§ 3 p.m.
§ The Earl of ArranMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.in the Chair.]
§
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 192ZA:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) It shall be the duty of every district and County Council in England and Wales, in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 20 below to enforce within their area the standards of quality and sufficiency of water supplies and the provisions made by or under Chapter II of this Part.
(2) Any local authority shall have power for the purpose of ascertaining whether any condition of drinking water quality or any standards made under Chapter II of this Part has been contravened in relation to the quality, wholesomeness or sufficiency of water supplies—
(3) In exercising their functions under this section, a local authority shall have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State or the Director.
(4) In section 20 below, any reference to the Secretary of State or the Director shall be taken also to include a local authority in the area concerned.").
§ The noble Lord said: The fifth Marshalled List for the Bill runs to 57 pages, which is slightly more than the first Marshalled List which faced us some two weeks ago. I am not good at classical metaphors but I wonder whether we are facing the task of Sisyphus or whether someone has not put upon us the results of the task of Penelope. However, we shall try as best we can to make progress with the substantial body of amendments set down for today's business.
924§ The amendment reflects the actual position of the responsibilities of local authorities and tries to match those responsibilities with rights. With Amendment No. 192ZA I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 193A, 194Aand 197AB.
§ Amendment No. 192ZA provides that local authorities shall have a duty to enforce standards under Clause 20, which is the basic enforcement clause in the Bill relating to the standard, quality and sufficiency of water supplies in provisions made under Chapter II of this part. To do so they will of course need to have the power to ascertain whether the drinking water is of sufficient quality and whether the supply is adequate. They will therefore need, under subsection (2)(a), to have the power to take, or authorise the taking of, samples of the water supply and to do whatever is necessary to test the quality or sufficiency of supplies; and, under subsection (2)(b), to secure the provision of the services, accommodation and facilities which are necessary to do the work.
§ In order that no one shall think that we are proposing revolutionary change to free local authorities at one bound from the constraints of the Secretary of State, I say that we are doing no such thing. Subsection (3) provides that a local authority shall have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State, and under subsection (4) we take advantage of the wording of Clause 20 to say that references to the Secretary of State or the director shall be taken also to include a local authority in the area concerned. That is a necessary corollary of other parts of the amendment.
§ Amendment No. 193A has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I shall leave him to explain it.
§ Amendment No. 194A relates to the statutory requirement. At the moment Clause 20(3) provides that the Secretary of State or the director shall have regard to any loss or damage caused before proceeding with the implementation of the statutory requirements. The statutory requirement to secure the adequate quality and sufficiency of water must be the prime consideration. The Secretary of State ought not to have to have regard to loss or damage before seeking to enforce that. What penalty is then imposed on a water undertaker for breach of the statutory requirements in a case where there is no loss or damage is another matter, and the Secretary of State may well decide that pursuit in a severe form is not appropriate, but he must have the power to take action to secure the enforcement of the statutory requirements even though in the end he does not seek to pursue it to its ultimate degree.
§ Amendment No. 197 AB—I apologise for hesitating, but the numbering has been changed—removes the stipulation that the Secretary of State shall not make a final order, or make or confirm a provisional order, if the company has agreed to take, or is taking, all such steps as appear to him for the time being to be appropriate, and the contraventions were of a trivial nature. The definition of a trivial nature is one to which I shall come in a subsequent amendment. The definition contained in subsection 5(b) is the subject of a 925 government amendment with which we shall be dealing later this afternoon.
§ The main thrust of the group of amendments to which I am talking is clear. It is that local authorities have a responsibility for checking on compliance as to the supply and quality of drinking water. What is required now is that they should have both the duty and resources to do so. It is necessary to do that because of the Government's hesitation as regards statutory requirements. I referred the Committee to the words used on more than one occasion by the Minister of State, Mr. Michael Howard, in Committee in another place on 14th February this year, when EC Directive 80/778 was under consideration. Mr. Howard expressed considerable doubt as to whether EC requirements, which after all are statutory requirements, or will be statutory requirements when fully implemented, were sufficiently sensible or were too stringent. He said that he would be looking for regulations which were "more sensible"; in other words, less stringent.
