Lords Sitting of 2 February 1993

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

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
Robert Maynard, Lord Bishop of Lincoln—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
Lord Churston—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Bloodstock Industry: VAT
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the commissioners of Customs and Excise will now permit the registration of racehorse owners for VAT.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Jockey Club has made proposals for changes to the rules intended to make ownership more of a business activity and therefore allow some owners of racehorses to register for VAT. Customs and Excise are looking urgently at the proposals and further meetings have been arranged.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, what does "urgently" mean in this context? Does my noble friend realise that it would seem to many people odd—even perverse—if Ministers were now seen to prefer the narrow construction put by the Excise authorities on a regulation of their own making against the sustaining of employment and the maintenance of overseas earnings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, "urgently" means urgently. A meeting is being held this afternoon with a view to reaching a speedy conclusion and taking the process further forward. I said to my noble friend when he last asked me this question before the Recess that we were waiting for the Jockey Club to present a proposal. That has now been presented and we are acting quickly on it. I was interested in my noble friend's second question. His thinking seems to have evolved. I recall that on 19th July 1972 a certain Member for Yeovil voted for the VAT regulations that now control this issue.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, this is not a party matter. The industry is in serious trouble. The Government have made great concessions to Mr Stein of Ladbroke —for what reason I shall never know. Betting shops will be able to open late at night and so on. Yet the
80
people who really matter—the people who own the horses—are being penalised. Why? When are the Government going to do something about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I answered a Question similar to this on 17th December I gave a catalogue of things that the Government had done. I can only say to the noble Lord that discussions are continuing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, even if registration of racehorses for VAT is allowed, how far will it go to overcome the great disadvantage of the French and the Irish having much more favourable arrangements than we have?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we will have to wait and see what can be agreed between Customs and Excise and the Jockey Club to see how the situation can be ameliorated. I say to my noble friend that there are plenty of opportunities for the industry to take advantage of the various concessions that Customs and Excise have granted.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, have the commissioners of Customs and Excise taken any further the notion that advertising could be carried on the backs of jockeys or on the saddle cloths of horses as they parade in the ring, thereby entitling owners to register for VAT?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these are some of the issues that are being discussed. All this relates to the question of what is meant by a business, and what is the criterion for VAT.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he anticipates that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be saying something about this on 16th March?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we can all anticipate. I can say nothing.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have been around this course so often that noble Lords might be excused if they felt that it was time for a steward's inquiry—into the Minister, perhaps, for not trying to win the race; perhaps into the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, although I support him enormously, for excessive use of the whip. Why do not the Government take a decision? There are two practical solutions—to register for VAT or to establish our rate at the same rate as our competitors in Europe, the Irish and the French. Why not take a decision and not hold more and more meetings? Who is governing the country —Ministers or officials of the Customs and Excise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord had a very good day's racing at Towcester before Christmas and that he also backed some winners. All I can say to him is that we are in discussions. Those are proceeding as quickly as possible now that we have received the paper from the Jockey Club.
Lord Manton: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is no restriction in either British or European law on a special rate being applicable to

81
bloodstocks? Is the Minister aware that the racing industry has been awaiting a reply for the past 14 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand my noble friend, the question of bloodstocks takes us somewhat beyond the remit purely of the racehorse industry because there are bloodstocks of other types in the horse industry. We are very aware of the anxieties of the industry. It has made them well known to us and we are in discussion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise therefore that these industries are inter-dependent and that we are talking not only about racing, but also about the breeding, the training and the selling of horses, which together represent a very major industry making a considerable contribution to the balance of payments? Does my noble friend agree that it is a question for urgent resolution, using the term in the sense that most of your Lordships would understand and not perhaps as it would normally be used by people answering for Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will have had great experience. We listened to him with great interest when he answered for Her Majesty's Government. He knows that these discussions have to take place and fulfil their course.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will have in mind the fact that when I voted for these regulations I did so both with characteristic docility and also in the unfounded faith that they would be sensibly construed and administered. Does he not understand that the failure of Ministers on this occasion to take charge and make a sensible decision may well be taken as an admission by them that the construction of excise regulations has become, for them, a no-go area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree fundamentally with my noble friend about the lack of action by Ministers. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Paymaster General spoke to my noble friend this morning and explained to him fully what the situation is and the action which has been taken. As I said, we have now received the report from the Jockey Club and we must get on and consider it.

Low and Non-Alcohol Beer: Prices
2.52 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will invite the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the prices of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government have no plans for an investigation into the prices charged for non and low-alcohol beers in pubs. The Director-General
82
of Fair Trading will nevertheless consider in the normal way any concerns that might be expressed to him.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she reconsider this matter because there is a widespread feeling that conscientious motorists who play the game are being exploited?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties, which I share. I believe that anyone with common sense to make the right decision about drinking and driving will use his car to drive away if the motorist feels that he has been overcharged.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would it be true to say that the price of non-alcoholic beverages in this House is higher than the price of normal beer? Would it not be in the interests of the House to propagate the consumption of non-alcoholic beverages?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must confess to a lack of knowledge about the alcoholic drinks in this House. I draw attention to the fact that we had a statement of trading policy from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, last week on the issue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that people in this country cannot understand why they have to pay just as much for non-alcoholic beverages, which do not attract tax and excise duties, as they do for alcoholic beverages, which do attract those taxes?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that the people of this country well understand that it is for the publican to fix the price of his drinks.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is it not clear that, given all the pricing evidence, together with the fact that just three companies now control over 70 per cent. of the market in low alcohol and non-alcohol beers, a complex monopoly, as defined by the Fair Trading Act, is now operating in this industry, meriting consideration by the OFT? Will the Minister explain the inconsistency in government policy in failing to apply the Act in this clear-cut case?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to the Dispatch Box. I am pleased to say that it would appear by the numbers of representatives on the Opposition Benches that they are placing great importance on trade and industry. As regards this issue, what happened as a result of the resolution of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was that the tied estate order required national brewers to allow their tied customers to buy these drinks from any supplier of their choice. That means that it is a much more open market.

Energy Efficiency: Government Departments
2.55 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hanworth, and at his specific request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they have been able to install the latest energy saving devices and control measures for lighting in government departments; and whether there is any provision in budgets for doing so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Energy Efficiency Office gives advice and encouragement to all government departments to adopt cost-effective energy efficiency measures. Total expenditure by departments on energy efficiency measures, including lighting, amounted to some £13 million in 1991–92.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Can he say what percentage of the total fuel costs are currently represented by lighting in government departments?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific answer to his question. However, I know that research by the Energy Efficiency Office has shown that about 50 per cent. of energy costs are made up of lighting.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the important percentage which the noble Lord has just indicated, does he not agree that on the whole lighting tends to be part of the energy efficiency drive which has been too long neglected? Therefore, will the Government not only do all they can to improve lighting performance in government-controlled buildings, but also use that as an example to spur on the rest of the economy to do likewise?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that there is increasing understanding that energy efficiency for lighting can be extremely effective with a low pay-back period. As regards government buildings, noble Lords will be pleased to know that in the parliamentary estate the electrical load has been reduced from 328 kilowatts to 111 kilowatts, a saving of 217 kilowatts (66 per cent.) by energy efficiency means.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise that the latest figures for expenditure on energy and energy efficiency, 1991–92 over 1990–91, show a mixed record? His own department comes out rather well. Will he further recognise that there are some laggards; for example, the Department of Trade and Industry is down 74 per cent.; the Lord Chancellor's Department is down 57 per cent.?
A Noble Lord: Legal aid!
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Treasury is down to no expenditure at all. Can the noble Lord explain what
84
mechanisms are in place in his department for ensuring that the laggards at least come up to the recommendation of the Audit Commission for local authorities?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is for Ministers in their departments to decide what their priorities are. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has set up a committee of Green Ministers which sat for the first time on 1st October. Those Ministers have been asked to report what their individual departments are doing. We hope that that will encourage them to prioritise energy efficiency in the correct way.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since the committee to which my noble friend has just referred accounts for about 30 per cent. of Ministers, can we expect expenditure in this area in the Department of the Environment to go down by a similar amount?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that the battle for energy efficiency will not be won for a very long time. There is a considerable amount to do, not just in the Department of the Environment, but also in other departments. It is cost effective. I feel that more will be done.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister also consider that it is not only government departments that have to be energy-saving conscious but also the general public? In view of the high cost of energy-saving light bulbs, can the Minister say whether it will be possible for the Government to reduce the VAT on those bulbs?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, of course, absolutely correct. It is also a matter of what private individuals—the general public—do. However, this Question refers to government departments, which is why I answered it in that respect.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, have the Government heard of the Green Light Programme which has been put into operation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, by which the American administration gives technical assistance to companies which are reducing their lighting load? Something like 700 companies have been encouraged so to do. Are the Government considering a similar initiative in this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the United Kingdom we feel that the case for energy efficiency is so great that the facts speak for themselves, so there is no need for a specific subsidy. Instead we support the Energy Efficiency Office to the tune of some £60 million so as to spread the message across the country.

Telecommunications Operators: EC Directive
3 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Utilities Supply and Works Contract Regulations 1992 are applied to the contracts (in respect of the services specified) of British Telecommunications plc and Kingston Communications (Hull) plc and not to such contracts of any other public telecommunications operators.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the regulations implement an EC directive which has an exemption for procurement in relation to telecommunications services which others are free to provide in the same area and under substantially the same conditions. On the basis of legal advice, we concluded that the exemption applies to all procurement by UK operators, except for procurement by British Telecommunications plc and Kingston Communications (Hull) plc, in so far as each is dominant in its licensed area in the market for the specified services and, therefore, the exemption does not apply.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, although I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, I have some doubts about the legal advice that he is receiving. I wonder whether we can break down this problem in steps. Would my noble friend confirm that this directive is aimed at member states whose telecommunications services are provided by state monopolies? My noble friend will be aware of Recitals 11 and 12, and I think that he will find it easy to answer that question. Secondly, will he acknowledge that in the United Kingdom—differently from other member states—our telecommunications industry works in a competitive environment and will increasingly do so? If the answers to those questions are yes, which I anticipate that they will be: why are Her Majesty's Government not exercising the express powers granted to them under Article 8(1) of the procurement directive and freeing all operators in our telecommunications industry from the bureaucratic and other burdens of this directive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that this is entirely a legal matter. Where one has two different legal opinions, there are appropriate procedures with which to resolve the problem. In this country, 130 companies are affected by the directive but, because of the dominant position of British Telecommunications plc and Kingston Communications (Hull) plc, they have not been exempted for certain specified services.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether, in view of what appears to be a somewhat selective approach, the Commission has expressed any opinion on the way in which this directive has been applied in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this was not a selective approach; it was very carefully considered. As the noble Lord will be aware, a review called the Duopoly Review looked at the whole question of telecommunications services and we then considered those that should be covered by the directive. As I understand it, the Commission has not made a firm comment on our proposals.
Lord Howell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether such discrimination is being hallowed by the Government in any other field in the public or private sector? It cannot happen in relation to water or energy, so why is it right in the field of communications, in which competition is severe at the moment, that unfair arrangements should be brought about and hallowed by the Government in this way? Discrimination should be outlawed in competitive trading, and I submit that it is the duty of the Government to bring that about.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the whole point of the directive, in which I declare an interest as I was very involved in it while Paymaster General, was to avoid the discrimination that was practised previously by monopoly purchasers throughout Europe. The whole point was to create a better market. Where the market cannot act—and there are certain cases in which it cannot act—it is right that those companies with dominance in the area should be required to fulfil certain functions to create a market.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is there any significance in the point that the two companies against which discrimination appears to be being practised were both publicly owned companies before the 1984 Telecommunications Act was introduced? British Telecom was in the public sector and the Kingston-upon-Hull company was in the local authority sector. Is there any significance in the fact that the two companies against which discrimination is being practised were formerly both in the public sector? How on earth does Kingston Communications (Hull) plc have a dominant position? It is a fairly small company, is it not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. The great advantage to British telecommunications has been the privatisation, with 75 per cent. now in the private sector, and a much improved service for customers. What we are talking about is the question of dominance in a specific area for specific services. It is not discrimination against those firms; it is to prevent discrimination against suppliers.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, do the Government think that these regulations will make it easier or more difficult to maximise the yield from the final sale of British Telecom shares?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these regulations are designed to create a market for fair competition for suppliers to the telecommunications industry. That stands to benefit British industry quite enormously overseas.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this yet another case of the British Government applying European directives with much more rigour than is necessary, as they have done in the case of so many health regulations, resulting in the closure of half our abattoirs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, it is not a question of that. It is a question—and rightly so—of enforcing the directive; but the purpose of the directive is to give the supplying firms greater competition. We shall ensure—and so will the supplying firms—that this is implemented throughout Europe.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it certainly seems illogical (to put it mildly) that two public utility companies should be subject to these regulations while all the others are not? Although that may be the legal advice that the Government have received on the construction of the directive, do they have any other proposals to impose similar conditions upon other telecommunications companies which at the moment, and on the Government's construction, arc not subject to the regulations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as British Telecom is mostly now in the private sector—thank goodness—it is an evenhanded approach that the Government have taken. What we have had to look at (through Article 8 of the directive) is the dominance of a supplier of a telecommunications service. Where there is a dominance—and there is in these two instances for certain services—it is right that the regulations should apply to those dominant suppliers.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry. Obviously, I did not make myself clear to the Minister, so I wonder whether the House will allow me to try again. As I understand it, two companies are now subject to these regulations and the tendering processes therefore have to take place in a certain form. Is it the Government's intention that other companies in a similar position in the market should also be subject to similar restrictions and regulations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the regulations apply to all 130 or so British firms which are affected by them. Of those 130, two are in a dominant position for certain services, and that is why they have been itemised in the way that they have. What we do—and what we shall continue to do—is to keep the situation under review. If there is more competition in the areas in which those two firms have a dominance, the regulations can be looked at again.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, can we can go back to the Minister's answer in which he referred to fair competition? Can my noble friend help me on this point? One aspect of this directive is the competitive disadvantage that is being imposed upon those companies that are subject to it—for example, in the periodic indicative notices in which they have to set out their future commercial plans in advance and publicly for exposure to their competitors at home and abroad.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that that is too discriminatory against the two companies. As my noble friend will be aware, the threshold is considerably higher than for central and local government purchases. We are looking for greater competition for the suppliers of equipment and services to the telecommunications companies.

Business of the House: Debates, 3rd February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Fisher of Rednal and the Lord Irvine of Lairg set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Applications for approval]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 25, after ("trading") insert ("including the arrangements for pricing and allocation of milk").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships in general and to my noble friend the Minister in particular for not having been in my place to move these amendments on Report on Monday of last week. I was under the misapprehension that that stage, like this one, was being taken on a Tuesday and so arrived late.
The amendment is a probing amendment, although naturally I hope, as I always hope, that my noble friend will accept it, or the next, as being a good solution to the problems in question. The amendment reflects my anxiety that the full details of the intended trading practices of successor bodies should be included in any application for a reorganisation scheme. The amendment on the same subject that I moved in Committee achieved some degree of support, but there appeared to be opposition to parts of it. In particular, my noble friend's reply in Committee did not take into account the regulated nature of the milk market through institutional prices and quotas under the CAP, with the resulting inadequate supply of milk in the United Kingdom.
The UK milk market is not, and cannot be, free while those CAP constraints continue. Deregulating the MMBs will not solve that problem. Those constraints make the trading practices, especially with regard to the pricing and allocation of milk by any successor bodies, of crucial interest to users. Users —that includes processors and the general public—have legitimate worries about the future availability of adequate supplies and pricing policy. Given that, even after deregulation, there will not be a free market, full details are required to enable manufacturers to plan and to be confident when taking decisions on the size

89
and location of investments in manufacturing and processing capacity in the UK. Hence, my suggestion that it would be helpful to everyone, and a wise thing for the Government to do, to have the details that I suggest in the amendment included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we on this side of the House have looked carefully at the amendment. We find it defective, because it seems to us that it assumes, inherently, that a voluntary producers' co-operative will operate in a fashion similar to that of a statutory milk marketing board. That is manifestly not so. If there are any doubts about that I suggest that your Lordships read the financial section of The Times today.
A voluntary co-operative will be subject to market forces in acquiring, pricing and selling milk. For example, it is uncertain as of now how many current producers will even bother to join the voluntary co-operative because they may have better offers from other sources. If many of them do not join, then selling prices fixed by the board may have to be adjusted to reflect competition in the marketplace. Instead of being able to allocate milk, as it now does, the co-operative may incur further costs in selling it to processors, some of whom will undoubtedly arrange their own supplies.
Even if the co-operative—I am thinking especially of England and Wales in this context—still spoke for a substantial market share, commercial confidentiality would, in our opinion, preclude acceptance of the amendment as drafted. There may be some consolation for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in Clause 3(2) (b), which incorporates an amendment tabled by us at a previous stage, and accepted by the Government, which obliges the Minister to consult about the principles of the scheme before he proceeds with it. For those reasons, if the amendment were pressed, we could not support it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, although when my noble friend produced a similar amendment at an earlier stage I said that I had a certain sympathy with his point of view, I cannot support the amendment. The whole purpose of the Bill is to get rid of an arrangement for the pricing and allocation of milk. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said that it would be the market which would decide the pricing and allocation of milk. It is clearly the responsibility of anyone who wishes to buy milk to make clear to his potential suppliers the arrangements for the pricing of milk. Through that, he will hope to persuade them that it will be in those producers' best interests to sell to that operator. I cannot support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in that he has evidently given considerable thought to the remarks which I made on the amendment to Clause 2(2) (c) which he tabled in Committee. I said then that it would be wrong to
90
require a statement of proposed trading practices by a successor body to cover matters such as continuity and the settlement of disputes, those being appropriate to the content of a milk marketing scheme but not to the establishment of a structure relying on normal commercial freedoms.
I must say that the new amendment causes me somewhat less difficulty than the previous one. It is reasonable to assume that any statement of proposed trading practices should cover the area of pricing. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I do wonder, however, about the implications of the word "allocation". Again, it is clearly accurate to describe what happens under the milk marketing scheme where supplies are allocated according to a hierarchy of prices. But is it accurate to say that a body selling milk commercially necessarily allocates its supplies? I suppose it might have to do so if demand outstrips supply but in that case economic theory suggests that other mechanisms might come into play. And how, I wonder, would the term "allocation" be interpreted in relation to the selling practices of, say, Dairy Crest, which could also be a qualifying successor body in the terms of the Bill.
I do not pretend to have precise answers to those questions, but I believe that the existing requirement in Clause 2(2) (c) to supply a statement of proposed trading practices is drawn sufficiently wide to require the important and relevant considerations to be spelt out in each case. If Ministers feel that the information supplied is insufficient to enable them to satisfy themselves, as they must, that the practices contained in the statement take account of the interests of the purchasers of milk, then they can use the powers in Clause 7 to require further information to be provided.
My noble friend need he in no doubt that those proposed trading practices will be examined carefully. I understand the anxieties which lie behind the amendment. I hope that I have been able to reassure him about pricing and to convince him that the use of the word "allocation" is out of place in the kind of free market arrangements envisaged in the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his full reply which reassured me. It was a reassurance required in particular because of the opposition to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. That shows that it is not an amendment which enjoys the happy support of the House as a whole. With that extra knowledge, I have the pleasure to ask to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("() Applications for independent ownership of central industry assets may be made by parties other than a milk marketing board.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 should have been moved last week. It reflects my anxiety that this Bill completely excludes even a

91
consideration of Milk Marketing Board assets being transferred into independent ownership rather than to a successor body of the MMB.
In Committee there was opposition to a similar amendment, but that mainly seemed to be a misplaced view that I sought only bodies "other than" rather than "as well as" the successor body to be able to receive transfers of MMB's assets. This amendment seeks to clarify the point.
I wonder why the Bill assumes that assets should be automatically transferred to MMB's successor bodies. Accordingly, I request further clarification from my noble friend as to why, if other parties can prove that they are capable of providing efficient, cost-effective services for industry and represent a significant number of dairy producers, they should be excluded from applying for a transfer of an appropriate share of MMB assets. It would be helpful if the Minister were to assure me that such transfers would be independently supervised to ensure no discrimination against the interests of producers who opt not to stay with the MMB's successor; that is, no coercion of farmers. I suggest that the matter could be resolved by the Government accepting the amendment. If not, I hope that my noble friend will give me some reassurance in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, we discussed this amendment in Committee. To make the position clear from this side of the House, I repeat what I said in Committee. We wanted to keep the marketing boards but that is not to be. We shall support the Government in ensuring that a strong producers' organisation succeeds the boards provided that there is transparency in its trading practices and that it is subject to normal competition law.
The reason we support the establishment of a strong producers' organisation is simple. The four biggest dairy companies buy two-thirds of the milk in England and Wales, and 70 per cent. of milk products is sold through just six supermarket chains. As we know, the UK is still in deficit in milk and milk products. Our production is limited by quota, and the EC is 10 per cent. oversupplied. For all those reasons, we support the formation, as is envisaged in the Bill, of a strong producers' organisation.
The noble Lord referred to the confusion which arose about the wording of the amendment in Committee. I believe that that confusion still exists. The amendment could be read to mean that it excludes the MMB's successor bodies from ownership of the central assets. If the noble Lord thought that there was confusion, he should have altered the wording.
As I understand it, the amendment as drafted would allow the four biggest dairy companies—Unigate, and so on—to buy the central assets. Is that the intention of the amendment?
As has been mentioned in the past, there is confusion also as regards central testing. We know that central testing was financed from producers' money—the co-responsibility levy. The funds were distributed among all the member states on the basis of acquis. All the member states in the Community were eligible to receive funds to improve testing
92
facilities. We know that the central testing facilities run by both the MMB and the private dairy companies received funds. Therefore, I do not believe that the argument stands up for moving central testing.
As regards this amendment, a relevant consideration is that the marketing boards must understand that they will emerge from a monopoly culture. In my view and in the view of others there have been—I put it at its politest—some examples of heavy handedness in some activities which arises from the background that there has been for the past 60 years. We know that in the future operations must be conducted rather differently. I believe that the amendment would weaken the successor bodies, although I am sure that that is not the intention. If the amendment were accepted, it would promote uncertainty. There would be chaos in what is already a rather uncertain situation. If pressed, I should have to advise my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, a very similar amendment was tabled in Committee by my noble friend. On that occasion I was much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for rehearsing many of the arguments against acceptance of an amendment along these lines, and I am grateful to him again today.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, went so far as to describe it as a wrecking amendment. I am not wont myself to employ extreme language, but it is certain that this amendment strikes at the heart of the Bill both structurally and in terms of the desired end. It is structurally hostile because the Bill is based on the premise that it is for the boards to propose how their assets should be dealt with under a reorganisation scheme. That is also the foundation of the Government's policy. Quite what would happen procedurally if my noble friend's amendment were accepted is unclear. No indication is given as to what my noble friend would expect Ministers to do in the event of an application being received from a third party, but it is clear that it would then be for Ministers rather than the boards to propose the future shape of the industry. That, I repeat, is wholly contrary to the Government's approach.
The amendment is also hostile in practical terms because to strip the boards' proposed successor bodies of those assets which my noble friend apparently regards as having some special status—the so-called "central industry assets"—would in practice under-mine the basis for a viable successor to be set up. As I have said before, the Government do not consider it reasonable to adopt the approach advocated by the Dairy Trade Federation of selling off all the boards' assets and leaving producers to sink or swim. They believe that those producers who wish to should have the chance to join a collective marketing organisation.
My noble friend asked me to explain why I said what I said on an earlier occasion. I can only repeat that the Government do not accept that there is something special about certain types of MMB assets which means that they must of necessity remain in common or independent ownership. A successor co-operative will need to be able to test the quality of its supplying producers' milk, and there is no

