there is a will there is a way, and the fact that European countries are not, if I may put it this way, quite as interested in competence matters as we are in this country should not deter us, if we think the point is a good one, from trying to segregate that which is confidential from that which ought to be placed before Parliament at the earliest opportunity. I do not think that in principle there is anything between the committee and the Minister, and I hope I may be permitted to make those comments on the view that she has expressed.
I conclude by thanking all those who have contributed to this debate and in particular all those members of the committee both those who have taken part and those who have not. We all worked together over a period of six months and with some 180 pages of evidence gratefully and thankfully have come to a conclusion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.