§ If the Secretary of State, or the Minister of State in this case, does not seem to think that the statute makes sense, we need some other protection to ensure that our law and European law is obeyed. It is no good leaving the matter to the ultimate decision of the Secretary of State, under the complex procedures proposed under the Bill, if direct action by the local authority on the spot is needed.
§ Reference has already been made in Committee to Camelford, where the drinking water of a large community was seriously damaged by an error at the water authority's premises in such a way as to cause subsequent illness to a number of people. Legal action on that matter is now being pursued. There are two lessons to be learnt from that incident: first, that it took a long time for anything to be done about the drinking water in Camelford. For some time the water authority denied that anything was wrong. A local authority would have been able to enforce direct action quickly. The second lesson to be drawn is that there were regulations which could have been enforced, and under the amendment could be enforced more effectively. At the moment, the Secretary of State, by regulation, sets the standards which shall be adhered to and under the Bill only the Secretary of State can enforce compliance. That is not good enough. In case anyone should believe that local authorities do not have the ability to do the work, I remind the Committee that local authorities have inspectorates which are concerned with a wide range of consumer protection matters. The protection of water quality is no different in principle from many of the other functions of local authorities.
§ Ministers are very fond of reminding Parliament that the water industry can be private in the way that the food industry is private. I wish to remind the Government that the food industry requires and receives a substantial degree of essential regulation by the inspectors of local authorities. They find considerable breaches by the food industry of safety and health standards and they are able to put those right by direct action on the spot without reference back to the Government.
926§ I suggest to the Committee that the procedures proposed in Clause 20 of the Bill, as well as in this part of the Bill generally, are too slow, too cumbersome and too lacking in enforcement power on the ground in the local community to be really effective. I also suggest that this group of amendments would make matters significantly better. I beg to move.
§ Lord AddingtonI wish to speak to Amendment No. 192ZA as well as Amendment No. 193A, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra. The first amendment has been very well covered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I wish to reiterate his remarks to the extent that local authorities still have a considerable number of professional people who are qualified to deal with environmental health and other environmental matters through the environmental health officers. They will also probably have ready access to such facilities as laboratories for testing. So it would seem to be rather silly for them to be excluded to any great extent from the actual enforcing of environmental conditions. Also, cases of unwholesome water affecting the areas they represent are certainly their concern.
As regards the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, basically it is designed to make sure that the conditions of appointment as drafted give the director few, if any, powers to enforce compliance after breaches of conditions. There are examples in the Bill, for instance, under Clause 7(3)(a), to ensure that,
no undue preference is shown, and that there is no undue discrimination, in the fixing of those charges and amounts".That is dealt with in the draft model instrument of appointment by condition D, which requires the appointee to give the director information about these matters, as is required, but gives him no power to step in if he finds that a company is indulging in price discrimination. What power does he have in these circumstances? Unless the amendment is passed the director will be the most well-informed spectator in what could be termed the water game.
§ Lord RentonThe amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would enable the local authorities to share with the Secretary of State the responsibility for enforcement. At present, under Clause 20 of the Bill it is the Secretary of State upon whom that responsibility is firmly placed. Of course, one sympathises with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in wishing to help the local authorities because he has had valuable experience on a local authority in the metropolis. Indeed, all of us have had good reason to feel in certain circumstances—but not all—that local authorities should be given responsibilities and rights in matters which affect local people.
However, I am very much afraid that if the amendment were accepted, instead of the enforcement being carried out by the Secretary of State in accordance with a consistent policy, we might find that local authorities, given the responsibility as regards their own areas, could operate the enforcement provisions somewhat unevenly.