93
fundamental reason why it should not operate farm services. I should add that Ministers will need to take a view on whether it is reasonable that such assets should in an individual case pass to a successor body when a scheme is submitted to them. But I say again that I do not see that there is any objection of principle to what the MMB has indicated that it wishes to do.
I believe that the Government's approach commands the support of the majority of noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, again, I thank my noble friend for a full reply. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me whether it is intended that just a few people should have an opportunity to purchase the MMB's assets. That was not the intention.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. I wish to know whether the noble Lord objects to any of the larger companies bidding for some of the assets.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the underlying feeling behind the amendment—and perhaps other events have overtaken it—is anxiety that one monopoly situation will be replaced by another. The idea is that that should not be the case because on the whole the processors and other purchasers do not like dealing with monopolies because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, they can sometimes adopt a rather heavy-handed attitude which people in monopoly situations are prone to do. That is what is behind the amendment, and that is what I say to the Minister who says that it is a major wrecking amendment. I do not wish to wreck the Bill in that sense.
I should say also to my noble friend that I was not inspired to table the amendment by the Dairy Trade Federation. That federation had nothing to do with it at all. The Food and Drink Federation has a wider range of interests. We shall now have to see what happens. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the article in today's Times is relevant to the matter we are discussing. We may find that it is realised that monopoly situations are disliked and they will not be encouraged to continue. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 22 [Activation of Part II]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 12, line 42, at end insert:
("(1A) If the Ministers certify that they are of the opinion that it is necessary that the Potato Marketing Scheme should be brought to an end because its continued existence is inconsistent with a regulation of the Council of the European Community, section 53(4) of this Act shall apply as if the references therein to sections of this Act include a reference to this section.
(1B) No order shall be made under this section prior to any decision that may be made by the Council of the European Community to introduce a regulation on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes, unless in the opinion of the Ministers such an order is necessary or in the public interest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords in moving Amendment No. 3 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 11. This group of amendments is intended to clarify the situation regarding the regulation-making powers which are proposed in the Bill and which are related to the possible demise of the potato marketing scheme. The amendment corresponds to the discussions we had in Committee and on Report on this matter. As I said, it is intended to clarify what I believe are the intentions of the Government and what are certainly the intentions of everyone who spoke on the subject at previous stages of the Bill.
The Government have stated that if they propose to revoke the potato marketing scheme off their own bat, as it were, under the terms of Clause 22—that is, if it appears to Ministers that that is necessary or expedient, and they intend to do that but not as a result of the introduction of the EC potato regime —the process would then proceed by affirmative resolution. If, on the other hand, the Government are required to wind up the scheme as a result of the introduction of an EC potato regime, the process will proceed by negative resolution. That is the understanding we have with the Minister. We had an interesting exchange on Report, at col. 1098 of the Official Report. I asked the Minister what would happen if Parliament were to annul the negative resolution which the Government were required to proceed with as a result of an EC regulation. His comments were interesting. He said:
"There would be a legal contradiction, but my understanding is—I stand to be corrected on this and, if so, I shall write to the noble Lord"—
the Minister has not written to me, so I presume his understanding was correct—
"that EC law would prevail in any case. It would be obligatory for us to implement the EC law. In practice Parliament has little locus in that matter".—[Official Report, 25/1/93; col. 1098.]
I am sure that if my noble friends Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart were in their places they would have something to say about the lack of parliamentary control in that matter. It seems to be an example of pre-Maastricht impotence. If that is the case before Maastricht, I cannot help wondering what the situation will be like afterwards.
As I said, this group of amendments is intended to spell out the Government's intentions. It is inconceivable that the Government would wish to revoke the potato marketing scheme before we know the details of the EC potato regime. The Minister also stated, at col. 1098 on 25th January:
"We have no current plans to abolish the scheme as a matter of government policy… We may reach a view in due course but I think it is more likely that an EC regime will intervene in the meantime".
The noble Earl added:
"My advice is that following the December Agriculture Council meeting we are 95 per cent. of the way towards achieving an EC regime and approval of those proposals is virtually a formality".
If that is the case, it is inconceivable that the Government would wish to revoke the potato marketing scheme in advance of knowing the outcome of the negotiations and the details of the EC potato regime. As the proposed new subsection (1B) requires,

95
there is certainly no harm in waiting to see what emerges from Brussels. That view was confirmed by the comments of the Minister of State, Mr. Curry, in oral Answers to Questions, at col. 1132 of the Commons Hansard on 28th January, when he stated:
"Our overwhelming priority is to settle the uncertainty which follows upon the proposals, so that we all know exactly where we stand".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/93; col. 1132.]
I am sure we are all agreed on that.
I am sure too that the Minister will not object to my next point. There has been confusion because the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, has expressed a certain amount of scepticism about the present arrangements. As we discussed on Report, it is clear that the Government are not seeking derogation or to plead subsidiarity in considering the EC potato regime. For all those reasons, we assume that the Government intend to await the outcome of the negotiations on the potato regime before they move, if they wish to, to revoke the scheme. The proposed new subsection (1B) spells that out. We have fallen over backwards in our drafting of the amendment to accommodate the Government. In the almost inconceivable situation that the Government wish to revoke the scheme before we know the outcome of the negotiations in Europe, we have allowed a let-out in the proposed new subsection (1B) which states,
"unless in the opinion of the Ministers such an order is necessary or in the public interest".
We have not used the word "expedient" that appears in the Bill. We have stated that in the very unlikely situation that Ministers might wish to take such a step, perhaps because it was taking a long time for a decision to be reached on the European regime, there is the fall-back provision in the form of the words at the end of the proposed new subsection (1B), that is,
"unless in the opinion of the Ministers such an order is necessary or in the public interest".
As I said, we have fallen over backwards in our drafting to accommodate the Government on this issue. The Minister has said that there are no current plans to abolish the scheme as a matter of government policy. What does the Minister mean by the word "current"? According to the Oxford Dictionary the word is defined as:
"The tendency or drift of the common opinion, practice, etc. of a body of persons".
There is a recent example. Only last Monday the current government policy was not to reduce interest rates, but the policy had certainly drifted by Thursday. These amendments are designed to deal with the possibility that the Government might drift into the opinion that the marketing scheme should be wound up in advance of the introduction of an EC potato regime. The proposed new subsection (1B) would require the Government to present good reasons to Parliament as to why they should not do so. I am sure the Minister will understand that if that were the Government's intention it would produce enormous uncertainty in an already uncertain situation. As I said, if the Government felt the considerations in Brussels were taking far too long—however, that does not accord with the Minister's words about the matter
96
being 95 per cent. certain—they would still have the let-out provision at the end of the proposed new subsection (1B).
I agree that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect. I hope that the Minister can accept the principle of the amendment. There is plenty of time to amend the wording in another place if the Government wish to do so. I urge the Minister to accept the principle of the amendment because the House and the Government have accepted that principle throughout our deliberations.
It is clear from the proposed new subsection (1A) that the regulations should proceed by means of a negative resolution as a result of a regulation from the Community. The proposed new subsection (1B) controls the situation between the passing of this Bill and the emergence of a potato regime. It merely affirms what the Government have already said about their intentions. If the Government are not required by the Community to produce a regulation and they decide to revoke the scheme, they would do so by way of affirmative resolution. As I said, the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect but I believe the principle is entirely clear. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment for the reasons so well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It would be stupid to do away with the Potato Marketing Board while the European Community is discussing what kind of regime it wants, if it has one at all. It could well be that we would have to bring in yet another scheme and organisation. That would further disrupt the market.
I make no apology whatever for the amendment and indeed the two following amendments to Clauses 24 and 25 appearing on Third Reading. During the passage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Howe has made great efforts to explain what is in the Government's mind on the matter. He has made many clarifying statements for which I am most grateful. For instance, at Report stage (at col. 1096 of Hansard for 25th January) he said that:
"The word 'expedient' should not be taken as a convenient means for the Government to do what they like regardless of the industry's views".
However, as we all know, my noble friend may not hold the post which he now holds for ever. I hope that he will go further. It is obvious that we cannot tie him to what he said and what is recorded in Hansard, despite a recent ruling last spring by the Law Lords that remarks by Government Ministers reported in Hansard can be relevant. I believe that the important word is "can" but no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would be able to comment more fully on that point. Therefore, I believe that it is vital that my noble friend's assurances are put on the face of the Bill. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill the Government have moved a long way on this clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said—although I do not think that he gave due credit to my noble friend for those concessions—they have conceded that a decision on an order bringing the potato marketing scheme to an end will be brought

97
under the control of Parliament and fully discussed in both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure except in the specific circumstance of the order being inconsistent with a European Community regulation. I am sure that the Government are right to make those important concessions.
Farmers who can manage with difficulty under the present potato marketing scheme are extremely anxious that any move into the unknown should be carefully and properly examined in Parliament before it is accepted or rejected. I was glad to receive a letter from the National Farmers Union welcoming the Government's concessions.
The Bill now allows both parliamentary procedures to be used. There is just one element missing—a precise definition of the circumstances in which the negative rather than the affirmative procedure will be used. I put down an amendment at Report stage which tried to address that problem. I suggested that the public interest test would be appropriate. I gave reasons why that was the case following the previous exchanges with my noble friend on the same subject in Committee. The Minister replied, amplifying what he had said previously. I am bound to say that his arguments are persuasive. I have consulted various people on the subject and I accept the argument that the public interest test is not adequate in this context. I did, however, say that I thought that the matter should not rest there and that the Government should continue their search for a satisfactory way of putting their verbal assurances on to the face of the Bill. I suggested that the Government might bring forward their own amendment on Third Reading in this House or when the Bill proceeds to the other place. My noble friend has not tabled an amendment this afternoon. Can I take it that the search is still on? Will the Government be open to further suggestions that may be made to them on this matter in another place?
I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to the extent that they keep the discussion going. In most respects they closely resemble my amendment on Report. However, I do not think that they are satisfactory, if only because they still apply the public interest test, and from my reading of what the Government have said previously I do not believe that that is adequate. I shall, of course, listen with interest to what the Minister has to say but shall be surprised if for that reason alone he can accept the amendment.
In my view the Government have conceded a great deal. They have to go further in another place and find a legally satisfactory way of putting their assurances on the face of the Bill. The public interest test is not satisfactory for this House to insist upon at this stage. I believe that it would not be in the interests of farmers and the public to accept the amendment for the reason I have given. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment or, if he does, that the House will not agree to it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to raise a practical point rather than discuss the detail of the amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness who has just spoken will agree that farmers are in a most uncertain position at present. I have met a great many farmers recently—ordinary farmers rather than NFU officials—and they are extraordinarily worried about what exactly is to happen. Therefore, the more secure the Bill is so that they know exactly what will happen the better. If the amendment will help in that respect it would be a very good thing.
We have had the Milk Marketing Board, the Potato Marketing Board and the Wool Marketing Board for many years. Farmers have liked the security that they have provided and I appeal to the Government to see that nothing is done unless farmers know what is to follow.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships are being placed in an intolerable position unless the amendment is accepted. You are being asked to accept legislation by ministerial statement, not even by subordinate legislation.
As the noble Baroness explained, all along noble Lords have sought the affirmative resolution procedure, although your Lordships were prepared to accept less in the case of a scheme being introduced in consequence of an EC directive. In that case the House was content to accept that the negative resolution procedure, although a lesser parliamentary control, was appropriate. So far as there is any parliamentary control at all, the Bill establishes universal negative resolution procedure.
However, the noble Earl, who has handled the Bill so skilfully, has given an assurance. He said that the negative resolution procedure, which on the face of the Bill is universal, will be applied only in the case of pursuance of an EC directive. In all other cases the affirmative resolution procedure will be available. However, there is not a word of that on the face of the statute. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has already pointed out the adverse consequences.
The reason why we find ourselves in this extraordinary position of handing a Bill over to the other place in this defective condition is twofold. First, the ministry does not want parliamentary control. If it has to put up with parliamentary control it wants the minimum possible. I shall go into the recurrent excuses that have been made. The second reason is that we have been far too rushed in these final stages. In particular, your Lordships were alerted to the first of the many objections which the ministry successively raised only two working days before the Report stage. Between Report and today there has been only the minimum of the two weekends. When we read that Miss Whiplash had absconded, I expect that all noble Lords hoped that that meant a less harsh regime from the Government business managers—but that obviously will not come about.
Having had no time before Report stage, except by hurried telephone conversations, to resolve the

99
various objections that were put up, and today with no proper opportunity to examine the final position put forward by the Ministry, which is without foundation, your Lordships find yourselves discussing the very last stage of the Bill in this House.
The issue of ministerial objection to parliamentary control is not a matter for indignation. It is perfectly natural. Those of your Lordships who have served from both sides of the baize door know perfectly well what an appalling nuisance parliamentary proceedings are to an administrator wishing to get on with the job of administration. Therefore the Bill was introduced with no parliamentary control over the important decision as to the winding up of the Potato Marketing Board. At Committee that factor aroused universal condemnation. It was quite extraordinary. From every part of the Committee, voicing opinion from every part of the kingdom, your Lordships called for the affirmative resolution procedure.
Two days before Report stage, three of your Lordships received a communication from the Ministry putting up the first objection. It was said that a negative resolution procedure would be conceded. Examination must go on to see whether the department could go further. But there was an objection. The objection was the implementation of an EC directive, which would demand immediate action. It was stated that affirmative resolution did not vouchsafe that. It was then pointed out over the telephone that that was quite wrong: that a well-attested form of the affirmative resolution procedure—indeed, the first that is listed by Erskine May—takes immediate effect.
That objection having been shot down, the Ministry then had a second thought: that despite our own Minister being on the Council of Ministers and presumably able to influence timing, and despite the fact that the Brussels bureaucracy goes on holiday during the summer, it might be necessary to implement the Brussels directive when Parliament was riot sitting in the summer. It was then pointed out—again unfortunately only by telephone because the time limit was absolutely upon us by then—that there was also no validity in that objection, because the statute could provide that the affirmative resolution could be tabled and take immediate effect notwithstanding that neither House of Parliament was sitting.
By that time the Report stage was absolutely on us. However, the Minister, no doubt having seen that every objection thus far was untenable, made the offer to which 1 have referred; namely, that although the Bill provides only for the negative resolution procedure, nevertheless he would give an assurance that, that procedure would be used only in the case of an EC directive; in all the other cases the affirmative resolution procedure would be available. That is how we ended the Report stage and evidently how we enter Third Reading.
The final objection—which was expressed by letter, and verbally to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley—was that the legal advice was that it would be inadvisable to write the Minister's assurance onto the face of the Bill because it might then be subject to legal challenge on the meaning of the word "necessary". But again
100
there is absolutely nothing in that point. The answer is at the very outset of new Clause 22 which was tabled by the Government themselves. That states:
"If it appears to the Ministers that it is necessary",
and so on. That is in fact what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, provides.
That provision cannot be challenged at the time. There would be no delay. Theoretically it could conceivably he challenged on judicial review. But anyone successfully trying to challenge that provision would have to show that the Ministers had behaved unreasonably in tabling their regulations. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches hold firmly to the conviction that everything any Minister in this Government does is unreasonable. However, the generality of opinion does not go that far; and I have no hesitation in saying that the last objection put up by the Ministry has absolutely no legal foundation. That matter could have been resolved in a half hour's discussion if there had been time. However, we have been hustled on to this Third Reading. I state again that there is no foundation in that latest objection.
Why should we not accept the assurance of the noble Earl? The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has already given a reason. But there are other reasons too. A department can go back on an assurance. Departments have gone back on assurances. Your Lordships will remember the recent occasion of the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He gave an assurance to your Lordships' House that was not honoured by his department and he promptly and honourably resigned. Nevertheless, the dishonour of his assurance continued.
Another example was finalised in the last Session. That was the concession made reluctantly in the Education Reform Act 1988. Notwithstanding that concession and an amendment that was moved in pursuance of it, the Department of Education brought proceedings in the High Court and put forward an argument in support of them which, if accepted, would have driven a cart and horses through the amendment that had been made reluctantly and the assurances that had been given. Fortunately, that argument did not succeed, but it was not for want of trying.
The third example to show that these are not isolated instances comes from a recent case that has been determined by your Lordships sitting judicially. It arose out of an assurance given in 1976 by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the statutory provision in question would not cover a certain matter. Nevertheless, the Inland Revenue—and one sees its reasons, because to some extent fiscal equity prompted it—notwithstanding that assurance, raised assessments which were completely counter to what the Financial Secretary had said.
We dare not substitute ministerial assertions or assurances for parliamentary enactment. It is utterly wrong that we should be asked to pass a measure in this form. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, meets the point completely. He has been reasonable. He said he would be content if the noble Earl would accept it in substance and principle and play with the wording how he chooses. At Report

101
stage the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, also met the point quite satisfactorily and could perfectly well have been accepted. A ministerial assurance is no substitute for either of the amendments. It is no substitute for a parliamentary enactment. So I hope your Lordships will accept this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I take the liberty of addressing your Lordships not as a lawyer following the noble and learned Lord but as one who for a third of this century represented one of the largest farming constituencies in the country which, if I may so, grew some of the best main crop potatoes. It was brought to my attention time and again by farmers that there were two things that they wished most. One was certainty as to the conditions under which they were to farm in the future, preferably with plenty of notice being given. The other was that if a change were to be made in those conditions, they should have the opportunity of expressing their views about the changes.
As concerns those two matters, the Bill needs perhaps a little strengthening on the subject of consultation. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has made an attempt and touched on it today. On the matter of certainty, the Bill is frankly defective. The practical position which the Bill envisages and creates is that the present potato marketing scheme could be done away with, the Potato Marketing Board abolished and no other scheme and no successor board put in their place before anything has been agreed to replace our scheme within the common agricultural policy. That, I suggest to your Lordships, is the uncertainty which we should try to remove. It does not need a lawyer to say to your Lordships that when legislating we should try to create certainty of Parliament's intention and not create a vacuum, which is what we are doing on this occasion. That is principally what I wish to say.
The question of whether this group of amendments deals with matters adequately from the technical point of view is one which the Government must consider in the light of their legal advice. But from rather long experience of both Houses I must say that one cannot always rely upon the legal advice given to the Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has pointed out various matters about which we should be careful.
As to whether we should rely—because that is the suggestion—upon the recent decision of the House of Lords Judicial Committee that Hansard may be relied upon, I utter this warning. The committee said that Hansard should be relied upon when there was uncertainty. I do not believe that it went so far as to say—which is what would happen with the Bill—that it can also be relied upon to fill gaps in legislation. I am sure that that is not what the noble and learned Lords intended.
In any event, we all know from experience that Ministers have to change their minds during the course of a Bill, and sometimes have to correct
102
themselves, as did my noble friend Lord Howe honourably at Report stage, correcting something he had said at Committee stage. If that happens, let us not rely upon Hansard. Let us try to get the Bill right. Fortunately, although this is the last opportunity that we shall have in your Lordships' House to do that, the Bill has to go through another place and those defects or uncertainties will no doubt be noticed and discussed.
However, surely it would be much better if we could try to get it right today. I should have thought that the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and supported by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley are ones that the Government could well accept, even if they need to adjust them slightly for technical reasons at a later stage.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down and, with the leave of the House, I agree with all that he said, but I wonder whether he heard my comments over my anxiety that the public interest test should still be contained in the amendments. Does he really think, contrary to what the Government have so far said, that the public interest test is adequate in this case and that therefore we can accept the amendments? That is where my doubt lies. Can he comment on that?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should have thought that it was desirable on many occasions that we should make specific reference to the public interest, but it is not necessary to do that if the same purpose is achieved by other means. It seems to me that the amendments achieve that purpose and, therefore, with deep respect to my noble friend, whose speech very much impressed me, I believe that we can overemphasise the public interest in the matter.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I have thought long and hard about the whole issue of potato marketing since the Second Reading of this Bill in November. My reaction to the part of the Bill dealing with potatoes at Second Reading was that I welcomed the measure to free up the market for potatoes, to see the end of the so-called managed market. I have to say that when I made that statement I little knew what uproar I was about to unleash, and since then I have been subjected to intense lobbying by two sides of the industry, the producers in the form of the Potato Marketing Board and the customers in the form of processors—both the trade association and individual processing companies. Noble Lords will note that I have not been lobbied by consumers or by those who are closest to the consumers—namely, the retailers.
I shall return to this point as I believe that the role of the retailers is just as important as that of the producers and the processors in the marketing of potatoes, and it is marketing that we are dealing with. Without an efficient, effective marketing and merchandising retail distribution system there would be little future for United Kingdom potatoes.
The two main problems in agricultural marketing in this country are the inability to produce what the consumer actually wants, and the propensity to import what we can and could easily produce here. I

103
drew attention to the import problem at Second Reading at col. 830 of Hansard of 23rd November. Subsequently it was pointed out that there had been a huge improvement in the trade gap in potatoes, and I was grateful to the Potato Marketing Board for giving me that information. Imports had been significantly reduced, and I referred to that at the Report stage. However, the picture is really not what it seems. There is confusion concerning the statistics for imports.
The Potato Marketing Board quotes an import figure of some 88,000 tonnes, down from 374,000 tonnes in 1989, which is commendable. However, the processors tell me that, in addition to the 88,000 tonnes imported, some 540,000 tonnes (raw equivalent) of potatoes are imported, and they maintain that that is because of the "managed market". It seems that the Potato Marketing Board does not regard a potato as being a potato if it is peeled, chipped, frozen, converted into hash browns or potato powder and flakes used in instant mashed potatoes.
Suffice it to say, I feel that there is merit in the processors' argument that the continued operation of what they say is a managed market is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom balance of trade, nor of the consumer, let alone in the long-term interests of the producers.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a strong plea for certainty for farmers. Certainty is a commodity that is not present in any economic or commercial activity. None of us can have certainty. We must try to ensure a viable future for our activities, no matter what area we operate in, and put the consumer first. I fear that the consumer is not being put first in the marketing of potatoes in this country. The Minister has told us that he is still consulting on the best way forward. He will continue to consult unless forced into a different line of action by the European Community. There are no current plans to abolish the potato marketing system unless an EC regime intervenes. In those circumstances, I feel I must support the Minister and oppose the amendment.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he is also likely to consult the retailers. I would remind the Minister that it was due to the activities of a supermarket chain—not the one with which I am associated, I hasten to add—that the consumer became aware of the fact that there were potatoes other than King Edwards or Reds, and that certain potatoes were better for baking than others and certain potatoes better for chipping. The retailers have helped to segment and expand the market, and I feel that the Minister would benefit from their input in this complicated issue. I would welcome the Minister's comments on this suggestion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in considering the consumers' interest, does she think that it would be to the benefit of the consumer that the Potato Marketing Board—which incidentally does not ignore consumer interests—should be abolished and not be replaced by anything at all, or that there should perhaps be a wide time span before some other regime comes into force? Would that be in the consumers' interest?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am not so sure about the consumers' interest. At the moment I do not think that the consumer is necessarily getting the best deal. I certainly do not think in terms of UK Limited, if one can make that comment, that we are getting the best deal through the operation of the Potato Marketing Board. At least, as has been pointed out to me—and the figures speak for themselves in terms of imports—I do not think that a free-for-all, abolishing the Potato Marketing Board without any other regime coming in, is likely to be of benefit to anybody, but I do not think that that is at issue.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, it is a long time since I grew potatoes. I dare say that my noble friend Lord Stanley may recall buying some seed potatoes from me some 40 or 50 years ago. However, it is not inappropriate for me to speak fairly soon after my noble friend Lord Renton. He is correct in saying that the county of Huntingdon grew, and still grows, some of the best ware potatoes that are going, supplied, as he well knows, by the best of seed potatoes from Scotland. In my day I remember sending many of them by rail to various stations in Huntingdon.
This afternoon I want briefly to follow my noble friend in the plea he made for an end to uncertainty. The noble Baroness said that to ask for certainty is to ask for far too much. I agree with her. I cannot think of any time since I started farming when I have enjoyed absolute certainty; one is up against weather factors and other things. But one can have a situation, without having certainty, in which one need not have total uncertainty. If there is one thing that is gripping the countryside and the farming community today it is the total uncertainty as to what is in the Government's mind for the future of the potato scheme.
It would seem to be a perfectly simple situation. Here my noble friend Lord Renton on Report asked a perfectly straightforward question: do the Government want to abolish the scheme? It seems an easy question to answer, but having once been a Minister I can well imagine that it is just the sort of question to which a Minister does not want to answer yes or no. In this he was voicing the doubts and the misgivings, and I am quite sure the misunderstandings, that are so widespread. In reply my noble friend said, "We have no current plans to abolish the scheme as a matter of government policy". That is the sort of answer that I very well recollect. What would have been much better—and I wonder whether it is still not possible—would have been to say, "By and large we think the scheme is a good one." The Minister properly said, "There is a strong chance"—that was as high as he put it—"that our hand may be forced by the introduction of a Community regime."
In saying the latter could he not make clear that the United Kingdom Government would much prefer to keep the scheme, or a large part of it, and that they would do their best to advocate the merits of the scheme if pressure came from Brussels?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way for a moment. I do not like

105
to say, but I believe that he is discussing the following two amendments rather than Amendment No. 3, which deals with a specific point moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, if so I express my deep apologies. As I have only one more point to make, it may be better that I do so now and remain silent when it becomes relevant. On the radio yesterday morning there was an interview with the Scottish Minister arising out of a lobby that took place a week ago. The interviewer asked the Minister about the potato marketing scheme. The answer was, "The Scottish Office is keen that it should continue; we are doing our best to see that it does."
Earl Howe: My Lords, these linked amendments essentially seek to refine the new Clause 22 agreed on Report, first, by stating on the face of the Bill that an order under Clause 22 should be subject to negative resolution procedure only if Ministers were of the opinion that it was necessary for the potato marketing scheme to be brought to an end because its continued existence would be inconsistent with an EC potato regime. Secondly, Ministers could not make such an order before the Council of the European Community had decided to introduce an EC potato regime unless Ministers considered that revocation of the scheme was necessary or in the public interest.
On the first point, let me make the present position quite clear. The Agriculture Bill, as we amended it on Report, does not define the circumstances in which an order under Clause 22 will be subject to negative resolution procedure rather than affirmative resolution procedure. However, I have given repeated undertakings that the Government will have recourse to negative resolution procedure only where it is necessary for them to act pursuant to the introduction of an EC potato regime.
At Report stage I asked the House to accept those assurances, together with the government amendments, as a totality. But I also undertook to reflect on the comments made by noble Lords in our debates on the amendments tabled at that time by my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lady Carnegy.
The problem with putting my undertakings on the face of the Bill is that there could in the event be scope for argument and hence possible legal challenge as to what constitutes an obligation. That scope for argument must be minimised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that there was no foundation to that point. He pointed to the existing wording at the start of Clause 22. But the amendment would extend the scope or the possibility of a legal challenge to the basis of Ministers' actions.
The present wording of Clause 22 also allows Ministers to act if it is expedient so to do. Ministers will have to take a view on what an EC regulation —not a directive—obliges them to do. There may be scope for a legal challenge to that assessment. It is not desirable that action should be held up for two years while the matter is resolved in the European Court.
An EC regulation will be directly binding on the United Kingdom but the precise nature of the
106
obligations which it might impose cannot be predicted accurately at this stage. If there were any possibility of protracted delay arising from a legal challenge to government action, or for other reasons which have been discussed at length, then the Government might have to take action under the European Communities Act. That would preclude the possibility of the Potato Marketing Board passing assets to a successor body —an objective which I believe commands the support of the House. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Renton, that that is the principal danger of accepting the amendments.
I should like also to comment on that part of the amendment which precludes Ministers from revoking a potato marketing scheme before the introduction of an EC potato regime unless they consider it necessary or in the public interest. That brings us back to the debate over the difference between "expedient" and "in the public interest". I have repeatedly said that Ministers would not and could not act on a whim. But should Ministers decide to revoke the scheme otherwise than in the context of an EC regime, then that decision would be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. I suggest that it is at that stage that we could debate whether or not the decision is expedient or in the public interest.
The Government are consulting industry at the moment. We have genuinely not come to a view. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Renton, that is the reason why there are no current plans by the Government to revoke the potato marketing scheme.
The Bill is purely an enabling Bill. As I have said on numerous occasions, Ministers would not take lightly any decision to revoke the scheme. In coming to such a decision any number of considerations would be taken into account, including the interests of processors and retailers—to answer the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. To answer her further, we are consulting a number of retailers, including the British Retail Consortium, the Co-operative Union, the British Potato Trade Consortium and the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades among others.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether what I said at Report stage was correct in regard to EC law prevailing over UK law. It was correct, which is why I did not write to him. The noble Lord also mentioned Maastricht. Maastricht makes no difference to this matter at all. EC law has primacy over UK law. Should Parliament fail to approve an order to enable the UK to come into line with its obligations, nevertheless those obligations would exist. Any rights of individuals flowing from those obligations would be upheld by the courts, including if necessary the European Court. That is why I mentioned earlier that we would want to avoid the possibility of a lengthy delay through the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the question of subsidiarity. The EC Commission proposals constitute a single market measure. There is therefore no place for subsidiarity in them. Potatoes would be produced and marketed across one

107
inter-related marketplace. It is not surprising that the Commission's proposals exclude any provision for the continuation of national regimes.
As I explained, the Government cannot and should not be bound by the provisions of the amendments. To answer my noble friend Lady Carnegy, I am certain that the debate on these questions will continue in another place. For the time being, and for the reasons that I have spelt out at some length, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to think again about the amendment and withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. It clearly goes to the heart of the problem of uncertainty mentioned by so many of your Lordships. The fact is that the Minister has failed to answer the principal reason for bringing forward the amendments. There is great anxiety both in industry and in this House that as the Bill stands the Government can wind up the potato marketing scheme by resolution as soon as the Bill becomes law and before we know the outcome of the negotiations in Europe regarding the use of the potato regime.
We have heard the Minister's assurance—to which I shall turn later—but this is the central point. If we leave the Bill as it is and do not attempt to redraft by placing on the face of the Bill what the Government say they want to do and what we all want them to do —which is to make sure that there is not a gap between the passing of the Bill and the negotiation of the European potato regime which is filled by the Government using the affirmative resolution to wind up the potato marketing scheme—chaos and uncertainty would result.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, put the point exactly. We are being asked to legislate by ministerial statement and by ministerial assurance. The noble and learned Lord gave an excellent summary of the legal position. He said that there is absolutely no legal foundation for the argument that the Minister has produced. We all know that Ministers give assurances—and of course they mean them when they give them. But as the noble and learned Lord said, we dare not accept that as enough.
Perhaps I may give an example to add to the one given by the noble and learned Lord. I was involved in the passing of the National Health Service and Community Care Act. We had an assurance from the Minister on the question of ring-fencing. We were told that the money ring-fenced for mental health would be protected. We have learnt in the past few months that that assurance has been cast aside.
We have to attempt to get on to the face of the Bill the points which we want to see. The amendments may not be perfectly drafted. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about the public interest. One could find alternative words. But there is a chance here for the Minister to take the amendment away and redraft it in another place if he accepts the principles of the argument. I am afraid to say that in his answer he did not seem to do so.
There is uncertainty in farming at the moment. It is a desperate situation. We should not be adding to it by
108
accepting on the face of the Bill a clause which I am sure, if they turned their minds to it, the Government could amend. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that she is sure that it is not intended to abolish the potato marketing scheme before we have a regime from Europe. But that is exactly what could happen. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent that happening.
The noble Earl the Minister referred to the possibility of a legal challenge and we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that he does not accept that. I am sure that the Minister's heart is in the right place. But it is always the way that the Government or the department will rely on the legal argument. He said that there are no current plans. That could change tomorrow. There could be a change of circumstance and the Minister could come forward and say, "In the light of what Ministers regard as necessary, we have changed our minds and we will revoke the potato marketing scheme". They would then bring forward an affirmative resolution, which of course could only be accepted or rejected. It could not be amended.
I was prepared to take the amendments away if the Minister had been prepared to accept the principle and to amend the Bill in another place. He is determined not to do that. He is resting entirely on this legal argument which, as we have heard from noble Lords who know the law better than I do, does not stand up. For those reasons I intend to ask the opinion of the House.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Addington, L.

David, B.

Adrian, L.

Devonshire, D.

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Donoughue, L.

Alport, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ennals, L.

Aylestone, L.

Erroll, E.

Banks, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkender, B.

Birk, B.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Boardman, L.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Geraint, L.

Bridges, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cobbold, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Healey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Congleton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

109

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Howell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hughes, L.

Renton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Richard, L.

Hylton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jacques, L.

Rochester, L.

Jay, L.

Russell, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jeger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Shannon, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Kintore, E.

Shepherd, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Listowel, E.

Stallard, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tenby, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Varley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wharton, B.

Mulley, L.

White, B.

Nelson, E.

Wigoder, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Winstanley, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Wise, L.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Addison, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Annaly, L.

Davidson, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Denham, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Arran, E.

Elibank, L.

Astor, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elles, B.

Auckland, L.

Elton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Birdwood, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gainford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bramall, L.

Geddes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gridley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hacking, L.

Butterworth, L.

Haig, E.

Cadman, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Caldecote, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnock, L.

Harvington, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cawley, L.

Headfort, M.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hemphill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hives, L.

Cranborne, V.

Holderness, L.

Crathorne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Hood, V.

110

Hooper, B.

Quinton, L.

Hothfield, L.

Reay, L.

Howe, E.

Rennell, L.

Huntly, M.

Renwick, L.

Ironside, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Romney, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Knollys, V.

Saint Levan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Leigh, L.

Savile, L.

Lindsay, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Margadale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Marsh, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Swansea, L.

Mottistone, L.

Terrington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ullswater, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wakeham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Westbury, L.

Porritt, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Prentice, L.

Wynford, L.

Pym, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 13, line 2, at end insert:
("(2B) Subject to subsection (1A) above, no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Application for approval]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.5:
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("may,") and insert ("shall, subject to any poll of registered producers that may be carried out under section 36 below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. At Report stage I promised to study what your Lordships and my noble friend had said in reply to Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B and to try to put those thoughts into an amendment that would be acceptable. The result is the two linked amendments, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I hope that they remove the uncertainty felt within the industry and so strongly deplored in our debates.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that should the Government decide to do away with the present marketing board, they will be committed to allowing a successor body, and to suggest what role that successor body should have, subject to the provisions of Clause 36. Your Lordships will note that these amendments are slightly different from those tabled in Committee and indeed at Report stage to take account, as I said, of your Lordships' views and

111
in particular of my noble friend's remarks, at col. 1096 of the Official Report, when he said that as regards any successor body,
"in the end it is for the industry to decide what it wants."
Following my noble friend's remarks, it has been pointed out to me that the producers might wish to wind up the board and have its assets distributed. That could be done by having a poll under Clause 36, hence the reason for my Amendment No. 5. I very much hope that producers will not be so stupid as to do that. But I acknowledge my noble friend's point that they should be given that option.
Amendment No.6 spells out the role which any successor body might have. That appears in paragraphs (i) to (v). I should make it clear that these matters are for the Potato Marketing Board to consider when preparing a successor scheme or schemes, as detailed in paragraph (c) of my amendment whereas paragraph (d) puts a duty on the Government to consult before authorising any such scheme.
The duty under paragraph (d) of my amendment is the same as in Clause 3 of the Bill. What the Government considered necessary for milk must be even more necessary for potatoes, not least, because we have had minimal discussion on potatoes as opposed to that on milk which has been going on for a year or so.
Most of the roles suggested for any successor body were mentioned at Report, in particular by my noble friend at col. 1096 and indeed by my honourable friend Mr Curry in another place on 28th January, at col. 1133. However, I got the impression from reading that exchange that my honourable friend would prefer to scrap the potato board and to have nothing in its place. I hope that my noble friend will be able to correct my naturally suspicious and cynical thoughts.
I cannot conclude without mentioning the negotiations now going on with regard to a possible European potato regime, not least because it was discussed at Report stage. This amendment would not force our Minister to write all the roles mentioned in this amendment into a subsidiarity regime for the United Kingdom which I understand is on offer. But it would morally oblige the Government to work for such a subsidiarity clause for the United Kingdom. For the life of me I cannot see why my right honourable friend would not want to do so. It must be in Great Britain's interest to do our own thing when Brussels gives us permission to do so.
If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment I believe that the potato industry will be forced to the conclusion that my right honourable friend wants to get rid of the United Kingdom's Potato Marketing Board and put nothing in its place despite the fact that the European Commission is offering us the ability to do so. Nothing could be so damaging to confidence, as has been said strongly by my noble friend, and that is what we are lacking in the industry at the moment. Confidence is at a very low ebb—and not only in the potato industry. Confidence is at a low ebb throughout what I am sorry to have to say remains of a once proud and efficient farming industry.
The amendment would give confidence by showing that the Government are prepared, if it is in the public interest, to put in place a creditable successor body to the Potato Marketing Board. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to the amendment and to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who has expressed the position extremely well. As he said, the amendment seeks to deal with the clear situation in which the Potato Marketing Board is to be wound up (whether as a result of an EC regulation or otherwise). The amendment deals with the preparation of a transfer scheme, which is the subject of Clause 24.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are intended to determine what will happen; what kind of successor body, if any, should be established; and what functions it should have. There are two scenarios. Let us suppose that the producers do not want a successor body but would prefer to distribute the assets of the Potato Marketing Board. That is one scenario. The alternative, which I think is much more likely, is that they will want a successor body and will want to have a say in the functions of that successor body.
The amendments are intended to achieve a clear statement of what I would describe as "the order of play". First, the board has to decide on the nature of the transfer scheme that it wants. The Minister has said on a number of occasions at previous stages in our consideration of the Bill that he is content that the board has contacts with producers and that it can speak for the industry. The board should then put this matter to producers in a poll. We have discussed Clause 36 a number of times previously and, as we know, it is not a mandatory poll. The board is able to decide whether to have a poll and is not constrained by the results of the poll. However, if it wishes the producers to decide on the nature of the transfer scheme, the board should put this to producers in a poll and, if the poll is satisfactory and the answer is yes, the board shall then bring forward a scheme with the functions which are set out in Amendment No. 6. So, the producers will have a chance to decide whether there should be a transfer scheme; and, if so, under Amendment No. 6, to decide what scheme it should be.
However, there is a drafting problem with Clause 36 and I think that we should have tabled a consequential amendment. I refer to Clause 36(1) (a) and (b), referring to a poll
"for the making of any application".
that is to say, where the poll is to determine whether there should be an application in relation to a transfer scheme. Clause 36(1) continues:
"or (b) for the making of an application under that section in relation to a particular scheme".
I believe that the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a) should be amended to "and" to avoid the necessity of holding two polls. If the Minister feels disposed to accept the amendments, perhaps he will deal with that point. It is a consequence and is necessary if we are to avoid the Potato Marketing Board having to conduct two polls—first, to see whether there should be a transfer scheme; and, secondly, to determine the nature of the scheme.