§ Therefore, subject to what my noble friends on the Front Bench may say, I should have serious doubts about the acceptance of the amendment and the other two Opposition amendments which go with it. As regards the latter, I feel bound to say that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and another in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, himself, by taking provisions out of Clause 20 would seem to me to weaken the power of the Secretary of State under that clause. Therefore, while it is right that we should always consider what part local authorities can play in looking after the interests of the people in their own areas, I think that it would be misguided for us to say that there should be this duality of powers of enforcement.
§ Let us just consider the position at the moment. Under the present law local authorities have the opportunity for their members to be included on water authorities and I think that each of the water authorities has some local authority members on it. But apart from that, so far as I remember, they do not have powers of enforcement, except such powers as are available to the public as a whole; so we should be creating a new responsibility. Quite frankly, I do not think it would be workable, especially as that responsibility is to overlap with those given to the Secretary of State in Clause 20.
§ 3.15 p.m.
§ Lord EzraI am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does not agree with the proposition because I believe that local authorities have an important role to play in this connection. The local inhabitants are much concerned about the quality of water and its standard. I myself happen to be involved in a trading standards organisation and I know what a great role such organisations play in ensuring that standards are maintained with the wishes of local people. I do not see this as a duality so much as national authorities and local authorities working together to the same end.
I should very much like to see something on these lines incorporated in the legislation in order to show that it is not just a matter of central government direction but is also a matter of concern at the local level. Local government and national government must work very closely together in order to ensure that the standards and quality of this essential product achieve the best results that can be obtained.
§ Lord HeskethThe proposed new clause may be considered in a group with Amendments Nos. 194A, 197AB and 193A. Although they are all concerned with enforcement they are not necessarily related.
Taking the new clause first, its effect would be to place a duty on local authorities to enforce compliance by water undertakers with their duty to meet drinking water quality standards set in regulations made under Clause 65 and with certain other duties in Chapter II. The enforcement procedure would be that set out in Clause 20. Powers ancillary to such a duty, such as power to take samples, are also included in the amendment. I understand the intent behind the noble Lord's proposal and I shall address that first before 928 mentioning certain practical problems which we believe exist with the proposal.
Local authorities have a long-standing interest, as the noble Lord pointed out, in the quality of water supplies in their areas, and this interest is continued by the Bill. In particular, Clause 56 continues their existing duty to keep themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies in their areas. We shall be providing in regulations for local authorities to be sent full information on water quality at regular intervals, so there need be no concern that they will have inadequate information about the quality of water supplies in their areas. They will also have a duty to notify the water undertaker whenever they believe that water is unwholesome, insufficient or deteriorating in quality.
Clause 56(3) provides that if local authorities are not satisfied with the undertaker's response, they must inform the Secretary of State. This is a new provision. It provides the link with the new enforcement duty in Clause 20. This duty will be exercised by the Secretary of State in respect of drinking water quality. He will be supported in doing so by a new inspectorate which will be established to carry out thorough technical assessments of compliance with the drinking water regulations. The inspectors will be checking not only compliance with the standards but also progress on improvement programmes settled under subsection (5)(b) of Clause 20, action taken where a standard is infringed, sampling arrangements and frequencies, and analytical methods and quality control. If these investigations show up any shortcomings in complying with the regulations which are not rectified, the Secretary of State will have to consider enforcement action.
The Committee need have no concerns that the Secretary of State will be too remote and ill-informed. He will be provided with very full information on this subject by his inspectors, and also by local authorities, and will thus be well placed to follow up reports of non-compliance.
Moving on to the more practical aspects of the new clause, it is clear that it would immediately create certain problems. First, local authority areas and water supply areas bear no relationship. This raises the question of what an undertaker should do if two or more local authorities take a different view on what should be done about the same supply. A similar issue arises concerning the Secretary of State and a local authority. For instance, an improvement programme may be under way under subsection (5)(b) of Clause 20 which is acceptable to the Secretary of State but not to the local authority. I note that the new clause requires local authorities to take account of any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State or the director. But guidelines cannot deal with issues of timing, and in any case guidelines are not mandatory. So we could well have a situation where an improvement programme was proceeding in a manner acceptable to the Secretary of State, and all the district councils concerned, yet the county council had made an order under Clause 20 requiring the undertaker to do something quite different.