113
As I have said, there are two alternatives. The first is that when the situation is put to the producers, they vote no. They will then have the money, and the assets of the board will be distributed. If they vote yes, which is much more likely, the board shall then "have regard to"—we have discussed that phrase often enough at previous stages —the functions set out in Amendment No. 6.
Therefore, this group of amendments gives the maximum flexibility to the board and producers. It takes advantage of and builds on the permissive rather than the mandatory nature of Clause 36 which, as we know, deals with the producers' poll. Clause 36(2) gives the board the right to exercise its judgment about the results of the poll. Amendment No. 6 clearly states the functions which should be considered in the drafting of a transfer scheme and paragraph (d) deals with the important point about the consultation that will be necessary. I am sure that the Minister will recognise the wording of paragraph (d), which has been taken from a previous clause dealing with the milk marketing boards.
If I had to give my own preference for the successor bodies or transfer scheme that should emerge, it would be for a development council to be funded by statutory levy, with a strong producers' co-operative and perhaps a "potato mark" or a federation of co-operatives. That is the outcome that I should like to see. However, we should leave it to the producers and the board to come forward (as a result of a poll) with the kind of scheme that they want. Ministers should accept—as they did in earlier clauses relating to the milk boards—the description of the functions which is set out in Amendment No. 6. If the amendments were accepted, that would clear up the remainder of the confusion and uncertainty which exists in the industry, which has at least partly been put to rest as a result of the decision of the House on the previous amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like others of your Lordships I am strongly in favour of the consultation provisions of the Bill being emphasised, and indeed tightened. I am strongly in favour of Amendment No. 6, which is a great improvement on Clause 25 although it goes into rather more detail than I often like to see in a Bill.
I am also in favour of the principle behind Amendment No. 5; but I feel obliged to mention one small drafting point. The expression "subject to" inserted where it is intended in Clause 24 would make subsection (1) read,
"The Board shall, subject to any poll of registered producers that may be carried out under section 36 below, at any time before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day specified by order under section 22 above, apply to the Ministers".
The board should have an obligation to apply. That would fill in one of the gaps in the Bill, which would be desirable. However, I wonder whether the expression "subject to" is the correct expression there. I should have thought that the correct expression should be (and this could easily be made the subject of an amendment in the other place if the principle is agreed by your Lordships) "shall, while having regard
114
to the result of any poll". I think that that is what my noble friend means and what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intended. However, subject to that and because this is an important question of principle, I would vote for Amendment No. 5 in the Division Lobby if it should come to that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley about the effect of the amendment because I am not sure that I am clear about it or whether the House is clear about it. I realise that my noble friend's intention is to increase the possibilities for producers subsequent to the winding up of the board. However, as things stand at present, I am advised that under either the 1958 Act or the European Communities Act, the revocation of the potato marketing scheme would mean for producers a clear expectation that the assets would be distributed to them. That expectation —that all assets would go to the producers—exists now. The present Act does nothing to reduce that expectation. It still exists.
However, what the present Act does provide is an option. Through the board the producers can choose that some of the assets go to the successor board for the benefit of the industry. That provision exists now. In effect, the amendment would mean that that distribution of assets could not happen until there had been a poll. The automatic expectation is removed. There would have to be a poll and the producers would have to vote against the assets going to a successor body in order for them to get those assets direct. Does my noble friend understand what I am saying? I hope that I made myself clear. It seems to me that an impediment is being put in the way of the producers. A poll comes between them and their obtaining the assets direct. My noble friend needs to answer that point when he replies.
5 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of the amendment spoken to by my noble friend. I shall start by emphasising the virtues of Amendment No. 6 to Clause 25 which will provide guidance for the board on the consultation it is to carry out and, under paragraph (b), the fact that Ministers must consult. It is along the lines of the provision in the Bill relating to the PMB, so I should not have thought that it was controversial. I wish to emphasise the need for consultation, as did my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. There has not been enough consultation. Too many snap judgments have been made.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say on Report that growers could largely choose what future arrangements they made to succeed the PMB. However, his right honourable friend the Minister in another place does not look as though he will help them greatly. He does not appear to be considering derogation or subsidiarity, despite the climatic differences in different parts of Europe which might cause difficulties for potato growing. I am dubious about another of the Minister's views which seems to be that we have so many natural advantages for

115
potato growing that we should grow as many acres of potatoes as we like. That will prove to be too simplistic. It is against the trend in other crops. While the amendment does not refer to quotas, some form of supply management will need to be considered in the consultations. I understand that French and Spanish growers are thinking in terms of quotas. It would be nice to avoid them but, nevertheless, that is the way they are thinking.
The Dutch—I wish that we were in their shoes—have four growers' co-operatives. I have no doubt that they can put forward a policy and influence production levels where necessary. It puts them in a position of being able to plan logically. That approach seems to be more organised.
The problem in the UK is a noticeably large difference between wholesale and retail prices. Retail prices are disappointingly high, despite low producer prices. The four integrated co-operatives in Holland may be why Holland's potato growing is so successful. I do not believe that success for us will come through abolition of the PMB with nothing put in its place. That point must be emphasised as much as possible. I should prefer to see us go down the road the Dutch have gone, but that would take a long time to achieve.
I must end by saying, rather brutally, that I do not believe that producer-bashing is necessarily the best way to benefit consumers. Potato growing is a gamble. The danger is that we shall make that gamble too risky. If we do that, there will be no investment and growers will not continue. The abolition of the PMB without putting anything in its place will prove to be se] f-defeating.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the whole tenor and purpose of the Bill in allowing the potato industry, if it so wishes, to establish a successor body or bodies to the Potato Marketing Board is to allow the industry the maximum flexibility in what it proposes. Criteria against which any scheme will be judged are clearly laid down in Clause 25, but beyond that, it is entirely up to the board to decide on its course of action.
Amendment No. 5 flies in the face of that flexibility. It says that the board must apply for a transfer scheme, unless producers tell it in a poll not to do so. Of course, I share my noble friend's desire to see a successor body in place, but we surely cannot tie the hands of the board in that way. It is the Government's view that the industry must decide its own future. It is not for government to prescribe, as the amendment does, what that future must be. And there is another, more practical point. What would happen if a poll of producers wanted a successor scheme, but economic analysis or some other factor proved that such a scheme would not be viable? What would happen if no poll were held and it was found similarly that a scheme was impossible to evolve? This would put the board in an impossible situation. I have to say also, that that appears to be a back-door method of constraining the board to take account of the results of a poll, however unrepresentative that poll might be. That goes directly against Clause 36(2), about which we spoke at length both in Committee and on Report.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that the Government should ensure that there is a successor
116
body. The effect of the House voting in favour of Amendment No. 3 is to increase to some extent the chances of the Government having to proceed under the powers of the European Communities Act. As I said, the Government are favourably disposed towards the idea of a development council as a successor to the PMB; so we shall seek to avoid having to act under the European Communities Act, if at all possible. Unfortunately, I am less able to give an assurance that the board will have an opportunity to establish a successor than I was half an hour ago.
However, those considerations aside, I do not believe that it is any of our business to be laying down the law—literally—to the board. Equally, even if we did consider it our business, we could leave the boards in an impossible position if we tied their hands in the manner suggested by the amendment. The right and practical way forward is to leave the board to judge how best to proceed. That enabling approach is the right one. It is the basis of this part of the Bill. I hope that the siren voices around me will not deflect the House from that view.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his clear exposition of Amendment No. 6. I believe that I well understand the purposes behind it. First, it seeks to define various aspects of a successor scheme which are desirable, and to encourage the board to include them in a scheme.
Secondly, it obliges Ministers to consult with representatives of the industry and of consumers before approving a scheme. It is therefore intended to ensure that desirable features of the present marketing scheme are continued in a way acceptable to all involved with potatoes, whether growing them, selling them, making them into processed products or just eating them. I have no quarrel with that. It lies behind the whole thrust of the Bill. Nor do I have any quarrel with the desirable features listed in paragraph (c), with one notable exception. But I cannot for the life of me see why we need this amendment to achieve these things.
Once again, it seems to me that we are trying to place a straitjacket on the industry when the whole tenor of this Bill is to allow the industry to make its own decisions. Indeed, the amendment itself seems to acknowledge this in its opening paragraph:
"the Board has had regard to the desirability of proposing such arrangements as it considers would be likely".
In other words, we are leaving it to the board to decide both on likelihood and desirability.
What is the amendment really achieving? It provides a list of desirable activities. Four of these —research and development, promotion, collection of statistics and providing a discussion forum—are all in the ambit of a development council. There is no argument about that. I cannot imagine that we need to prescribe them here in order for the industry to be aware of them. But, once again, it must be for the industry to decide what it wants. The first feature, however, is different:
"schemes for the orderly marketing of potatoes".
Such schemes within a scheme seem to me to be fraught with danger. There seems to be the possibility of the re-introduction of marketing controls, which would certainly not be appropriate to a development

117
council and would very likely be vulnerable under both domestic and Community competition law. No, my Lords, that will not do.
In sum, I do not see what this amendment contributes, and I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down and with the leave of the House, he said that a scheme might fail because it does not stand up to economic analysis. Surely, if that were the case it would be met by Clause 25(3)(a), which states that the Government must satisfy themselves that the scheme is in the public interest. Clearly, if a scheme failed an economic analysis then it would not be in the public interest. If that is the case, Clause 25 comes into play and the scheme would have to be rejected. Therefore, I believe that the Minister's argument is answered in the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that that follows. On a face of it a scheme might appear to be in the public interest but when the sums are added up it may not be in the interests of a particular sector. However, I take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton answered the question posed to me by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The 1958 Act does as my noble friend Lady Carnegy suggests, hence Amendment No. 5. It gives an option. But what is the impediment or the problem in having a delay of perhaps two or three months, particularly when interest rates are alleged to be going to 3 per cent.? I cannot see that that is a great worry and it means that the whole scheme would be subject to more democratic decisions.
The Minister spoke about maximum flexibility. I am all for maximum flexibility but it seems to me that in the Government's mind that means to do nothing: flexibility not to produce any scheme at all. Amendment No. 6 in particular gives a guide to what might be in store for us.
I am not particularly worried about the thoughts or problems of the Potato Marketing Board. I am sure that it can solve its own problems. I am interested in the growers and consumers. They are looking for a guide. This amendment seeks to give them that.
My noble friend does not like orderly marketing. I am surprised that he does not like orderly marketing because I thought we all liked it. He jumps to conclusions. I give one other example of what orderly marketing might do. It might well negotiate between producers and processors about which he is so worried. He should not be worried, but I shall not go into that now.
The amendment may be technically incorrect. I take the point made by noble friend Lord Renton that Amendment No. 5 may be incorrectly drafted. However, I have been in your Lordships' House for nearly 20 years and I have sent on many amendments from here to another place and they have always been returned amended. However imperfect may be the drafting of the amendment, your Lordships may be
118
sure that government draftsmen will have another crack at it. Sometimes they make rather a mess of it. Therefore, I have no qualms about sending the amendment on to another place. Indeed, it is your Lordships' duty to do so. This is a problem. Every noble Lord has said that he is worried and it is good for another place to hear that we are worried and that we are passing on not necessarily our anxieties but those of producers and consumers. For that reason, I must ask for the opinion of the House.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Addington, L.

Healey, L.

Adrian, L.

Hertford, M.

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alport, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hooson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Banks, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birk, B.

Jay, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Cobbold, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Congleton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Devonshire, D.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nelson, E.

Erroll, E.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Palmer, L.

Falkender, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Gregson, L.

Russell, E.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hampton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Serota, B.

119

Shackleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Shannon, E.

Underhill, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Varley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stedman, B.

Wharton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

White, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hives, L.

Addison, V.

Holderness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Annaly, L.

Hothfield, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Huntly, M.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bessborough, E.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marsh, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cadman, L.

Moyne, L.

Caithness, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Caldecote, V.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cawley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Pender, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Coleraine, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cox, B.

Prentice, L.

Cranborne, V.

Quinton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Reay, L.

Cross, V.

Rees, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Davidson, V.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Downshire, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elibank, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Stewartby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Flather, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goschen, V.

Swansea, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hacking, L.

Ullswater, V.

Haig, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vivian, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wakeham, L.

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Wynford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Young, B.

Henley, L.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.26 p.m.
Clause 25 [Determination of application]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert:
("(c) that in preparing the scheme for approval the Board has had regard to the desirability of proposing such arrangements as it considers would be likely to ensure the continuation or introduction by one or more successor bodies of:

(i) schemes for the orderly marketing of potatoes including market intelligence, and the identification of market opportunities,

(ii) research and development,

(iii) the generic promotion of potatoes,

(iv) the collection of statistics on the potato industry, and

(v) a forum for discussion of matters of common interest to producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes, and

(d) that they have consulted about the principles of the scheme such persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes as they consider appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Wool guarantee]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 23, line 19, at end insert
("() Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section 2 of the Agriculture Act 1957, in relation to wool the guaranteed price determined for the guarantee periods beginning in the years 1993 and 1994 shall not be less than 81 per cent and 77 per cent respectively (calculated in accordance with section 2 of the said Act) of the corresponding price determined for the guarantee period beginning in the year 1992.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 with which Amendment No. 7 is grouped. Amendment No. 7 seeks a gentle phasing out of the wool guarantee with complete removal at the end of the 1994 clip year; that is to say, at 30th April 1995, rather than its sudden termination at 30th April 1993. The British Wool Marketing Board hopes for some recovery in the world market by 1995. I am advised that early in 1992 Ministry of Agriculture officials were sympathetic to the phasing out of the guarantee and at the annual wool guarantee review meeting in February officials were urged to continue technical discussions about the scheme. A general election, however, changes many things and it appears that this was one of the changes which has resulted from that election.
The amendment provides for cuts in the guarantee of 19 per cent. for the 1993 clip year and a further 5 per cent. in the 1994 clip year, leading to a guarantee of 95p per kilogram and 90p per kilogram respectively. This would reduce the guarantee cost from about £26 million to about £12.5 million in 1993–94 and to about £7.5 million in 1994–95 assuming a modest increase in market prices. Both in Committee and on Report the Minister made much of the modest nature of wool receipts as part of producers' incomes. I believe the figure of 5 per cent. was mentioned at that time. Living

121
at or about the margin, however, can make 5 per cent. significant. We have Mr. Micawber's authority for that.
In another place the noble Earl's right honourable friend the Minister when questioned about reductions in hill livestock compensatory allowances said that hill farmers had received increases in income because of additional payments for each ewe. He said, however, that:
"lowland sheep farmers are facing particularly tough problems".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/93; col. 1137.]
This amendment seeks to mitigate the position of both hill and lowland farmers. The Bill provides for continuance of the British Wool Marketing Board, and we on these Benches are grateful for that. The amendment seeks to give the board a chance to survive during abnormal market conditions and perhaps add modestly to reserves in the meantime. The smooth flow of wool to primary processors is basic to the board's continuance. The value of wool textile exports exceeds £700 million and British wool plays a large part in this.
If more wool is purchased abroad the balance of payments will be worse off as a result. Furthermore, the industry does not want to jeopardise its restructuring process which it has found particularly painful. Abnormal world stocks have built up since the 1988 decision to end the guarantee. This modest amendment aims to give farmers, the British Wool Marketing Board and primary producers a slightly longer period to adjust to a situation not of their making and to do so at modest cost. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend Lord Howe that I am most unhappy about this matter. The removal of the guarantee could hardly have occurred at a worse moment because the price of wool is so low. Wool may well be dumped on the market in any kind of condition and not in an orderly manner; that is, not properly graded, and so forth. That has already happened elsewhere on the continent and chaotic conditions have arisen. It is also extremely bad news because of the possibility of damage resulting to the high reputation of British wool that has been built up over a long period thanks to the operations of the board. On the textile industry's side it is not good news at all.
As far as producers are concerned, what is so appalling is that the wool price is likely to get so low that a situation may be reached where there is no economic justification to shear at all. I suppose that in the end some may not be able to afford to shear their sheep. If so, that will have serious implications for animal welfare. Even if the situation is not as bad as that, while wool may be a very small percentage of the gross output from sheep nevertheless the margin on the production of lamb is so small that wool looms a lot larger than might otherwise be the case.
It may be that there was a decision in 1988 to do away with the wool guarantee and that it all ought to have been decided then and no alterations made. But the position now is not as foreseen; it is very bad
122
indeed, although the general view is that it is likely to improve in a few years' time. It is a matter of tiding over the situation. It is difficult to persuade me otherwise than to take the view that it is wise to forget the 1988 decision and by this amendment phase out the guarantee over three years. That seems to me to be a very reasonable compromise.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend replies he will say whether the Government have considered the knock-on effect of the immediate loss of guarantee. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles has pointed out that there may be a balance of payments and unemployment problem in its industry. I apologise to the House—I hope I will not be called out of order—in that I misled it by saying that Amendment No. 6 was consequential when I should have said that I had already spoken to it and begged to move. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me, particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench who has been so patient.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I do not think I need to add much to what I said in support of these amendments at Report stage, except to say that if the Government do not accept them it will be a classic example of civil servants and the Government completely failing to understand the rudiments of farming. I fear it also shows how completely out of touch they are with the real world. Long-term planning is essential in farming. Many farmers will have bought sheep in September, or indeed as far back as the previous September, and based their calculations on the guaranteed price. It simply is not fair, with the stroke of a pen and at a moment's notice, to cut off the hand that feeds the nation. In view of the substantial cuts recently announced in hill livestock compensatory allowances it is hard to see a worse choice of time to bring the wool guarantee to a most abrupt end. I beg to support the amendments.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, in 1988 there was a flourishing marketing system run by the British Wool Marketing Board. A unilateral decision was then made by the British Government. Mr. John Gummer announced in the other place that the guaranteed price system would be done away with in five years' time. The Europeans were very envious of the marketing scheme in this country. They had no intention to suggest that the present scheme or the guaranteed price system should be abolished. Unfortunately, the Government made a very big mistake. I am very sorry that there is provision in the Bill to abolish the guaranteed price for wool as from 1st May of this year.
I was vice-chairman of the board for many years. Ten years ago we were very concerned about the future of that board. The present chairman, Mr. Alyn Evans, who farms in Wales, and the vice-chairman from Scotland are very concerned. The leaders of the national farmers union covering England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, farmers and politicians on both sides of this House and in the other place have over the years tried to persuade the Minister that this is the wrong approach to the

123
marketing of wool. Unfortunately no heed has been taken as yet. I wonder whether the Minister will be wise in his winding up tonight to say that he will try to persuade his own Ministers to reinstate the guaranteed price for wool because of the very difficult circumstances under which hill farmers work today.
The cost to the Exchequer in the current year, 1992–93, is estimated at £26 million. Assuming only a small increase in market price, the amendment will reduce the cost to £15 million in 1993–94 and to £7.5 million in 1994–95. The total sum that the marketing board is asking for over the next two years is just over £22 million. As the Minister is aware, the guaranteed price for the 1992 wool clip is 117 pence per kilo. The current market price for British wool is only 64 pence per kilo. Therefore without a guaranteed price, on current market prices producer returns will be reduced by about £26 million. That reduction coincides with the recently-announced cut in HLCA payments. That will reduce incomes by about £20 million. This will be a colossal loss to the wool producers of this country and to sheep producers generally. I hope that this reasoned amendment tabled by noble Lords and my noble friends will persuade the Minister at this very late hour to change his mind. If he does not there will be only one way forward: to vote for the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I explained at Committee and at Report stages the very clear reasons why the Government have decided to terminate the wool guarantee on 30th April. This mechanism originated as part of the detailed structure of guarantees built on the Agriculture Act 1947. The first national guarantee for wool was fixed by Ministers in 1950 with the objective that it should operate as a stabilisation fund. When market prices fell below the guarantee price, the Government were to make cash advances to the wool board to cover the shortfall. When the guarantee price was above the market price the board was required to make repayments to the Government. The intention of the guarantee was therefore to stabilise producer returns from wool production at a time when this return accounted for a more significant proportion of the return from sheep production than it does today, and when other means of support were by no means as substantial as they are today. Even in the 1960s and 1970s the producer return from wool accounted for between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the total return from sheep production. It now accounts for only approximately 5 per cent.
I accept that the wool guarantee has served the industry well over the past 40 years, but your Lordships do not need me to tell you that conditions in agriculture and marketing have altered very significantly over that period. A mechanism designed to meet the needs of the 1950s must be scrutinised carefully to determine whether it remains appropriate in the conditions of the 1990s. The system of agricultural guarantees which emerged from the 1947 Act has now substantially been dismantled. Its functions have largely been replaced by support for producers from other means, notably the European Community. That is the case also for wool, where the function of stabilising and supporting sheep producer incomes now rests with the substantial Community
124
support measures operated under the common agricultural policy. The simple fact is that it can no longer be justified under those circumstances for Government to continue to operate a guarantee for wool.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that the Government announced their intention to discontinue the guarantee in 1988. The industry has been given more than four years notice of the measure. It is now time that the wool industry accepted financial responsibility for its own affairs.
It would not, therefore, be right to accept the amendments, which would postpone the date for termination of the guarantee by two years—from 30th April this year to 30th April 1995. I recognise that the proposal to loosen the current restrictions on the proportions by which the guarantee may be reduced from year to year would be intended to allow the guarantee to operate at a somewhat lower level, for two years after 30th April 1993.
However, as I explained in response to a very similar amendment tabled at Report stage, that misses the central reason for ending the guarantee. Its stated purpose was to stabilise producer returns from wool rather than systematically to give producers a higher price than their product will realise on the market. I have explained why this purpose of price stabilisation can no longer be justified. Under these circumstances, I stress that to accept the amendment would have the effect of increasing government expenditure by around £23 million to £33 million, which could, similarly, not be justified.
I understand very clearly the points which a number of noble Lords have made to the effect that the guarantee will come to an end at a time when the market for wool is very depressed. I also accept that this action will have a short-term impact on sheep producer incomes. However, the impact of ending the guarantee must be seen in the context of the very substantial producer support which will continue to be paid by means of the sheep annual premium and hill livestock compensatory allowances. Total payments to sheep farmers from these sources in respect of 1992 will be around £480 million.
Of that total approximately £360 million will be paid to hill sheep farmers. Even taking into account the reduction in HLCAs, sheep farmers in the less favoured areas can expect to be better off by some £60 million to £70 million. Looked at another way, the increases in ewe premium resulting from the devaluation of the green pound and the Agriculture Council decision to increase the supplement mean that hill sheep farmers will receive an increase in subsidy of at least £1.80 per ewe. This demonstrates that the Government's commitment to livestock farming in the hills remains very firm indeed.
I have set out clearly why we should reject the amendments. I am afraid that nothing I have heard today alters the Government's conclusion that the guarantee should be ended with effect from 30th April. Amendment No. 9, which proposes that wool already collected by the British Wool Marketing Board in the 1992 and previous clip years should continue to qualify for the guarantee provided it is sold by the

125
board before 1st May 1997—rather than 1st May 1995 as provided for in the Bill—is merely consequential and should also be rejected.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am very disappointed, not merely with the detail but with the tenor of his reply. He heard speeches from all round the House, on behalf of sheep farmers, by people who know the industry better than I do and perhaps better than the Minister's brief would lead me to believe the noble Earl knows the industry. He gave us no credit whatever for the fact that at Committee stage and Report stage, and now at Third Reading, we have progressively sought to reduce what we were asking for from Government. That is the effect of the amendment which we have tabled today. For example, I pointed out in moving the amendment that if the amendment were accepted, the cost to the Exchequer of £26 million would be reduced in 1993–94 to £12.5 million and in 1994–95 to £7.5 million.
Therefore, it is wrong to create the impression that on this side of the House we are profligate, unheeding of the difficulties which the Government face—we recognise those difficulties, even though some of them are of their own making—and uncaring not merely of hill sheep farmers but also lowland sheep farmers, as I mentioned in my speech.
The noble Earl mentioned the fact that in 1988 the decision was taken to end the guarantee scheme. So it was. I pointed out in my speech that the decision came after the election, not before it, and that in February the industry was talking to the ministry in anticipation of modifying the scheme. Now we have a situation in which the Government have made their decision quite firmly and, so far as concerns this House, intend to stick by it.
The Government wish, as we wish, to see the British Wool Marketing Board continue. But now, in the abnormal trading conditions it faces, what hope has it for continuance if the phasing out proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the Bill?
Taking one thing with another, not to hold out the slightest hope of any reconsideration of the decision and to rely totally on Brussels and the HLCAs, which admittedly have been reduced, seems a somewhat negative attitude at a critical time for an important category of farmers in this country. For those reasons, and in view of the Minister's failure to respond sympathetically to a reasonable presentation of the case—which may have more to do with what has occurred earlier this afternoon—I feel that I, too, must divide the House.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kintore, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Banks, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Mackintosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cobbold, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Congleton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Cudlipp, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies, L.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Erroll, E.

Rayleigh, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glasgow, E.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strafford, E.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Healey, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Howell, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes, L.

Wharton, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Boardman, L.

Annaly, L.

Borthwick, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brentford, V.

Astor, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Auckland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beloff, L.

Cadman, L.

Blatch, B.

Caithness, E.

Blyth, L.

Caldecote, V.

127

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Marsh, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuid, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Prentice, L.

Faithfull, B.

Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Flather, B.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rees, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ciray of Contin, L.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Hacking, L.

St. Davids, V.

Haig, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hertford, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hives, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hothfield, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Huntly, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Vestey, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Layton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Leigh, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wynford, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
Annual report on matters relevant to price support
(".—(1) The Ministers shall publish an annual report on such matters relevant to price support for agricultural produce as they consider appropriate and include in the report such account as they consider appropriate of developments in agricultural policy, so far as relevant to such matters.
(2) In subsection (1) above, the reference to agricultural policy includes policy relating to agriculture and the environment.
(3) In this section—
"agriculture" and "agricultural" shall be construed in accordance with section 109(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947; and
128
"the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland acting jointly.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 which are linked.
We debated at Report stage an amendment which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Norrie. This would have required Ministers to publish an annual report on the economic conditions in, and prospects for, the United Kingdom agricultural industry and the role that it plays in the environment. In responding to the debate I said that I had some doubts about the precise wording of the amendment but that I would see what I could come up with by way of a government amendment for Third Reading.
These linked amendments are designed to meet what I took to he the principal concerns expressed at Report stage. Amendment No. 10 would insert a new clause which would place a statutory requirement on Ministers to publish annually a report on such matters relevant to price support for agricultural produce as they considered appropriate. They would have to include in the report such account as they considered appropriate of developments in agricultural policy so far as relevant to such matters. The wording of the amendment is designed to ensure that it falls within the subject matter of the Bill. It can also reasonably be said to reflect the current content of Agriculture in the United Kingdom which we intend should continue to be published. The wording of the clause would not, however, preclude the Government from publishing additional material not covered by the new statutory requirement should they consider that to be desirable.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause is designed to meet the points raised at Report stage about the coverage by an annual report of matters relating to agriculture and the environment.
Amendment No. 12 is a consequential amendment. It includes the new clause in the list of provisions in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 13 amends the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the proposed new clause.
I hope that these amendments will meet with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment. It would be churlish of me to complain about it, but I am a little disappointed with the wording. It is a prime example of the, "taking one thing with another, all things being equal, on the one hand this and on the other hand that" school of parliamentary draftsmanship. If noble Lords remember, the original amendment which I withdrew was clearly to ask that Ministers,
"publish an annual report on the economic conditions in, and prospects for, the United Kingdom agricultural industry, and the role it plays in the environment".

129
This amendment does not go all the way to meet that requirement. I believe that the suggestion of enabling legislation has gone to the department's head.
The amendment is linked with price support; it proposes a report,
"on such matters relevant to price support".
We know that the CAP reforms are intended to reduce reliance on price support, to move towards world prices and for farming to be supported, in effect, by deficiency payments. For example, will the report be able to consider such things as the area aid for cereals and oilseeds? Would that be regarded as relevant under "price support"?
Another point put by the Council for the Protection of Rural England is the linking of the reference to the environment to price support. It implies that the development in agricultural policy should be taken into account when relevant to price support. Thus presumably it should be ignored when not relevant.
The new schemes under the agri-environment package in the CAP are completely separate from price support. Is it clear that the report can include such matters as the ESAs, the NSAs and all the agri-environment schemes to be introduced? Would they be ignored or could they be taken into account? I think that the Minister hinted that the Government would be able to extend the scope of the report and if he could assure the House that these matters, of which I have suggested examples, could be taken into account, we would welcome it.
I have to say to the Minister that the amendment is wishy-washy, but I suppose that it goes almost as far as the amendment that I withdrew and I am grateful to him for that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support the amendments and cannot share the slight misgiving of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who suggests that they do not tie Ministers down enough. The alternative to expressing the matter as it is expressed in subsection (1) would be for us to go into a mass of detail as to what should be in the reports. We legislate in too much detail for the most part anyway. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howe is absolutely right to present the new clause in the way that it is drafted. I gladly support it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there is only one peripheral matter I wish to raise. On this occasion, I do not expect a commitment from the noble Earl, he will be glad to hear. I wish to draw attention to the provision as to the Long Title. The Long Title of a Bill can be useful when it comes to interpreting any part of the Bill, provided that it tells us its general, over-riding purpose. That used to be the practice with Long Titles.
The modern practice which this provision follows is a mere catalogue of the contents, which one can get elsewhere. The Public Bill Offices of both Houses say that they can do nothing without direction from the Procedure Committees and the draftsmen are in the hands of the Public Bill Offices. I do not expect the noble Earl to jump up and say "yes", but I ask that the matter be considered so that Long Titles may once
130
again be of some use instead of merely giving employment to printers, papermakers, secretaries and so on.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that if he finds the amendment wishy-washy and does not like it very much, I am quite happy to withdraw it. However, I think that would go against the spirit of these proceedings and it is certainly not what I intended to do. However, I believe that I can reassure him on the points of doubt that he raised.
It is the Government's view that one cannot consider price support without also considering the economic conditions in the industry. Similarly, the whole field of environmental protection and the environment generally is linked to price support, sometimes closely. The noble Lord mentioned in particular the ESAs; schemes of that kind could be covered, as they are at the moment, in the annual report. It also goes without saying, I hope, that area payments and all forms of support from the Community would be included within the scope of the report.
The need for price support is linked to the economic circumstances of the industry. That is why I believe that at the end of the day the report that is produced by the Government at the moment will continue in much the same form in the future.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 26, line 38, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 27, line 29, at end insert ("section (Annual report on matters relevant to price support),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 13:
Line 5, after ("potatoes;") insert ("to provide for the publication of an annual report on matters relevant to price support;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
6.8 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. We have had a great deal of constructive debate on the provisions of the Bill. I should like to thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, for the pragmatic and open-minded manner in which the debate has been conducted. My thanks are also extended to the other noble Lords who have participated in the Bill's successive stages and whose contributions have, without exception, I believe, made our deliberations as thorough and illuminating as we would all wish them to be.

131
I trust that I may be forgiven for not naming all noble Lords, but in particular I wish to express my gratitude to my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Wade, Lord Mottistone and Lord Renton, the noble Lords, Lord Geraint, and Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has bowled me some very accurate balls on a wicket which I have not always found to be the most comfortable.
We have spent considerable time discussing various procedural aspects of the Bill—not just the question of parliamentary procedure but whether and in what circumstances Ministers should be required to consult various parties affected by matters in the Bill.
It is probably inevitable that opinions on these procedural matters should differ according to one's position in the constitutional scheme of things. From the Government's point of view we have sought to avoid a dogmatic approach but rather to consider what is workable, and—if I dare repeat a word to which I have had much recourse over past weeks—what is "reasonable". In a number of respects we have moved quite some way away from our original position. I hope noble Lords will bear that in mind even if, in some cases, they would have wished us to go further.
The Bill is not mainly procedural but deals with a number of important matters, some of which will have far reaching consequences for the producers and other parties affected. Probably the most significant change that the Bill would bring about is the ending of the milk marketing schemes, which have, as I have previously acknowledged, served customers, producers and others well throughout most of their 60 years. The reason for ending the schemes is that they have outlived their usefulness and no longer serve the best interests of producers, consumers and others with an interest in the dairy sector.
The Bill was criticised at Second Reading for the fact that the word "consumers" appeared infrequently in the text. In so far as the Bill is concerned with improvements in agricultural marketing, which much of it is, it is directly concerned with improving the response of the agricultural industry to the needs and desires of consumers. In the milk sector the best way to do this is to replace our present monolithic and bureaucratic arrangements with a more competitive and diverse structure, allowing those in the industry the normal freedom to respond to the market.
We have had some interesting and not uncontroversial debates on potatoes. I might go so far as to say that on potatoes I have had a fair roasting! But the debate was always constructive, and noble Lords might now find it helpful if I summarise where matters stand. The Bill provides enabling powers for the potato marketing scheme to be revoked 12 months from the date specified in an order made by Ministers if they consider it necessary, or in the public interest, for the scheme to be brought to an end. Following debate, on Report we amended the Bill to provide that such an order will be subject to parliamentary
132
procedure, and this afternoon we have amended the Bill further to put on the face of the Bill the undertakings that I gave at that time.
Should the potato marketing scheme be revoked and the Potato Marketing Board wound up - and I repeat that no such decision has been taken—the Bill will enable the Potato Marketing Board to submit a scheme to Ministers transferring some or all of its assets to one or more successor bodies if that is what registered producers wish. Again, the Bill has been amended this afternoon in such a way to make it clear that unless there is a producer poll expressing a contrary view, then the transfer scheme should be submitted to Ministers.
In this way a successor body could take over from the board such functions of importance to the industry as research and development, including the facilities at Sutton Bridge. Statistical services and market promotion would also be candidates for the successor scheme. During the passage of the Bill the other significant amendment was to provide additional flexibility for the continuation of the board's activities at Sutton Bridge. This was reassuring to the board.
I shall not recite all the changes that the Bill is intended to bring about, but say in conclusion that I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome you have given to the Part III provisions relating to grants for marketing. The Government are convinced of the central importance of improved marketing for the future prosperity of our farming and food industry. At last month's seminar on food marketing, chaired by the Prime Minister, there was agreement that all sectors should work together to promote competitiveness at home and abroad. We intend, as soon as this Bill is passed, to consult with the industry to see how best to make use of the new powers.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Earl Howe.)
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, while speaking to the Question, That this Bill do now pass, I begin by thanking the Minister for the way he has taken this Bill through the House. He is to be congratulated on the co-operative and courteous way that he has steered the Bill through its various stages. From a personal point of view, I thank him and his officials for being extremely helpful at meetings outside the Chamber when we explored different aspects of the Bill. This has been extremely helpful. Speaking from this Dispatch Box, I thank my noble friend Lord Gallacher for his assistance on the Bill. My noble friend and I have worked together on agricultural matters for a number of years and it is always a pleasure to work with him. I also mention the invaluable help that we both received from Ms. Clare Cozens, our researcher, and also the organisations who have briefed us so ably and helped us with the Bill.
Like most Bills, it leaves here in a rather better state than when it arrived, and particularly after the votes today. On milk we all know that this is an enabling Bill, and the Government and the marketing boards have been given the benefit of the doubt in the sense that Parliament has been asked to trust them to come up with schemes that will benefit the producer and the

133
consumer, and deal with the genuine fears that have been expressed by the trade regarding unfair competition. The marketing boards now have to learn to move away from what I described as the monopoly culture in which they have existed for the past 60 years. It is best to say that the jury are still out, and it is a pity that Parliament will not be able to approve the final verdict, but no doubt a way will be found to at least debate the matter when it is finally agreed.
On potatoes I am sure the Minister and the Government are now well aware of the genuine anxiety that is felt by producers about the uncertainty of an unknown EC potato regime and the fact of a depressed market. The Government's intentions are still not wholly clear, although we tried to stiffen their resolution with the amendments the House accepted earlier today. I hope and trust that the Government will listen to the various fears that have been expressed and will do their best to allay them. On the potato section of the Bill, I have had the feeling that the motto of the Government was, "Thou shalt not kill, and should not strive officiously to keep alive" so far as the Potato Marketing Board was concerned. On wool, we are disappointed that the Government were unable to accept our arguments, and I know that that disappointment will be shared outside this House by sheep farmers and particularly hill farmers.
One of the most significant clauses in the Bill is Clause 55(1), to which I referred at Second Reading, which repeals Part I of the Agriculture Act 1947. This marks a watershed in our agriculture policy. The Government and Parliament, for the reasons we know and understand, are no longer required by statute to make themselves responsible for the welfare of farmers and consumers. That is a watershed in our agriculture policy. The reasons for it are entirely understood. We know that everything is now decided in Brussels; but that clause enshrined the whole thing. I should like to repeat my thanks to the Minister. We wish the Bill well when it gets to another place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howe for the way he has conducted these proceedings. It is not merely the clarity of his mind and speech but the way in which he has kept his cool under stress when discussing potatoes that I am sure all your Lordships have greatly admired. I think he would acknowledge that the Bill has been improved by the efforts of noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House. As for the changes that we have made in regard to potatoes, about which some of us felt strongly and a majority voted against the Government, I now feel that there is no longer that vacuum that looked so dangerous and which was going to cause such uncertainty unless we had somehow attended to it.
With regard to the detail of what we have done, no doubt there are those in the department—legal advisers and even parliamentary counsel—who may think that they can improve upon it. If they can simplify it in doing so, they will be doing a great service. But should the principle be reversed in another place, it would be extremely regrettable and we would
134
not be content to let the matter rest when it came back here. We would have to ask another place to think again.
This is a valuable and timely Bill, and my noble friend Lord Howe is entitled to take a great deal of credit for it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the final stage of a Bill generally takes place in a genial, autumnal mood in your Lordships' House. Just occasionally there is an unseasonable touch of frost. Fortunately, in this Bill the cold winds blew in your Lordships' House at an earlier stage on two amendments, particularly in the Third Reading.
My own connection with agriculture has been tangential only. Your Lordships' command of expertise, knowledge and wisdom on the subject can only cause awe in such as myself. It would be presumptuous, indeed impertinent, were I to mention all those from whom I have learned so much. However, I hope that I may take advantage of my much greater years to second the tributes that have rightly been paid to the noble Earl the Minister.
It is easy and agreeable to coast through a Bill all the provisions of which commend themselves to the House. It is a different business when one stands alone at the Dispatch Box with every single voice raised against one. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, survived triumphantly what was a real test and I second the tributes that have been paid.
It has been an extraordinary pleasure to see a Minister conduct a Bill of this kind, showing not only a great command of his brief, but also a command of the whole of the background material which is so necessary when one is replying to a debate at the Dispatch Box. I add my congratulations to the noble Earl.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, perhaps I may state my own admiration for my noble friend the Minister. I should particularly like to thank him for the kind way in which he met certain people to whom it was helpful for him to speak, and for the great assistance he gave in putting the Bill together.
It is right to draw attention to the fact that for the past 60 years the agricultural industry of this country has been dominated by the Milk Marketing Board and the great strengths it has brought to bear over the years. So this is a special occasion. Although in one sense it is not an important Bill compared with much that has passed through the House, to what has been the heart of the country it is enormously important. It is inevitable that it will bring great changes to the countryside and to the face of Britain over the years to come. I believe that those changes will be for the better; that the Milk Marketing Board, although a wonderful institution when it first began, has seen its day and is now becoming a restriction on the marketing opportunities that are open for the milk products that we can produce in this country.
We have an opportunity, illustrated in a sense by the debate, where so many sides of the House agree on the issues —let us hope that industry will take notice

135
of that—for all sides to work together for the benefit of all sections of the industry. Let us hope that they will pull together and act as one for the benefit of all.
It would also be right and proper to show our respect and admiration for the way in which the leaders of the Milk Marketing Board have tackled the changes. It is not easy to realise that no longer has one a place in the changing market. We have every admiration for Bob Stevens and all his team who have seen the need for change and tackled it positively and effectively. They must have gone through great strain and worry about whether or not they are making decisions which may be viewed in the future as being wrong. We can assure them from this House that their decisions are right. We have supported them and they are now going to see great strides for what is possible in the milk industry of this country.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I endorse the view that the Bill has been considerably improved during its passage through your Lordships' House. Today the House made two important points, though it has been done in the end by amending the Bill in ways which I believe will inevitably need to be amended again. I hope that the important points stand, even if the amendments do not.
The fact that the Government did not prevail on two occasions this afternoon was no fault of my noble friend the Minister. He has conducted the Bill with skill and efficiency, courtesy and humour. When he has not persuaded the House, he has kept his cool and put his arguments extremely clearly so that they can be read and studied in another place as the Bill proceeds.
I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend as other noble Lords have done, and also to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, who have been extremely open in their conduct of the Bill. They were extremely helpful to me in explaining what they were up to to enable me to more easily see what I should be up to as well. I commend them for that.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie I thank the Minister for the courteous and skilful way in which he has manoeuvred the Bill through the House. I may disagree with him on many issues but at this stage that is beside the point.
We are coming to a different era with regard to agriculture. For the past 50 or 60 years I and others have been dependent on deficiency payments, guaranteed prices and the boards. Tonight we are doing away with all the successful bodies that we have had for the past 50 years. We are entering a free market economy and we must all stand on our own feet within the agricultural industry. My only wish is that we will succeed under the new arrangements. Perhaps I am a little old-fashioned and the Minister is looking forward as a young man. Let us hope that he is right and that the agricultural industry will function for many years to come.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
6.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STRABOLGI) in the Chair.]
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Status of the Welsh language
Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and have equal validity in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice.").
The noble Lord said: In his opening speech in the debate at Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was sympathetic to our aspirations for the preservation of the Welsh language. All of us appreciated that. A century ago that would have been unthinkable. Even 50 years ago it is unlikely that the Deputy Leader of this House would have spoken of our language in such friendly and understanding terms. But the noble Earl has studied the background and the history. As he said, the Welsh language was emerging from the old British tongue early in the sixth century and, although literary Latin was the medium of the new religious forces, Welsh was the language of daily intercourse. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the Committee that the earliest known piece of written Welsh, dating from the eighth century, can be found in a Latin copy of the gospels in Lichfield Cathedral. It deals with the settlement of a dispute about land. Welsh solicitors were busy even then!
Since then the Welsh language has suffered and survived against the heaviest odds. I would go so far as to say that its survival is the single greatest achievement of the Welsh people. But Wales was denied stability. For example, from 1282 until the Tudor Act of Union Wales was left with no defined frontier; no central authority except what the English Crown could wield through its officials or its feudal barons; no single administrative capital; no uniform system of law; and, please note this well, no unifying principle except the Welsh language and the culture and traditions it enshrined. Anyone who seeks to compare Wales with her Celtic neighbours, Ireland and Scotland, must bear that one great truth in mind. They had the administrative and legal structure to sustain them; we had only the language. That is why we love and value it so much.
Since the Act of Union, English has been the official language of Wales. Section 20 of the Act of the Union makes that plain. It follows that we cannot achieve equality between the two languages unless it is laid down by law that Welsh is also an official language in Wales. Let me emphasise one thing. I have an immense respect and admiration for the English language and its superb literature. There is no

137
intention on the part of any of us to diminish or minimise the English language. Our sole objective is to give our own language equality in our own country. There is not a country in the world which enjoys less or which would tolerate less.
That is the purpose of the new clause. As we stand on the threshold of a new century I hope the Committee will agree that it is a reasonable ambition. It also coincides with the attitude of the European Community towards the smaller nations and their languages. The Committee will note that we are deeply concerned to include the term "equal validity" in the Bill although we understand that there could be some objection to it. Perhaps I may be allowed to give the background to this. In 1963, as many noble Lords will recall, I led a small deputation on behalf of the Welsh parliamentary party to see Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, to ask for an official inquiry into the state of the Welsh language. He then had responsibility for Welsh affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was also a member of that deputation, as was Mr. Raymond Gower. As a result, a working party of three, with Sir David Hughes Parry, Professor of Law at London University, Professor Glanmor Williams and Mr. Dafydd Jones Williams, set out to work on the subject. A report was produced in October 1965 which formed the basis of the Welsh Language Act 1967.
The report contained a number of practical proposals—I think there were 30 in all. In all the circumstances and under the pressures which existed at the time, I decided that a long detailed Bill was not a practical proposition and that something in the nature of an enabling Bill, which for the first time since the Act of Union gave the Welsh language the status which it surely deserved, was more likely to reach the statute book in a reasonable time. But the 1967 Act was based on the Hughes Parry report and on the principle of equal validity. We would therefore like to be told why equal validity is not acceptable in the Bill and indeed is excluded from it and we would like to see whether we can persuade the Government at this stage to reinstate it. The working party wanted it to be a basic principle governing the use of Welsh in the administration of justice and in the conduct of public administration. We would like the Minister to confirm that that is in fact the objective of the Bill before us.
The arguments for a clear statement in the Bill about the position and status of the language are overwhelming. They have been stated and restated over the past 15 years by the Council for the Welsh Language through to the present board, whose draft Bill in Clause 1 declares it,
"to be an official language in Wales where in relation to English it shall be of equal validity for judicial and administrative purposes".
That is the recommendation of the distinguished board set up by this Government. Furthermore, we have all received representations from organisations, local authorities and individuals throughout Wales. There is no doubting their sincerity and indeed their determination.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is concerned that the Bill should meet the aspirations of the Welsh people. I invite him to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It is always a joy to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Those of us who have known him for a long time know of his great concern for the Welsh language. We were very pleased to hear him express it so effectively today.
The phrase "equal validity" has been used consistently and has been supported by all of us over many years. The noble Lord referred to a meeting that he conducted in 1963. I was unable to be part of it myself—I was Minister of State at the Foreign Office at the time. The noble Lord will remember a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in December 1965 at which I initiated a debate on the status of the Welsh language. During the debate I urged the then Labour Government to accept the principle of equal validity which was set out by the Hughes Parry Committee. The Secretary of State for Wales, James Griffiths, on behalf of the Government, accepted the principle of equal validity. He said:
"The Government are prepared to do what they reasonably and practically can to implement the principle of equal validity. The Government accept the principle of equal validity and think that it would be just to raise the official status of the Welsh language in this way. They are satisfied and I am satisfied that this will not in any way impair the rights of the English speaking people in Wales".
I have referred to the fact that all of us from then onwards referred to the importance of equal validity being given to the Welsh and English languages in Wales. But what equal validity meant varied according to how we interpreted it. I believe that it is important for the Committee to remember how equal validity has been interpreted. The language board had a draft Bill and its interpretation of equal validity was this:
"Any oral statement and any act, writing or thing made or done in Wales and expressed in Welsh shall have the like effect as if it had been expressed in English".
That is almost word for word what was put in the Hughes Parry Report and the suggestions made there that it should be given statutory force and enacted in a statute. That is proposed by the board and by the noble Lord. I am sorry that I cannot support it for this reason. If the noble Lord himself were to try to recollect what his discovery was when he went into the matter as Secretary of State, he would find it difficult to support his amendment. James Griffiths, the then Secretary of State, accepted the Hughes Parry recommendation that there should be legislative force for that concept of equal validity.
The 1967 Act which the noble Lord produced when he was Secretary of State and which was referred to in the Second Reading debate by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Cledwyn, was described as being an Act which supported equal validity. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said how pleased he was to be responsible for the Bill. He then referred to his noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and said:
"My noble friend referred to the use of the term 'equal validity' in the 1967 Act. I, too, should be grateful to the Minister if he would explain why that is not referred to in this Bill. Is there any significance in this omission?" —[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 854.]