929 There would be over 400 enforcement authorities with overlapping duties. They would not be accountable to Parliament. We believe this is a recipe for confusion, and not to be recommended. I mention in passing that the subject matter of subsection (2) of the new clause is already amply covered by the powers given to local authorities by Clauses 56 and 59.
I now return to the main theme of the new clause. I summarise the Government's arguments against it as twofold. First, the clause is quite unnecessary as the Bill already provides an important role for local authorities in relation to the quality of water supplies. Secondly, the Secretary of State, advised by the new drinking water inspectorate and by local authorities, is best placed to operate the enforcement provisions in Clause 20. We believe that placing such enforcement powers in the hands of local authorities in these circumstances would create confusion and conflict between all the parties concerned. We do not believe this amendment would strengthen enforcement. It would fragment it, and it would not serve the interests of consumers. We believe the amendment should be resisted.
It is not clear now whether these amendments have been grouped together with Amendment No. 193A, which is intended to provide three possible enforcement authorities: the Secretary of State, the director or a local authority. As it previously stood, the implication was that either the Secretary of State or the director was to be the enforcement authority. But whichever is intended, in our view it would be clear in respect of the important provisions enforceable under Clause 20 who is responsible for enforcement. In this case it should be the director. That is what the Bill provides.
Clause 20 (8) makes provision for defining who is to be the enforcement authority in respect of any particular duty or requirement. Thereafter the Bill is always explicit about who is responsible. In this clause, subsection (8)(b) defines the enforcement authority for contraventions of conditions of an appointment as the director. That is so because in our opinion the director will be the best qualified person to be the enforcement authority.
I shall now turn to Amendment No. 197AB. Clause 20 requires the Secretary of State or the director to take enforcement action where a company has contravened a condition of appointment or statutory requirement enforceable under the clause. Subsection (5)(b) provides that if he is satisfied that the company is taking all such steps as it appears to him are necessary to secure compliance he is not required to make an enforcement order. The effect of this amendment is to remove the provision in subsection (5)(b), so that in such case of contravention of a condition of appointment or statutory requirement it would be necessary to make an enforcement order.
It has to be accepted that some breaches of a condition of appointment or statutory requirement cannot be put right overnight. To remedy a breach it may, for example, be necessary to provide a new water or sewage treatment works. The new treatment 930 works would have to be designed. Planning approval, perhaps involving a planning inquiry, may be needed. Time is needed for construction. Is the noble Lord suggesting that a final order should then be made when the undertaker is taking the necessary steps to put matters right?
Subsection (5)(b) of the clause provides for situations where it is not possible for undertakers to comply fully with certain of their obligations immediately, and programmes of remedial action have been agreed with the Secretary of State or the director. These programmes must be made public and will have to be implemented if the company is to avoid a final order. But, provided the programmes so agreed are being implemented properly, it would hardly make sense for the Secretary of State to make a final order. This part of the clause therefore provides a very effective means of achieving compliance. I therefore suggest that Amendment No. 197AB should also be rejected.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment No. 194A. Under Clause 20, where the Secretary of State or the director is satisfied that a company is contravening a condition of its appointment or statutory requirement enforceable under that clause, he may make a provisional order instead of making a final order. The power to make a provisional order is included in the enforcement procedure to allow the Secretary of State or the director to take immediate action where circumstances require it.
If a final or provisional order is made, the obligation to comply with that order constitutes a statutory duty which the appointed company owes to anyone who may be affected by a contravention of it. Under the provisions of Clauses 22, 24 and 25 failure by an undertaker to comply with a final or provisional order may be the subject of civil proceedings brought by any person who is affected by a contravention of the order and who consequently sustains loss or damage. The fact that compensation may be sought in relation to a provisional order means that where such an order has been made the appointed company is immediately liable to action for damages if it fails to comply with the order. On the basis of my remarks, which I fear took rather a long time as I wished to be as comprehensive as possible, I ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
§ Lord EzraThe noble Lord said that the amendment that is proposed would create confusion in ensuring that water supplies and quality of water were up to the right standards. I draw the attention of the noble Lord to subsection (3) of the proposed amendment, which states:
In exercising their functions under this section, a local authority shall have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State or the Director".That makes it absolutely clear that local authorities would act in total accordance with what is laid down by the Secretary of State and the director, and would add to those strengths in ensuring that the public achieves the right standards and quality of water supply, rather than the reverse.