139
The 1967 Act did not contain the words "equal validity". That Act refers only to any form of equality. Section 3 of the Act states:
"Subject to subsection (2) of this section, anything done in Welsh in a version authorised by section 2 of this Act shall have the like effect as if done in English".
Therefore, one has a distinction in the definition of what is equal validity which the noble Lord, when he was producing the 1967 Bill, thought was adequate and possibly represented the nearest approach to equal validity. There is nothing in that Act which gives statutory effect to the words "equal validity".
The problem I face is this. I believe that we all support the Bill, the basic principles of which are somewhat historic and can be of enormous help to the 'Welsh language, but if we include something which is uncertain and not capable of clear definition we shall find that it is going to be very badly affected. I hope the Committee will understand that enacting these words will stimulate great activity of definition. In terms of this Bill we are thinking of guidelines and schemes by public companies. We are also thinking in terms of an independent board putting out guidelines and trying to stimulate schemes in order to advance the Welsh language. Each one of those schemes would be scrutinised to see whether it came under a statutory definition proposed by the noble Lord.
It would be a bonanza for the lawyers. I am now retired, but if I were still a member of the Wales and Chester Circuit I would probably support the noble Lord. As it is, looking at the matter as objectively and as properly as possible and knowing how important it is that this great Bill should be given full support over a wide area in Wales, I cannot support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I am very happy to follow two former distinguished Secretaries of State. I am bound to say that on this occasion I prefer the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has not dealt with the first part of the proposed amendment which states:
"Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales"
and then qualifies that definition.
Perhaps I may take the first part. The report of the Welsh Language Board, at paragraph 143 under the heading "Epilogue"—why it is called that I am not sure—states:
"The Welsh language ceased to be an official language in Wales not through neglect or misuse but by an Act of Parliament. Only an Act of Parliament can restore it to its former status".
I believe that that is a correct statement. In my Second Reading speech I referred to that objectionable part of the 1536 Act which stated that,
"all administration and judicial proceedings were to be conducted in English".
Therefore, from that time on in effect English became established as the official language for Wales. I believe that there is enormous psychological benefit from reversing that decision. The remnants of the 1536 and 1543 Acts have been repealed by this Bill; but there is a case here for a counter general declaration and that is that Welsh should be declared officially and by statute as now being an official language.
140
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, qualified, as did the Welsh Language Board, the words:
"Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and have equal validity in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice".
They did so to define that more acceptably. I regret that I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, even on the effect that the amendment might have on the livelihood of the members of the Wales and Chester Circuit.
I believe that the concept of equal validity was put forward by three of the wisest men I have ever known in Wales. They were Sir David Hughes Parry, Mr. Dafydd Jones Williams and Professor Glanmor Williams. I could not think of three more careful chaps to have put forward such a definition. They were very shrewd because it is a concept that is capable of simple legal interpretation.
I should like to quote from paragraph 38 on page 12 of the report by the Welsh Language Board which states:
"The principle of equal validity means no more and no less than that any act, writing or thing done in Welsh in Wales shall have the like legal force and effect as if it had been done in English".
I do not think that any court would have difficulty in interpreting the term "equal validity". It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, there has been no litigation since 1967 on what is meant by "equal validity".
Let us turn to the term "equality" which is used in the Bill. I am as anxious as the noble Lord that the Bill should be acceptable to all sides of this Chamber and another place and that it should be totally acceptable in Wales. However, if he gives it a little more thought, he will see that the "doctrine of equality" (I may so describe it) which is referred to in the Bill is a much more elastic concept. I can see endless scope for litigation on its definition. I do not know whether there is such a thing as the "Caldecott District Council", but let us assume that a district council in Gwent might be faced, on the basis of the equality of the two languages, with a demand for translating every document. The Welsh-speaking Dwyvor District Council, where all the proceedings are in Welsh, might be faced with a demand for interpreting everything that is done in Welsh into English because the doctrine of equality is a much more elastic concept. I think that it could be a source of fruitful litigation for lawyers but of no great help to those of us who want to see a happy environment for the future progress of the Welsh language.
The Welsh Language Board quoted the principal recommendation of the Hughes Parry Committee. I make no apology for quoting again—this time from paragraph 40 on page 13 of the report, which states:
"For a number of reasons we have decided to recommend the adoption of this principle of equal validity as the basic principle of the policy governing the future use of Welsh in the administration of justice and the conduct of administrative business throughout Wales and Monmouthshire".
The last sentence of the paragraph, quoting from the Hughes Parry Committee, states:
"We recommend that the principle of equal validity as outlined above should form the basis for the new legal status of the Welsh language and that a declaration giving this status should be embodied in a statute".

141
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly pointed out, it was not embodied in a statute. I think that that was a serious omission. I do not know why it was not embodied in the legislation at the time and I cannot remember whether I raised the matter on the Floor of another place at the time. I may well have done so. I have not checked, but that does not matter. However, such a provision should be embodied in a new statute because it qualifies the phrase "official language". It does not mean that everything has to be done bilingually because, let us face it, if everything had to be done in Wales bilingually at the moment, although I would be emotionally in favour of it, my common sense tells me that we do not want great emotional reactions either in the highly anglicised parts of Wales, such as Gwent, if there was any attempt to introduce bilingualism there, and nor do we want a reaction the other way in Dwyvor.
Therefore, I think that the Government would be wise to stick to the doctrine that we have come to accept, which is that of equal validity. That gives the language legal status, which is what we are concerned about. We are concerned with a circumscribed provision because the Bill deals largely with Welsh in public life. The amendment proposes that,
"Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and have equal validity in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice".
Those matters are already spelt out in other places as well as in this Bill. The Government would be wise to accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Even in the midst of prehistory there was a Conservative Government. I refer to the year 1972. In the nature of things, therefore, the Lord Chancellor in 1972 was a Conservative Lord Chancellor. He commissioned the late Lord Edmund Davies to carry out a report into the workings of Welsh language trials in Wales. Lord Justice Edmund Davies stated:
"In order to preserve the principle of equal validity between the two languages and the equally important principle of the random selection of jurors, the only practicable way is".
Those words were part of that careful report and those specific words were accepted by the then Lord Chancellor.
There is no problem at all in defining "equal validity". All litigation is, by definition, fruitful—and I speak as a lawyer. No vast panorama of litigation will spread before us if this simple amendment is accepted. I respectfully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said. It is not simply a question of equal validity. It is a question of principle, namely, that one begins with the proposition, which is only one of elementary fairness and decent justice, that Welsh and English are the "official languages" of Wales. Those words were taken from the introductory remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Second Reading. He repeated later that Welsh is an official language in Wales. If that is so, what conceivable proper objection based on any form of reason or logic can there be to the amendment which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos?
142
These are not cosmetics. We have been patient for a very long time. The world has changed since 1967. Expectations and demands have changed. It is no coincidence that the mover of this amendment is the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. There is no one present in your Lordships' House who has a greater experience of Welsh life in its fullest sense, a greater devotion to the language or has carried more burdens in terms of statesmanship. Can it seriously be thought that the noble Lord would put his hand to this amendment (and the whole of that vast moral authority to it) if any danger might sensibly ensue?
People who cherish the Welsh language—and they are not simply bilingual people who live in Wales because let us not forget that many monoglot English do the same—do not want a donation or a charitable, rather patronising gift. They look to your Lordships for decent dignity and justice for that language. The new clause which is proposed by way of amendment seeks no more than that. It wants the drum sounded for equal validity and a proper place in the sun for a language that has been bereft of that place for too long.
7 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I was much moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about the moral authority of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I would be the last to challenge that. I am much drawn by the arguments that we have heard about the need to declare that the Welsh language, along with English, has official status within Wales. I suspect that the Government's response will be that that is self-evident, because whenever I read official documents or handbooks describing the United Kingdom it is now officially described as a multi-lingual state. The Welsh and Gallic languages are referred to regularly in such publications as official languages.
I suspect that the fact that the Welsh language is endorsed within the national curriculum in the Education Reform Act as a national language for Wales means that in education legislation it already has that official status. So what we are seeking to legislate in the amendment is in one sense a self-evident principle; but that is not an argument for not doing it. As we have been reminded in the historical statements already made in Committee, and also in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on Second Reading in which he made the point that it might be beneficial and positive, if it is that Welsh is already an official language, that it should be so designated. I have no difficulty with that part of the first amendment.
However, I have substantial difficulty with the proposal in Amendment No. 5 that we should delete:
"should be treated on a basis of equality",
and substitute:
"shall be of equal validity".
I say that because I believe we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has just said, moved on from the 1960s. The principle of equal validity, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, reminded us, is a principle based essentially upon oral statements or published documents. It is a statement which refers to

143
specific publications or speech acts (if I may use that linguistic term) whereas for me the phraseology of the Bill as it stands—that is,
"treated on a basis of equality"—
is a much more wide-ranging statement. That was my initial interpretation of the Bill. I know that it was the interpretation placed upon it by some other noble Lords. We have since discussed it with people outside the House. I have yet to hear anyone put forward an argument that convinces me that,
"treated on a basis of equality",
is not a much more wide-ranging concept than the idea of equal validity.
Reference has been made to the late Sir David Hughes Parry. I remember him well. In his own inscrutable Presbyterian way in a television interview, when asked to compare the Bill introduced in 1967 with his own report, he stated in Welsh,
"Mae hyn yn fyr o'r llall",
which I can translate as,
"this falls short of the other".
He was referring to a point already made in this debate—that the principle of equal validity contained in his report did not feature in the Bill. I suspect that the reasons for that omission were tied to the difficulties of legislating that principle. In the Bill's phraseology, the Government's draftspeople have come up with a "Scheme"—I emphasise the capital "S"—which treats both the principle of equality and the practice of implementation by providing that "schemes"—with the lower case "s" on this occasion—of that kind can be introduced by the Welsh Language Board. Those schemes can be developed on a basis of practicality within specific areas of policy and sectors without undermining the principle that the basis for the treatment of both languages is one of equality. So for me the wording of the Bill is stronger than that aspect of the proposed amendments.
The Bill as it stands and the idea of treating both languages on a basis of equality show me that we are moving substantially beyond the principle of equal validity. We are moving from dilysrwydd cyfartal to cyfartaledd, perhaps even to cydraddoldeb.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has spoken about the strength of the Bill and the effectiveness of clauses upon which the Government base their case which create a practical solution to a principle. I have no difficulty with what the noble Lord said because I share the view that that approach is sound and sensible. The question we must address is whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with or is complementary to what the Government propose. Does it perhaps support and reinforce it?
I have to say at the outset that I approach the whole matter at this stage with a good deal of caution. We are in the early stages of the passage of a Bill which, as we have already heard, raises complex and difficult issues. My noble friend Lord Ferrers told us on Second Reading that he and the Government intend to listen most carefully to the points made. Similar undertakings were given by the Minister, Sir Wyn
144
Roberts, who made it clear that he will be influenced greatly by the points made. That is my position. I have still not made up my mind on a number of issues.
It is with a great deal of hesitation that I even attempt to advance an argument which may appear to be in conflict with what was said by an old friend and colleague, Wyn Roberts, who worked closely with me in the late 1970s and early 1980s on Welsh language policy and provided indispensable advice or to find myself in conflict with my successor as Secretary of State whose work I admire greatly. So it is not with any sense of conflict that I put forward the arguments that still worry me. It is because I am seeking desperately for a workable and sensible solution.
At the moment I find myself in a good deal of sympathy with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. He addressed the first point that arises in the amendment: whether we should have a statement that Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales. The Government's response to that is, "It is unnecessary and, after all, if we start putting in statements in this piece of legislation, are we going to have to put into every other bit of legislation that English is an official language in England?" That is stretching the argument rather far. We start from the historic fact that has been so often referred to, that a definition was effectively put into earlier legislation; a statement was made about an official language in earlier legislation; it was made in the Act of 1536.
It is worth recalling one section of that Act. Section 17 provided:
"Sessions courts, hundred-leets, sheriffs' courts and all other courts shall be proclaimed and kept in the English tongue, and all oaths of officers, juries and inquests and all other affidavits, verdicts and wagers of law shall be given and done in the English tongue, and that henceforth no person or persons that use the Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner of office or fee within the realm of England, Wales or other the King's Dominions, upon pain of forfeiting the same offices or fees unless he or they use and exercise the speech or language of English".
The effects of that Act have of course been repealed. Further repeals are contained in the Bill. But having said that, we have long had legislation on the statute book that states effectively that English is an official language. That has had an enormous psychological and practical impact in Wales. Therefore I confess that I am sorely tempted by the argument that it would reinforce and strengthen the Bill if we could put such a statement into the Bill without causing the perils described by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir.
If I have another reason for hesitating in putting forward these arguments, it is that I know of my noble friend's immense knowledge and practical experience of these matters. After all, he was brought up as a Welsh-speaking Welsh man; he has held the office of Secretary of State; and has practised in the Welsh courts. He knows exactly what may be the legal effects. Therefore, I hesitate again.
However, we must recognise what this amendment attempts to achieve. Ministers have helpfully discussed issues with Members of the Committee and have circulated papers which indicate the kind of arguments which are influencing them. They tell us

145
that they are worried about the meaning of a great principle, how it is to be defined and, if it is defined in the more general and extensive way—perhaps in a way implied in the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken who wants it to go wider—they would not be able to agree to it.
From my point of view the clause is extremely narrow and precise. It does not seek to impose the use of Welsh, even in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice. Moreover, it is confined to the conduct of public business and the administration of justice. It does not attempt to say that you must use the Welsh language. It merely says that if you use the Welsh language, if you produce a document in the Welsh language, it will have equal validity. I do not find that phrase difficult to understand and I cannot believe that even lawyers would find any difficulty in defining it.
I am sorely tempted by this clause or something like it. Interestingly, the phrase used in the 1967 Act, already quoted by my noble friend, and a phrase which is used in some of the papers presented to us by the Government in support of their argument, is:
"with the like effect as English".
I do not much mind which phrase is used. I am open to argument about the exact phraseology. However, it seems to me to be a simple statement that if you use a document or make a statement in the language, it has "equal validity" or has the like effect. That will strengthen and not weaken what the Government seek to do. It does not in any way derogate from the Government's very sound principle, which I wholly support, that one must use practical schemes and solutions to be administered in different ways in different parts of Wales.
When we held discussions with Ministers it was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the Bill had been published by the Welsh Office in Welsh but that it was not the official publication of Parliament. That makes my point. Parliament is not compelled to produce the Bill in Welsh. There are good and practical reasons why that has not been done. However, if another organisation or authority thought that it was sensible and practical to do so, that publication would have equal validity.
The Government produced an argument over which I have puzzled. They say that if you make a statement to someone, issue an important order or give a warning in Welsh and the person is an English speaker and does not understand Welsh, he may not understand you. Therefore, it cannot be an equally valid statement. I find that difficult to accept because there must be an obligation on anyone who presents a legal document, argues a case or presents an important warning to make certain that that is done in a language which is understood. Therefore, that problem is capable of solution.
I have not heard the Minister's arguments but I have a great deal of sympathy for what the amendment seeks to achieve. It may be that arguments will persuade me not to support the amendment. Certainly I cannot vote against it. I shall listen carefully to the arguments put forward. I hope that the
146
Government will listen with equal care because we are trying to strengthen and reinforce an admirable Bill. We are trying to help it gain the confidence of the people of Wales without which it will not have the success that it deserves.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Parry: I very much appreciate some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I do not dissent from any of them. I greatly welcome the noble Lord's contribution.
When the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, quoted from the 1967 Act, I fetched a copy of it. It states that:
"further provision should be made for the use of that language, with the like effect as English, in the conduct of other official or public business there; and that Wales should be distinguished from England in the interpretation of future Acts of Parliament."
I quote that because I believe that it is a benchmark in the salvation of the Welsh language. It is a milestone which marks the long road which we are still travelling. It has established the cause of saving the Welsh language even outside Wales.
It is significant that everyone has tried to reach agreement on this Bill so that it may become an Act. I believe that we have moved a considerable way towards that. It is not only the English-speaking Welshman and the Welsh-speaking Welshman who now appreciates the place of the Welsh language in our heritage. It is appreciated by a great many English people who see the need to resolve the difficulties, to perpetuate and strengthen the language and to increase its education in its own right.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, commands great respect in this Chamber and elsewhere, and has made a significant contribution to his own country. Therefore, I was saddened to find that he has something of a problem with this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, may have exaggerated the difficulties.
We have all travelled through the various areas of Wales while in local government or in business. We know that from point to point the emphasis changes. Thank God, these days it changes without too much difficulty and conflict. It is possible for an Englishman to sit in a Welsh council where the language spoken is Welsh so long as the translation services are available. There is now very little difficulty about it. In fact, we find an increasing education in the language. There is an increasing knowledge of its importance within the heritage of the British Isles. That has been achieved because we had the legislation right for the time.
I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that this is an important statement and an important second mile on which the Government should embark. They should say that "equal validity" means just that. We are saying that we appreciate that the Welsh language is of great importance and that it has equal validity in law with the English language, which for many years was imposed upon the Welsh people.
There has been a great spirit of unanimity in this Committee, with Ministers going out of their way to

147
answer our questions. Therefore, it would be a great pity if we were to be divided by semantics in English about what is desirable in Welsh. The Welsh love semantics in English or in Welsh. It is interesting to note that people have come into the Chamber to listen to this debate. I hope that we can go forward without division. I hope that the Government welcome the amendment. I certainly support it.
Lord Geraint: It has been a pleasure to listen to the Members of the Committee who have spoken, especially the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Williams of Mostyn, and to my noble friend Lord Hooson. They all have legal minds. At times I wish I had one. I wish that I was a scholar, but I am not. I was delighted to hear those Members of the Committee stick by their principles, which is to give equal validity to Welsh and English in Wales, and I shall say a few words in support of what has already been said on this amendment.
I added my name to the amendment because I truly believe that that is where the heart of the matter lies. If we cannot have equal validity for the Welsh language in all things that concern public business and the administration of justice, I do not see that the resulting Welsh Language Act can meet our aspirations; that is, the aspirations of the Welsh people. Without it, the document just expresses pious hopes with provisions dependent on the good will of various bodies whose first interest may not be the Welsh language. As in other matters, commercial considerations will win the day.
As a Welshman I will never give in to the powers-that-be until the day when Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales. What we need in Wales is justice for our language, not sympathy and promises. Here we are in 1993, so let us hope that the Minister in his wisdom will realise that now is the time to give equal validity to Welsh and English in our proud nation of Wales.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 1 which has been so admirably presented to the Committee. I shall then discuss Amendment No. 5. This Bill when it is eventually enacted will be the nearest we have to a written constitution for the Welsh language in the public domain in Wales. We therefore believe, and many people in Wales believe, that it should enshrine a formal declaration that Welsh is to be an official language in Wales. If Parliament were to see its way clear to do that, the Bill would embody one of the fundamental aspirations of the Welsh people.
It has been said—although it has not been said this evening—that nowhere is there a comparable statement that English is an official language in these islands. However, I should point out with respect that the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, have made the point that the statement that English was an official language was almost set out in the Act of Union. Moreover, English is de facto the official language and de facto Welsh has no status.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn developed the historical arguments in support of the amendment. Others have developed the argument based on the
148
civic pride of the Welsh people. However, in support of this amendment we can also call in aid—the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, touched on this —the positive attitude taken by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe in support of the historic languages of the people of Europe. There is one key area of Community law to be considered. It is a key area because it involves the interpretation of Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome and Regulation 1612/68. In that instance the Court of Justice demonstrated in the Groener case, which involved the Irish language, that the status of a language is important. If a language requirement in relation to a post in Wales fell to be interpreted in the Court of Justice we say that the Welsh language should not be in a less favourable position than the Irish or the Basque languages because it had been denied the status of an official language by Parliament. However, unless this amendment is accepted by the Government, the Welsh language will be in that inferior position.
We see this as an opportunity and a privilege to secure for the Welsh language in Wales the definitive status whereby the Welsh nation can ensure that its ancient and national language is enabled to provide for the needs of modern Wales in the domain of public administration and in law. I am particularly grateful for the support we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I shall now discuss—
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he tell the Committee why his draft Bill does not have a declaration of equal validity which he is now suggesting should be adopted for this Bill?
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be frank with the Committee. It is because I have learnt a great deal in the school of experience. It is as simple as that.
I now turn to Amendment No. 5. I see that we have been given an argument by the Government for language schemes. I very much accept that. However, we have not been given an argument which demonstrates that the basis of equality principle is better than equal validity. Indeed, the evidence that we have indicates that the principle of equality is narrower than the principle of equal validity.
Where does that evidence come from? It comes from the Welsh Office itself. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred earlier to the memorandum from the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, which we have received, which explains the distinction between equal validity and the basis of equality. I trust that a copy of that important memorandum has been placed in the Library. I am grateful for a sight of that document. I find it to be an amazing but in fact disturbing document. I believe that would be the view of some members of the Welsh Language Board.
I have consulted on this matter and taken advice on it. Sadly I have come to the conclusion that the new principle represents a narrowing of the principle of equal validity. Moreover, on the evidence of the Welsh Office memorandum the new principle is unworkable without a language scheme. I believe that is acknowledged on page 3 of the Welsh Office memorandum. The document states:

149
"This Bill sets out to change the law and it is essential therefore that the duty to prepare schemes should have a legal meaning. The purpose of schemes, as defined in the Bill, must include these qualifying phrases … if it is to pass this test (i.e. 'have a legal meaning') and be such that the courts will, if necessary, be able to make sense of it".
There we have it. Impliedly the principle of equality can only operate where there is a language scheme. If there is no language scheme it cannot operate. If there is no language scheme and if this Bill is passed the principle of equal validity will have been rejected because this Bill repeals the 1967 Act. We shall see when we come to discuss Clause 5 that schemes—
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Far be it for me to speak from the Cross Benches on behalf of the Welsh Office but it does appear to me from my reading of the memorandum that there is another interpretation. The noble Lord argued that if we accept this present Bill the principle of equal validity is not workable. I would argue that the statement of principle in the Bill as it stands in the early clauses is the framework within which the schemes which we come to later in the Bill become articulated. What we have here is an articulation of a general principle and then a practical scheme for implementation which goes beyond the idea of equal validity.
Lord Prys-Davies: We know very little about the meaning of the phrase "a basis of equality"; but we know a great deal about the meaning of the phrase "equal validity". I see no reason why a language scheme could not have been attached to "equal validity". If it was so attached, I think it would be workable.
When we come to Clause 5, in my view it will take some years before language schemes will be operating throughout the Principality. When the Bill is enacted in its present form, there will be huge areas outside a language scheme where the individual will have no linguistic rights. I believe we have said enough to suggest to the department that it must rethink Clause 1 and the basis of equality principle. In my view, the department has had good advice from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and all Members of the House. I hope the noble Lord can give an indication that the Welsh Office is prepared to have a rethink.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for having introduced the amendment. As he always does, he has put his case with great care and clarity. His love of Wales and the Welsh language is as well known as it is transparent in the noble Lord.
This amendment is a very important one and an intellectual argument. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said that what was wanted was justice, not promises and sympathy. The whole Bill is about the encouragement of the Welsh language and the elevation of it. Those two issues which form the subject of the amendment have been at the heart of the debate surrounding the official status of the Welsh language for a very long while. I have listened to the
150
arguments on the amendment with a considerable amount of interest. I said at the beginning of Second Reading—I say again now —that the Government are prepared to listen. What we all want to do is to get the right answer.
The concept of equal validity is one that has underlined much of what the Government have done in relation to the language over the past two decades. It was only after the closest legal scrutiny that the decision was taken that it should not be the principle that should be at the heart of the Bill. The intention of the legislation is that it should confirm the official status of the Welsh language. I hope to be able to set out why in the Government's view it is not appropriate or indeed possible to do so in the way that the amendment suggests. It is worth underlining that the Government are not rejecting the policy objectives to which these amendments refer. Equal validity will continue to have an important—one may almost say treasured—position in the Government's overall policy of support for the language. We will also continue to take measures to strengthen its official status.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that some drum-beating was required for the Welsh language. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that the Bill needed to have a general declaratory observation. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell said that he was verging on being persuaded by the argument. I hesitate to take issue with the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Mostyn, who are eminent lawyers; but I suggest that Bills are not vehicles for the general declaration of intent or the beating of drums. Bills are for changing the law and implementing the change with clarity. I suggest that what we cannot do is enact in law the principles of equal validity and an official language. I believe that this point is crucial to the whole debate.
Were we to attempt to do that, the concepts of both an official language and equal validity would be so uncertain and therefore undefinable that, rather than simplify the issue, they would result in endless recourse to the courts for clarification. It is precisely that kind of uncertainty that we do not want to stimulate. Indeed, it will not help what the Bill is trying to achieve.
There are many who see equal validity as a narrow legal concept. If that is so, it will not do much to improve the levels of service available to Welsh speakers. It is no good a Welsh-speaking consumer being aware of the validity of a form if the form itself is not available. My other anxiety is that the rather narrow definition of equal validity tells only part of the story. There are wider implications for a declaration of this kind that will give rise not only to unacceptable uncertainty, but to practical implications which will not conform with what the Bill is trying to do. I use an example that I have used before. A request given in Welsh to a non Welsh-speaking public employee would not, and indeed could not, be to the like effect as would the same request given in English. The person simply would not understand it.

151
The policy is not to require people who cannot understand to understand, but to encourage the use of the Welsh language as much as possible.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether the example the Minister has just given is a little misleading. We are not seeking to place a duty on the employee of a public body. The duty is addressed to the public body. It will be for the public body to ensure that the resources are there so that it can respond to the Welsh speaker.
Earl Ferrers: I see that. However, if one is saying that in law there is equal validity in languages and a Welsh-speaking person approaches a public body and speaks to that body in Welsh, and the person to whom he speaks does not understand it, the original speaker will say, "I am speaking in a language that has equal validity as any other. You ought to understand it and be able to give me a response". It is that kind of thing that is tested in the courts. A person may say, "I spoke in this way and expected to be responded to because the language I used had equal validity". That issue would go to the courts and one would begin to run into trouble. What we have tried to do in the Bill is to put the onus on the Welsh Language Board to produce schemes to make perfectly clear what is going to happen.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are now fairly familiar with the phrase "equal validity". I believe the Government have a very strong argument in support of the language schemes and I do not oppose them; but why do they not attach the language schemes to the principle of equal validity?
Earl Ferrers: What I have been trying to explain all the way along is that the expression "equal validity" has no basis in law. If one attaches that to a Bill, inevitably people will have recourse to the law to decide exactly what it means. That weakens the whole emphasis of what the Bill is intended to do. We want to make as clear as possible what is expected of people and what their requirements are. To insert something into the Bill that has no legal basis will open up the position to perpetual questioning.
Lord Elton: Could my noble friend be more explicit, and perhaps extract from noble Lords opposite the answer to this question? If there is a requirement in general law in health and safety legislation that a local authority should give a warning to a worker that something he is doing or handling is hazardous and the circumstances are such that that warning has to be given by word of mouth, would the local authority official giving that warning to the employee, who spoke only English or Welsh, have discharged his function under the Act of Parliament? I believe that the answer is that nobody can tell us that until the matter is proved in court. Therefore, my noble friend must by right in urging that the amendment introduces an element of uncertainty and weakens the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for asking me a question, which he wished me to ask the Opposition and then requested me to answer. Perhaps I may answer it as simply as possible. The obligation
152
upon the employee will depend upon the scheme which is presented to the organisation by which he is employed. Upon that will depend the way in which the employee responds.
My noble friend asked a very good question, because if the words "equal validity" were included in the Bill, the employee could go along to court and be represented. He could say, "I have done this and I have done the best that I can; what is equal validity?". One would then become involved in a morass of uncertainty.
Were the Government to contemplate even for a moment proceeding to legislate for such an untested principle as "equal validity", it is worth considering what the practical implications might be. The first and immediate consequence would be, as I suggested, a field-day for the legal profession. I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir that, without an adequate definition of "equal validity", it would fall to the courts to determine what it meant in each individual case. I suggest that that is no basis for a successful policy of support and encouragement for the Welsh language. We cannot leave the far-reaching changes which we want this Bill to secure to be dependent upon the uncertainty of perpetual recourse to the courts.
The concept of Welsh being an official language raises similar concepts of definition and uncertainty. It is the Government's view that, whatever uncertainty there may have been in the past concerning the official status of Welsh, it should be removed by the Bill. I am afraid that that certainty would be reintroduced should the language once again become dependent on a general declaration which could only be defined in individual cases by recourse to the courts.
It is also incumbent upon us to consider, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out, the implication of a declaration of this nature on the two languages most commonly used in Wales if at the same time there is no provision in British law concerning the official status of English in England. That would introduce an imbalance which would be difficult to defend. One must remember that the Bill repeals the remaining provisions of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542—the Acts of union. No longer, therefore, is there a blot on the language.
That morass of uncertainty would be only the tip of the iceberg. It must be contrasted with what is contained in the Bill. The principle of equality is, in my view, a far more powerful formulation than equal validity in a number of important respects. It gives us a single principle which confirms the status of the Welsh language in the public sector in Wales. It also provides a framework which will enable the practical obstacles which govern the delivery of Welsh language services to be addressed and, wherever possible, to be overcome. Those practical issues will be addressed by the Welsh language schemes to which the Bill will give rise. Those schemes will reflect what "on a basis of equality" means in practice. Welsh speakers will not, therefore, be required to go to court to discover what equality means in individual cases. Instead what equality means will be set out in the schemes which

153
public bodies will provide and, crucially, all schemes will be drawn up having regard to the Welsh Language Board's guidelines.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the Government's principle of equality. I invite him to consider the vital role of the board's guidelines in illustrating clearly the meaning of equality. The amendment would leave it to the courts to decide.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I hope that before the Report stage he will ask his legal advisers whether the term "on a basis of equality" has ever been legally interpreted. The point was made by his noble friend Lord Elton in an intervention that the term "equal validity" has no legal basis. I believe that the term "on a basis of equality" is potentially a much more fruitful source of litigation than the other.
Earl Ferrers: I see the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, wetting his lips at the prospect of litigation. The noble Lord must not expect to predecease the legislation: I am sure that he has many more years of fruitful litigation work to conduct. I would not dream of answering such a technical question off the cuff. I shall, of course, look into the matter.
I keep returning to my concern that if one inserts the words "equal validity" in statute, one is introducing something which is untested. I consider that "on a basis of equality" is a far more general expression and would be easier to understand. However, of course I shall see that that point is considered.
Baroness White: Could the noble Earl not at least agree that a declaratory statement that Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales should be made? Without some such declaratory statement there will be great difficulty in achieving full acceptance for the Bill. Then one leaves the question of equality and equal validity to the lawyers.
Earl Ferrers: That is what I am worried about. Of course I shall consider the noble Baroness's point, but I come back to what I said at the beginning. I believe that there is a danger in using a Bill as a vehicle for making declaratory statements. We are trying to change the law and, in changing it, make it perfectly clear what the change is. Statements are made on public rostrums; the Bill is not the correct place. However, I shall certainly consider what the noble Baroness said.
I would not wish for a moment to dismiss the aspirations which lie behind the amendments because they are important. I am as anxious as anyone else to find the right route. However, I believe that those issues are addressed more comprehensively and practically in the words which are presently contained in the Bill. They also address the problem in a way which does not give rise to unacceptable legal uncertainty. That is why I should prefer to retain the words in the Bill rather than accept the additional
154
words which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has suggested because I believe that they will produce uncertainty.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say that he has indicated that he will consider the points that have been made in the debate. There is at present a sharp difference of opinion on the use of the words "equal validity". I do not share the noble Earl's view. I believe that "equal validity" is an acceptable term. It is acceptable in many cases and by many organisations. Nevertheless, in view of the debate the noble Earl has indicated that he is prepared to give the matter further consideration and perhaps return to it at Report stage with some suggestions as to how it could be resolved. That would be helpful at that point.
Earl Ferrers: I was trying to suggest that of course I shall consider the matter. I cannot give any guarantee that as a result of consideration I would come to the view which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggests because, frankly, I do not believe that I shall. But it would be cavalier of me when so much concern has been expressed on the subject to say that I shall not consider it; of course I shall. But I am bound to put the reservation that I cannot guarantee the outcome.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I wish to be quite clear that he is giving an undertaking to the Committee that he will come back at Report stage with a further statement on this subject. Knowing him as I do, I believe that he will give very careful consideration to the arguments from both sides on this issue. In order to know how to proceed, it will be helpful to me if he will give such an undertaking at this time.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord must not push me too hard. He asked me if I would come back with a statement at Report stage. I do not believe that I can do that unless I find that the arguments which I propounded at Committee need to be adjusted or that we could find a way round. I said that I would consider all the arguments that have been put forward. If, after considering the matter, I found that there needed to be an amendment, I should be happy to bring one forward. I have explained that I do not believe that that is likely. But I shall certainly consider what has been said.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say this. If I have understood him correctly, his objection in principle to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is that a Bill is an inappropriate vehicle in which to have declarations of principle.
If one considers Clause 4(2) of the Bill one finds precisely that: a declaration of principle.
Earl Ferrers: I am not certain how the noble Lord understands that. I do not propose to delay the Committee by reading through the Bill at present. However, that is not the same kind of principle as making the declaration which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wishes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am simply reading the English language. Clause 4(2) states:
"The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect … to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice … the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
That is a declaration of principle no different in kind to the declaration of principle which underlies the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that there is a difference. That clause explains how something should be interpreted. It is not giving a general declaration of principle; for example, that Welsh is an official language or anything of that nature. The clause quite clearly explains how the measures are to be interpreted.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may intervene. By having at the outset of the Bill an enactment of the phrase in the noble Lord's amendment, the declaration of principle to which he referred would be all embracing. It would not refer just to the contents of the Bill.
The provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred is not such a declaration of principle. It refers to the duty of the public bodies to prepare schemes. In preparing the schemes, the clause sets out that,
"so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
That provision refers to the preparation of the schemes. It is not all embracing as is the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I disagree, but if that is so in a curious sense it is a Magna Charta for Wales and even from my schoolboy recollection I believe that the Magna Charta contains important statements of principle.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I have given careful consideration to what the noble Earl said. I have the sense that he is anxious to resolve the problem if that is possible. He has indicated that he is prepared to consider the different views that have been expressed. He said that a declaratory statement was not desirable in a Bill. However, all the great Bills have declaratory statements. The great statutes of this country all have declaratory statements. I see no reason why there should not be a clear declaratory statement. It is asked for by many of the county councils and local authorities of Wales.
No doubt the noble Earl has read the correspondence that he has received on the contents of the Bill. To a large number of people in Wales, this issue is central. Therefore, the Government should consider again to see whether they can produce a form of words about equal validity which would be acceptable but would not cross the line as defined by the noble Earl.
If it is clear that the noble Earl is prepared to consider again what might be done to assist us, then I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to take the sting out of any excitement that the noble Lord might have if he wishes to press the amendment. That is a decision that he must make. I merely wished to explain on a matter of no party issue—it is almost a question of philosophy about how best to approach the matter—that it would be cavalier of me to say that I would not take any note of what the Committee has said. Of course I shall consider the matter. I cannot see at present that I am likely to be able to find a different way round simply because I have put forward my views on the noble Lord's amendment. But I shall certainly take note of what the Committee said.
I do not want the noble Lord to expect me to come forward with a different amendment. If it transpires that that is possible, then of course it will be done. But I do not anticipate that. However, I shall certainly consider what has been said.
Lord Cledywn of Penrhos: The noble Earl stated that he would take note of what was said. That is something that we can all do. However, Ministers are expected to be a little more co-operative than that. Will he not only take note but consider the possibility of producing a form of words which might meet the views expressed by so many noble Lords?
Earl Ferrers: We are getting into an area of semantics. Of course I take note of what has been said and of course I shall consider it. But it would be wrong for me to imply that I can come forward with an amendment. I may not be able to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has expressed anxieties. I am trying to be as helpful as I can by stating that I have given the Government's view on the matter but that I shall consider what has been said to see whether there is any way of getting round the problem. I can say no more than that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The noble Earl has gone that one inch further. That is extremely helpful. In those circumstances, given that we shall have the opportunity to return to the issue at Report stage, and in the hope that using that imagination for which the noble Earl is famous he will indeed produce something, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Membership of the Board
.—(1) At least five members of the Board shall be appointed from amongst persons nominated by organisations which the Secretary of State considers have a special interests in safeguarding and promoting the use of the Welsh language.
(2) Before appointing members of the Board the Secretary of State shall consult such local authorities, such other public bodies and such organisations concerned with the preservation, development and promotion of the Welsh language as he considers appropriate.
(3) In appointing members of the Board, the Secretary of State shall bear in mind the desirability of members—

(a) being resident in Wales;

(b) being representatives of the different regions of Wales;

157

(c) being representatives of a wide range of linguistic competence, including Welsh speakers, learners of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers.").

The noble Lord said: I trust that the Committee will forgive me if I speak at some length about the amendment. I wish also to make one correction to Clause 3(3) (b) of the amendment. The reference should be to "representative" rather than "representatives".
This is another amendment which commands wide support from many organisations and bodies in Wales. I am also glad to say that it has received the support of the Law Society. It is our hope that the new body, the statutory board, will develop to be a forward-looking Welsh institution of the greatest significance and commanding the respect and confidence of the people of Wales. I very much hope that it will one day rank among the most important institutions in Wales.
That is why we do not accept for one minute the proposal that the Secretary of State shall be free to make whatever appointments he likes to the body without consultation with any organisation, particularly the organisations which are actively engaged in supporting the Welsh language.
I am wholly unconvinced that the proposals should be acceptable merely because it is a standard clause which one finds governing membership of quangos. If this body is to be a success, then, unlike the existing quangos, it should not become a mere proxy for the department's wishes. It should become a national body enjoying the confidence of the Welsh people.
The amendment is in three parts. The first seeks to ensure that there will be an independent element among the membership. There is no suggestion that it must dominate the board—indeed, it will amount to about one-third of the membership. There is no suggestion that those members are to be delegates of the nominating organisations. But bearing in mind that there will be a close relationship between the Secretary of State and the board, we can be sure that from time to time the board will come under pressure from Ministers or officials. Therefore, it is important that there should be an independent element within its membership. I anticipate that the independent element would be in a better and stronger position to question certain Welsh Office assumptions if it believes they should be questioned. Indeed, it may provide a different perspective from that of the other members.
The second part of the amendment requires the Secretary of State to be under a statutory duty to have wide consultations with the appropriate bodies and organisations before he makes the appointments. They will be the bodies who will know what needs to be done and will know something of the difficulties.
The third part of the amendment sets out the criteria for membership of the board. I am clearly not wedded to the criteria, but I believe they are a basis upon which one could build. The Bill is silent about the board's composition; but in winding up the Second Reading debate, the noble Earl told the House that the Secretary of State
158
"will certainly be concerned to see that membership of the board is representative of a spread of opinion in Wales about the language".—[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 880.]
That is acceptable, but we wish to have this criterion in the Bill. The noble Earl's statement is acceptable, provided —and I am sure we can assume this—all the members will be in basic sympathy with the objectives of the Act.
Thus I am not necessarily wedded to the criteria. I believe that the wording can be defended; but I also accept that it could be defective. However, it has been suggested to me that I ought not to press for the insertion of the criteria. Again, we should rely upon the standard appointment clause which says nothing about the nature of membership.
I wonder whether there is a standard clause which is applied across the board without exception. In preparing for the Committee stage of the Bill, I have been able to track down at least four statutory bodies set up since 1980 where the legislation has something to say about the composition of the governing body. I believe that one of them is relevant in the context of the Bill. It is the constitution of the Scottish Natural Heritage Board, set up under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. In appointing its members, the Secretary of State for Scotland is under a duty under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to:
"have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the membership … contains at any time, so far as is practicable, persons of knowledge or experience relevant to the principal areas of activity of SNH".
As Parliament considered it wise to place the Scottish Secretary of State under such a duty when making appointments to a body to protect the Scottish natural heritage from loss, we urge that Parliament should also insert into this Bill appropriate criteria which sets up the statutory Welsh Language Board to promote the use of the Welsh language, which is a priceless part of our heritage. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am happy to rise in support of my noble friend, in commending the amendment to the Government. I believe that it is a constructive and positive proposal which will strengthen the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to assist the Secretary of State in his crucial task—as my noble friend said—of selecting the very best available people for membership of the statutory board. We would do so by setting up a simple procedure which would do nothing more than focus the Secretary of State's mind on the breadth of abilities, experience, enthusiasm, skill and judgment which are available to him and permit him the widest possible range of choice.
The present Clause 1, together with Schedule 1, follows the usual conventions in setting up such bodies, imposing certain duties on the Secretary of State, though it is welcome to see that in this case they are kept to a minimum to allow the board the greatest possible autonomy and freedom of operation.
Our Amendment No. 2 is constructed with precisely the same principles in mind. The Committee will notice that only subsection (1) places any constraint whatever on the free and unfettered choice of the Secretary of State. The constraint in subsection (1) is so minimal as to be exiguous. Not only is the