§ Baroness PhillipsWill the Minister tell the Committee where the enforcement officers are to be 931 based? Will there be one in each local authority's area? Most enforcement officers operating under various Acts of Parliament in connection with health and safety are at present invariably linked with a local authority. If a sewer is the matter at issue, a local authority would have to be brought into the affair immediately because it would have the jurisdiction over the land involved.
The Minister's noble friend suggested there was duplication in the amendment. But there is, by heavens, duplication in the Government's proposals. We are talking about private companies. The quality of water provided by those companies needs to be overseen by some authority. Quite recently we discovered, somewhat to our horror, that the pigs at the food and farming festival in Hyde Park did not consider the London water fit to drink. I have always had great respect for pigs, having tended them on a farm. The quality of our water is an absolutely vital issue. There must be no dissembling in this regard. The amendment will not lead to duplication; it will make the operation of the Bill much simpler.
§ Lord HeskethIn answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, as I tried to explain—probably inadequately—we are setting up a new inspectorate which will be exactly the body which she feels is appropriate.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I tried to make it clear that the guidelines to which he referred would not be mandatory. That is why we believe that, with what will effectively become 400 enforcement authorities, there will be overlap and confusion.
§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyThe Minister appears to put the protection of the Secretary of State's all-seeing powers and all-powerful statutory duties before almost any other consideration, indeed before every other consideraton. It seems to be suggested that the intervention of local authorities into the responsibilities under the Act for ensuring drinking water quality is a new proposal. That is not the case.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is not the case that I want to help local authorities, as he seems to suggest. I am not in any way interested in helping local authorities; I am interested in helping the people who drink the water. That is the real consideration.
In his reply the Minister referred both to Clause 56 and to Clause 65. I should like to turn to both of those clauses because he suggested that they provide an alternative procedure which would adequately bring the local authorities into enforcement activity. I do not believe that that is the case. Under Clause 56 the intervention of local authorities is referred to in subsecton (5):
The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision … as he considers appropriate for—(a) imposing duties and conferring powers on local authorities with respect to the acquisition of information about the quality and sufficiency of water supplies.First, it says "may" rather than "shall"; secondly, it is by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill; and, thirdly, it is an extraordinary state of affairs that 932 that low down the chain of command the Secretary of State confers powers on local authorities.If powers are to be conferred on local authorities, they should be conferred in the Bill. Everyone should know that that is happening. That is what we provide in our amendment. We do not do it not just by the back door but by the back, back door, which is what is proposed in the Bill under Clause 56. In any case, I am not satisfied that the powers in Clause 56 will be affective. It is no use giving people duties unless they have powers which they can use.
Under Clause 65(2)(f)—and here again it is a matter of regulations—
regulations made for the purpose of determining the wholesomeness of any water may … enable the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority …to exercise in relation to a private supply any power conferred on the Secretary of State by regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e) above".Again, "may" and "by regulations" seem to me in the first place to be a duplication. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would like to look at that point before we come to those clauses of the Bill. Secondly, they seem to me to be hopelessly weak in relation to the requirements which we believe are necessary in order to secure the effective application of the enforcement procedures.Clause 20 has many defects, which we shall deal with later this afternoon; but in order for it to be effective at all there has to be an organisation on the ground in the local area. There is no question of any threat to the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State sets the guidelines under which local authorities will act. There is no question of duplication: the Secretary of State's guidelines can be drafted in order to avoid duplication. However, there must be something better than a provision later in the Bill for regulations which the Secretary of State may or may not make in order to place duties on local authorities. If they are to have duties at all, and it is common sense that they should, local authorities should also have the powers to enforce those duties and the resources to exercise those duties. Otherwise the relationship between central and local government is not adquately reflected in the drafting of the Bill.
Unless the Minister can show us that the Bill is more powerful than he indicated in his first response, it looks to me as if I shall have to seek the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
§ Lord HeskethI fear that my reply may not be as helpful as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would like. He has been slightly selective in his observations on clauses to come. I should like to point out that Clause 56(1), (2) and (3) provides full powers for local authorities, and the regulations which he mentioned are supplementary to those powers. The first lines of Clause 56(1) make the position absolutely clear:
It shall be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as they consider appropriate for keeping themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies".
§ Baroness LockwoodIf it should be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as it considers appropriate for keeping itself informed, 933 why should it not also be the duty of local authorities to follow through that information and take action to ensure that the quality of water is improved? I think that the Minister introduced a number of red herrings into the discussion in his earlier remarks when he talked about duplication of authority and the sharing of responsibility for enforcement. There are many examples in which enforcement is shared by local authorities and other bodies. Having given local authorities the duties that are embodied in these clauses, it seems sensible to give them the further responsibilities which my noble friend's amendment requires.
§ Lord RentonI hope that it may help noble Lords opposite if I say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in moving the amendment, dealt with the matter very strictly. He pointed out this amendment was intended to operate on Clause 20. Clause 20 has the very important purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to ensure that the companies which are to be the undertakers of water supply in the future abide by the conditions which are attached to their opportunity to do so. He did not at the time refer to later clauses (Clause 54 to 60) but they have come into the picture—and I do not complain of that—in speeches which have followed. But I should have thought that we need to consider Clause 20 on its merits and the later clauses on their merits because they have a different purpose.
We are being asked to amend Clause 20. At the risk of repeating what I said before, I simply say this. To give the local authorities the power which the amendment which has been moved would give them under Clause 20 would create duality, would create unevenness of results and of administration. It is far better that these rather special and important powers should be exercised solely by the Secretary of State, bearing in mind—if one may refer to the later clauses—that the local authorities are given different powers under the Bill, and very sensibly so.
§ Lord TraffordFurther to what my noble friend says—and I agree with what he says—if we are to look at subsequent clauses then Clause 56(3), for example, outlines the steps that a local authority can take which lead to an order by the Secretary of State. Therefore, in one sense the point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be met. In addition, the correct channels of procedure would be used. That would avoid parallel procedures causing confusion, which was one of the other points which was raised. However, it seems to me that there is a channel by which those could be used. As my noble friend said, it would confuse the issue not to look at Clause 20 on its merits and see, when we come to Clause 56, as we shall, the fact that it gives the local authority those rights.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyIt was the Minister who raised the question of the later clauses, not I. I shall respond to the challenge. Perhaps I may remind him of the clause to which he referred. He accused me of referring selectively to that clause. As he rightly said, Clause 56 states that: 934
It shall be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as they consider appropriate".But the point is that those steps must be appropriate for keeping the authorities informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supply. It is not until one gets way down over the page that one comes to any question of the powers of local authorities. It is no good imposing duties upon local authorities to keep themselves informed about water supply unless one also provides them with the powers to do something about it. That is what they do not have. In addition, nor do Clauses 56 and 57—Clause 57 refers to remedial powers; I am perfectly well aware of what it says—secure that the water companies are required to pay attention to what happens. That is what is not provided in the later clauses.The reason why the amendment is designed to be inserted before Clause 20 and refers principally to Clause 20 is because that clause is about enforcement in relation to the conditions of appointment of the water undertakings. That is where enforcement sticks. If their appointment is at risk, that is when they will pay attention to those who seek to secure adequate drinking water quality and adequate sufficiency. To insert it later is a recipe for delay, procrastination and inefficient and complex regulation. To insert it here, in or before Clause 20, makes sure that the water and sewerage undertakings will do something about the controls that are quite properly being exercised.
We do not think that the Secretary of State can effectively exercise those powers, which are essentially local powers. We do not think that he—or the present Minister of State—has any intention of doing so because he has already expressed a lack of confidence in the law and in European directives on this matter. We believe that these amendments are essential to secure the protection of consumers. It is on that basis that I ask the Committee to express an opinion.
§ 3.42 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192ZA) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 97.
935| DIVISION NO. 1 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Addington, L. | Ewart-Biggs, B. |
| Amherst, E. | Ezra, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Falkland, V. |
| Blease, L. | Galpern, L. |
| Blyth, L. | Graham of Edmonton, L. |
| Bonham-Carter, L. | Hanworth, V. |
| Broadbridge, L. | Hatch of Lusby, L. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Hirshfield, L. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Howie of Troon, L. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | kearton, L. |
| Kennet, L. | |
| Carter, L. | Kilbracken, L. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | |
| Davies of Penrhys, L. | Lock wood, B. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Longford, E. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. |
| Elwyn-Jones, L. | McNair, L. |
| Mason of Barnsley, L. | Soper, L. |
| Mishcon, L. | Stallard, L. |
| Mountevans, L. | Stewart of Fulham, L. |
| Mulley, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Nicol, B. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Northfield, L. | Taylor of Gryfe, L. |
| Peston, L. | Tordoff, L. [Teller.] |
| Phillips, B. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Pitt of Hampstead, L. | Underbill, L. |
| Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] | Wallace of Coslany, L. |
| Walston, L. | |
| Reilly, L. | White, B. |
| Sainsbury, L. | Wigoder, L. |
| Sefton of Garston, L. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Serota, B. | Worcester, Bp. |
| Shepherd, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Airey of Abingdon, B. | Hylton-Foster, B. |
| Alexander of Tunis, E. | Johnston of Rockport, L. |
| Annaly, L. | Kinloss, Ly. |
| Arran, E. | Long, V. |
| Balfour, E. | Macleod of Borve, B. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Malmesbury, E. |
| Belstead, L. | Mancroft, L. |
| Benson, L. | Marley, L. |
| Bessborough, E. | Merrivale, L. |
| Blake, L. | Mersey, V. |
| Blatch, B. | Middleton, L. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, L. | Morris, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Munster, E. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Nelson, E. |
| Bruce-Gardyne, L. | Norfolk, D. |
| Butterworth, L. | Norrie, L. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Nugent of Guildford, L. |
| Cathcart, E. | Orkney, E. |
| Clinton, L. | Pender, L. |
| Coleraine, L. | Pennock, L. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Penrhyn, L. |
| Cranbrook, E. | Platt of Writtle, B. |
| Cullen of Ashbourne, L. | Radnor, E. |
| Davidson, V, [Teller.] | Rankeillour, L. |
| Denham, L. [Teller.] | Renton, L. |
| Dundee, E. | Rodney, L. |
| Effingham, E. | Romney, E. |
| Ellenborough, L. | St. Davids, V. |
| Elliot of Harwood, B. | Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Sanderson of Bowden, L. |
| Erroll of Hale, L. | Shannon, E. |
| Ferrers, E. | Sharples, B. |
| Foley, L. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Fraser of Kilmorack, L. | Slim, V. |
| Gainford, L. | Stockton, E. |
| Gardner of Parkes, B. | Strange, B. |
| Glenarthur, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Greenway, L. | Strathspey, L. |
| Gridley, L. | Swansea, L. |
| Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. | Terrington, L. |
| Teviot, L. | |
| Halsbury, E. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Trafford, L. |
| Harvington, L. | Trefgame, L. |
| Henley, L. | Trumpington, B. |
| Hesketh, L. | Vaux of Harrowden, L. |
| Hives, L. | Wise, L. |
| Hood, V. | Wynford, L. |
| Hooper, B. | Young of Graffham, L. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ The Earl of ArranI beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.