159
number of appointees of this kind limited to five—33 per cent. of the total—but the Secretary of State would retain the power to decide which organisations,
"have a special interest in safeguarding and promoting the use of the Welsh language".
He would be required to nominate the nominators. I do not think that we could go much further in preserving his total power than that. The great advantage would be that organisations like the eisteddfod or Forwm yr Iaith could be rewarded for the dedication that they have displayed to the cause of the Welsh language over many years by being given some responsibility and allowed and encouraged to make a contribution to the establishment of the board—little more than that. There is reason to believe that they would not only value the invitation but that this would allow them to associate themselves actively, positively and publicly with the work of the board. They would be committed to it. That could be helpful to the board and to the Government.
When I was thinking about this I recalled a piece of proverbial peasant wisdom which is expressed in the English language. I do not know whether there is any Welsh version of this, but I am sure some of my colleagues will tell me if there is. I recalled the words:
"It is better to have some people on the inside spitting out, than to have them on the outside spitting in."
Subsection (2) places a duty of consultation on the Secretary of State; but again it does not lay down, except in the most general terms, whom he shall consult. Nor does it oblige him to do anything as a result of such consultation. The Government and the noble Earl may argue, then what is the point? It does it anyway, and that is true. But subsection (2) would ensure that consultation was seen and known to take place. This would be a great reassurance to the people of Wales, even those most critical of the Government's appointments in Wales. There have been many of them, and they have been vocal, and they would find it the more difficult in this case to argue that the board was—I use the phrase carefully—simply a bunch of Tory placemen, half of them fifth cousins to the Secretary of State, who will be wholly unrepresentative of the people of Wales. I hesitate to use such language in your Lordships' Committee, but I can assure you it is polite in comparison to what I have heard expressed about the idea of 15 people being appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales without consultation.
Subsection (3) is similarly permissive and enabling. It is designed to reassure the people of Wales that their national, regional and linguistic susceptibilities have been formally and properly taken into account. You will notice that we make provision for the learners of Welsh. I can assure the Committee from bitter personal, hard and long experience that learners of Welsh have enough problems mastering the manifold mysteries of front mutation, and would greatly welcome the presence of someone on the board who has trodden that painful path himself or herself. Further we would allow opportunity for a monoglot English-speaking majority to be properly represented, and we would hope that this would not be a piece of tokenisation but a real participatory function.
160
Clause 1, as it stands, and as we would wish to amend it, would have a certain simple beauty and clarity, which we welcome. The amendment would in no way cloud that clarity, and it would have the positive advantage of demonstrating to the people of Wales that the board would not be creating jobs for the boys but carefully selecting the best possible people for this important task.
Baroness White: Would my noble friend agree with me that subsection (3) of this amendment would be improved by having "the representative of" in paragraphs (b) and (c) instead of "representatives"? If they were representatives they would have to be elected, appointed or nominated by someone or other, and I do not think that is what is intended. It is purely grammatical.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to my noble friend. I understood that had been corrected. If it has, all is well; if it has not, it certainly should be.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The Government should look carefully at the proposals in this new clause, and pay careful attention to the arguments produced by my two noble friends. I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that we must get the board right, and make sure that it is acceptable to the Welsh people. Lack of confidence in the board at the start would be damaging. There is at present a good deal of anxiety in Wales about appointments to membership of boards and committees.
I appeal to the noble Earl to make inquiries about this and to obtain an appreciation of the current views in Wales on this subject. It is important to get the balance right. The new clause would ensure consultation before appointment. That is right and sensible, and this would be welcomed in Wales.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I suppose that I have to declare an interest. I am not yet familiar with the rules of this House but I am myself a nominated body in that the Secretary of State for Wales recently had the good grace to nominate me on to the Welsh Arts Council, for which I am eternally grateful. Here is an opportunity for the Government to indicate how they intend to look at the structure of the board. Although I do not necessarily agree with the detail of the wording of the amendment, there is an important principle here that has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; namely, the amount of effort that has already been undertaken on a voluntary basis in support of the development of the language.
We are now legislating late in the day to enhance the official status of Welsh. We would not be legislating at all if it were not for the activities of the voluntary sector. In that I am going to include the campaigners who have campaigned, not always within the law, in Cymdeithas yr iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society, but also the activities of all those involved in the pre-school movement in Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin; in Rhieni Dros Addysg Gymraeg the movement for the development of Welsh medium education at the primary and secondary sector; and similarly the movement representing those who are learning Welsh, Cymdeithas y Dysgwyr, and of course

161
the civil rights language organisation, CEFN. I could go on listing organisations which, through their efforts, have enhanced the status of the language and have demanded a response from the Welsh Office. It is important that as the board gets going as a statutory body it develops the voluntary partnerships that the existing non-statutory board has already established. I am certain that this is the Government's intention.
It is also important as a matter of principle that there should be a number of English speakers as active members of the board. That has two immediate effects. It means that the board will have to practise what it preaches. It will have to have a language scheme for itself. Its formal and public meetings will have to be simultaneously translated. Its papers will have to be produced bilingually so that the board itself will be setting an example to the other public bodies in Wales that it is seeking to influence. That is important.
It is equally important that there should be an international dimension to the work of the board. I am not so happy about subsection (3) (a). I would not argue that somebody from Catalonia should be a member of the board; but I can see that there are benefits from having the expertise of other national regions within the European Community that have developed language policies associated with the work of the board.
In choosing membership of the board it has to be done on a wide regional area. It may not be essential that the board should be located in Cardiff. We have located public bodies successfully outside Cardiff. I think of the Countryside Council for Wales where the Minister of State took the decision to locate that body in Bangor, not far from the ancestral seat of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I hope that it will be possible for us to look for ways of decentralising public bodies in this way within Wales, and to ensure regional representation in that sense.
I support the spirit of the amendment, but perhaps not the letter of it. I hope that the noble Earl can indicate ways in which, by the selection of people to the board through this wonderful process of nomination to non-departmental public bodies by which Wales is governed, we can ensure some kind of representation until that great day dawns when we have something called democracy, but I am not sure that I should mention that in this Committee.
Lord Hooson: I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas about the opportunity this amendment gives to the Government to show what criteria they will have in mind when making appointments to this board. I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that the success of this Act will depend to a large extent on the calibre of the board and the quality of the chairman. I am slightly horrified at the idea of having 15 members on this board. I do not share entirely the idea that there should be regional representation. I would much prefer to have a board of half that size of people of real quality and calibre, especially some of the younger people in Wales.
In common with other Members of the Committee I was impressed by some of the young people who
162
came to see us to express their views in regard to the Bill from such diverse streams of life as the Consumer Council to teaching organisations and so forth. But it is important that we know what is in the Government's mind on the matter. It is not that the formula in the amendment is necessarily the right formula; but it would be an opportunity for the noble Earl to tell us what the Government have in mind.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that he thought that a board of 15 members was horrifyingly large and that he wanted a smaller one. I could not help thinking of the words expressed by Mr. Nubar Gulbenkian regarding the best number of people to have at a dinner party. He said that the best number was two, of which one should be the head waiter.
I listened with interest because I found myself in sympathy with a great deal of what your Lordships said about the composition of the board. I stated earlier that it is our intention that the board should be representative of a wide range of views in regard to the Welsh language. I certainly hope that there will be no dispute about that.
The language is an inheritance for all of Wales—the Welsh and the English speaking. The board should therefore bring together those people who are best suited for the work which we expect the board to undertake. That means that in practice the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that the board represents, for instance, a spread of ability in the language. I would expect Welsh speakers to make up a large part of the board and there is undoubtedly a role for those who have learnt Welsh. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, felt that non Welsh speakers also had a contribution to make. I too would expect them to be represented on the board.
Members of the board would need to be familiar with the operations of public bodies and the nature of the challenges that they will face in trying to implement the legislation. They will therefore need knowledge of that. We are anxious also that the board should forge a good working relationship with those organisations which embody the distinct Welsh speaking culture of Wales. They should be fully aware of their aspirations. Therefore, I find myself at one with a great deal of what has been said.
It is because it is important to obtain the best individuals to serve on the board that the Government wish to give the Secretary of State the widest possible discretion. I shall be concerned not to limit his choice, particularly by requiring the board to be made up of nominees from other bodies. We believe that there could be a danger that the membership of the board may have to be drawn from a reduced pool. There are no doubt suitable candidates for appointment from all walks of life who may be part of any organisation, or indeed of none.
I am therefore anxious that the amendment before us—probing amendment though it may be—is drawn too tightly and would circumscribe the freedom of the Secretary of State in choosing individuals to become members of the board. I would find it difficult to advise the Committee to accept the amendment as it is tabled, but I should like to consider the many points

163
made to see whether there is some way of reflecting the importance of the criteria upon which we all agree without placing undue restrictions on the Secretary of State's selection of members.
Lord Prys-Davies: First, I am grateful for the support that I received from all Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendment. As I said, we are not necessarily wedded to the wording. However, I constantly have it in mind that the new statutory board is being designed to assist in the task of developing the use of the Welsh language and it must have popular support within Wales.
I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic approach to the amendment. It may be that we need to think afresh on Part I. I felt that Part I was important because we should have an independent element on the board. However, I listened with great care to the Minister and understood him to say that in principle he agrees that there should be a provision in the Bill reflecting the criteria which we all consider to be appropriate.
On that understanding I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but obviously reserve the right to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Board]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("function") and insert ("duty").
The noble Lord said: The intention of Amendment No. 3 is apparent. The board has been given this worthwhile function under Clause 2. The function is to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language. However, the Government have not placed a duty on the board to promote the language. The key word in Clause 2(1) is "function". "Function" does not embrace a "duty". That is why it is unsatisfactory from our point of view. On the other hand, "duty" would embrace "function". We believe it is important that the word "duty" should appear in the Bill.
I hope that the Government will find the amendment acceptable. Those of us who met representatives of Welsh organisations last week were pressed hard to bring in amendments to Clause 2 which would ensure that the board has a proactive role in that sphere. My hope is that the Government can accept the amendment. If the amendment is agreed to, it will mean that the board is proactive. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It is a sheer pleasure for an old professor of English like myself to support my noble friend on the matter of an argument about the meanings, functions and usages of words.
Someone once said of classical Greek that it is a language so subtle in its semantics and syntax that it is possible, in Greek, to create a distinction where there is no difference. I hope that we shall not be accused of such delicacy in proposing the amendment because there is a real and significant distinction to be drawn between a "function" and a "duty". In our view
164
the word "duty" is greatly to he preferred in this context because of its greater strength and greater clarity.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives as its first definition of "function":
"activity proper to person or institution".
The word "proper" is itself important in that definition. It is used in the same sense as we find it in the Book of Common Prayer where we read,
"thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy",
or when we speak of chemical substances having "properties" and we mean those characteristics which make them what they are and not something other. So it is reasonable to think that a function is an activity proper to, or characteristic of, a given thing.
For instance, it is a function of the sun to shine. It requires no desire or volition on the part of the sun; the sun cannot refuse to shine; it cannot fail to shine by any negligence on its own part. Now in that central sense the Welsh Language Board cannot have a function. Of its own nature it can do nothing, or to put it another way, there is nothing that the Welsh Language Board does because it cannot help it—as the sun shines because it has no alternative. So "function", although we could work with it, is not the best word in this context.
"Duty", on the other hand, is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as, among other things,
"moral or legal obligation, what one is bound or ought to do".
That is very much better. That sense is clearly applicable to Clause 2. To promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language is what the board ought to do, is obliged to do, is required by the Secretary of State to do, not what it will inevitably do as a consequence of its own nature. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a convincing example when it quotes from the 1560 Geneva Bible, Ecclesiastes, XII:13:
"Feare God and kepe his commandments: for this is the whole dutie of man".
Try substituting "for this is the whole function of man" and you see at once the vast difference in use between the two words.
Duty is the stronger word, the clearer concept and the more appropriate in this context because the board needs to be seen to be having a moral obligation to the language and to the people of Wales. Like Lord Nelson, Wales expects that the Welsh Language Board this day will not exercise its function, but do its duty.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that he was a professor of English literature and referred to the problems of syntax and semantics. This is very nearly one of them. I knew that we would come into quite an interesting debate about the virtues or otherwise of "duty" or "function".
I must say that I rather side with the draftsman in preferring the use of the word "function" in this context. To begin with, it conveys the impression that it is the board's raison d'être and is therefore more general in scope than a mere duty which would be imposed upon it by the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that the function

165
of the sun is to shine and that it is not a duty. We are talking about the function of the Welsh Language Board. It is there for a particular purpose. That is the whole point of it being there. That is its whole function. It is slightly different from being given a task. The use of the word "duty" seems to imply a task which the board has had almost thrust upon it, whereas in reality this is a task which the present board—and I am sure the future board—has shown itself more than pleased to undertake. All those people on the board are there in order to make the board function properly. I think that the word "function" is probably more successful and more appropriate in this case than "duty".
Lord Prys-Davies: I am just a little bothered that the Minister has been unable to offer us a grain of comfort on this amendment. I am not entirely surprised because this modest amendment identifies a basic weakness generally in the structure of the Bill —the failure to construct rights and duties. On Thursday we shall come to the question of judicial review. It is my view that unless the board is under a duty to promote and facilitate the use of the language it will be extremely difficult for any individual to take judicial review proceedings against it if it is in default.
I appreciate that the Committee wants to make progress. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, after ("business") insert (", the provision of public services").
The noble Lord said: My function and duty in moving this amendment is to add the phrase "the provision of public services" to the reference to the conduct of public business as it stands in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to try to draw out from the Minister exactly how he intends to see the board functioning. It seems to me that there is a danger that the phrase "the conduct of public business" could be seen to be referring to the way in which the board deals with members of the public who are requiring services in the Welsh language or English language rather than to the content in the provision of services themselves.
The phrase "the conduct of public business" might also not clearly imply which public services are supposed to be under the aegis of the board. Because the Bill does not mention the health service or the education service, although in later clauses it mentions individual deliverers of those services, it could be argued that it will enable different aspects of public business to be conducted bilingually or through the medium of Welsh or English rather than ensure that schemes prepared by the board will relate to the content of services. I am referring specifically to the education service. I do not want to go into too much detail because, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is indicating, we shall be coming to that in greater detail on other amendments.
I want clarification that the area of operation of the board extends to the content of public service
166
provision where clearly that has a linguistic content —that includes the whole area of public service and the administration of public service—and that schemes specified in the Bill refer to the content and delivery of services and not just to the administration of detail when individuals go to a public service and request to be treated bilingually. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: I support the amendment. I should like to draw attention to one matter. The subsection deals with the advisory function of the hoard. It is in that context that the amendment is moved.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. Surely the conduct of public business must embrace the provision of public service.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. One difficulty is that "public business" itself is not defined in the Bill. One wonders whether it ought to have been defined. The concept is complex. It seems very uncertain whether it is wide enough to cover some of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has referred. If there is uncertainty about the meaning of the phrase we have a potential problem. One related problem is who is to decide the meaning of the term. It would be safer if we had incorporated a definition of the term or widened it to include the wording of the amendment.
Viscount St. Davids: It is difficult to pick out any one of the functions referred to in Clause 2 and claim that it is any more important than the others. However, it is perhaps fair to say that the board's role of providing advice to other public sector organisations holds out the potential of securing the most widespread changes.
The reference to the board's role in relation to the public sector in subsection (2) (b) has been drafted with this in mind. The principle to which it refers is intended to apply throughout the public sector and to encompass the wide range of services which this includes. I am pleased to be able to reassure the Committee that there is therefore no need for the principle referred to in the subsection to be expanded to make reference to "the provision of public services" since the principle already extends to them.
Even if there were any doubt on this matter I would remind the Committee that it is a mistake to see the list of powers referred to in subsection (2) as exhaustive. They are, as the Bill states, without prejudice to the general function of promoting and facilitating the language, which is of course of even wider scope.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Before the noble Viscount sits down, can he follow that through with a further assurance; for example, that advice on the content of the delivery of education policy is clearly within the scope of the activity of the board?
Viscount St Davids: I believe that this is a matter which needs further consideration. We shall have to come back to it at a later stage.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("should be treated on a basis of equality") and insert ("shall be of equal validity").
The noble Lord said: In view of the constructive exchanges at the end of debate on the first amendment, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert (", including the publication of regularly updated guidelines for the private sector on the use of Welsh in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, reminded us, this section of the Bill refers to the advice which the board gives to persons, which implies organisations as well as persons in the individual sense. The purpose of this amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lords Hooson and Lord Prys-Davies, is to indicate the advisory role of the board in relation to the private sector, the role of private companies in the grouped Amendment No. 15 and the role of voluntary organisations.
Viscount St Davids: Is the noble Lord also speaking to Amendment No. 15?
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am speaking to them together for the convenience of the Committee.
I wish to indicate quite clearly that those of us who support the principle of this Bill very strongly recognise that it is deliberately limited and constrained to its specific statutory role in the public sector and that its role in relation to the private sector and voluntary sector is an advisory one. It is important to state that principle because the present non-statutory board has undertaken substantial work here in providing guidelines for the private sector which have proved extremely useful for small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales voluntarily to develop the use of the Welsh language in their commercial and business activities.
I stress that principle because neither in this clause nor in any other part of the Bill are we dealing with any aspect of compulsion on the private or voluntary sectors. We are providing an opportunity through drawing attention in this amendment to the role of the board in providing regular advice and guidelines. We are drawing attention to the importance of the board as an advisory agency for the activities of the private sector and the voluntary organisations.
In my experience and from working with voluntary organisations—again I declare an interest as a consultant to the NSPCC in Wales—in developing their work, I believe that they are keen to benefit from the advice of the Welsh Language Board as they seek to implement policies in the social services, health service, housing and consumer fields, where they can by taking advantage of the advice of the board ensure
168
that Welsh-speaking consumers of their services in the voluntary sector can benefit from equality of treatment as set out in the Bill.
In particular I draw attention to Amendment No. 15 because it emphasises the additional cost to the voluntary sector of developing bilingual services. I know that many voluntary bodies have already undertaken a substantial effort in that area to meet voluntarily the needs of a bilingual population. That imposes additional burdens on them. By means of this amendment they are keen to draw attention to the additional cost of bilingualism and for that to be recognised, particularly where there is grant aid for the voluntary sector from the Welsh Office. I am certain that the voluntary sector in Wales generally, both in the social services and in the health sector in particular, looks forward to collaborating closely with the Welsh Language Board on a voluntary basis in ensuring that there are matching services to the services which will be provided within the public sector as a result of the board's schemes.
So the voluntary sector wants to participate in the schemes and wishes to be enabled to do so by recognising the on-cost of bilingual administration. It is for those reasons, and stressing the advisory nature of the clauses, that I move these amendments. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: I wish to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 15. It attracted me immediately because, first, it seems to be a very modest amendment; it asks only for encouragement and assistance. Secondly, it attracted me because it refers to voluntary organisations with which I have been concerned in Wales for very many years. It also draws attention to the worries of those voluntary organisations which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has rightly said, are over the difficulties if they are required to fulfil the obligations under this Bill of the extra expense that they would have to cover. Quite clearly, this is not a very good time for voluntary bodies to try to raise extra money.
I am indebted to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action for helping me and for pointing out that the difficulty arises where the voluntary body is under contract to a statutory body. Most often that is a local authority and usually in the field of health or social services. We have so often heard in this House criticism of the way in which the social services are dealing with the transition from long-stay hospitals and homes into the community, very often leading to homelessness. Certainly in Wales, as well as in England, the local authorities are increasingly looking to the voluntary bodies to fill that need. For example, there are hospitals for the mentally ill, rehabilitation centres for alcoholics and drug addicts and sheltered housing for the old. All those various services are being provided by voluntary bodies under agreements with the local authorities or the local health authorities.
They fear that when this Bill becomes an Act the Welsh Language Board might insist that those voluntary bodies that are providing services to public

169
sector bodies might be asked to meet the requirements that the Bill lays on them. The result would be very heavy extra expenditure. All I ask is that my noble friends on the Front Bench give some assurance to the voluntary bodies, which, as the noble Lord has already said, are all very supportive of the Bill, want to see it come into force and support the improvement and widening of the Welsh language. But they are worried about finding the extra money required. If it is possible to get some help on that point, I shall be very grateful.
Lord Hooson: I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has great experience of voluntary organisations and charities in Wales. He knows the problems involved. I very much supported the idea first put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on these two amendments. I believe that they are very sensible ones. The main function of the hoard will be to deal with the public duties placed upon it, but as we are to have a Welsh Language Board it can give great encouragement and assistance.
I have always been against any compulsion on the private sector in Wales. I was once involved at short notice in bringing a Welsh language scheme of signs and so on into a public company in Wales and I know that that company would have been very grateful for assistance and guidance on what exactly was appropriate. The Welsh Language Board should be entrusted with such functions.
The Government should consider the amendments carefully to see whether they can incorporate them in the Bill. Let us think, for example, about the position of a company coming from Japan to Wales. The Japanese have been particularly sensitive about coming to countries such as Wales, but they have been very successful there. They are extremely anxious to fulfil what they regard as social as well as legal obligations. It would be extremely helpful if they could have encouragement and assistance from the Welsh Language Board.
We are concerned with the preparation and updating of schemes. Good guidance already exists. I was hoping to have with me—but I have not—a copy of a book on the use of Welsh in business which I was shown last week by a young typist. It was published jointly by S4C and the Development Board for Rural Wales. It was a very composite volume. I was tremendously impressed by it and only wish that it had been in being when I had a problem in this regard a few years ago.
This is an important matter. As I have said, like myself, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has been totally opposed to any imposition of duties on the private sector, but that is a very different thing from saying that the private sector should not be encouraged and assisted. In the present climate, which is so much more helpful in Wales these days, it would be a useful development.
Lord Crickhowell: My points are very similar to those which have just been made by my noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. As the Minister said on Second Reading:
170
"The voluntary guidelines that have been produced by the existing Welsh Language Board for the private sector have played an important part in promoting the use of the language".
I very much welcome that, but I was a little concerned by and seek clarification on one other comment that was made by my noble friend on Second Reading when he said—and I now turn to schemes and away from advice—
"Schemes will also extend to the new forms of service in the public sector, including those which are contracted out, and"—
and this is the important point—
"to private organisations such as the training and enterprise councils which are funded by government".—[Official Report, 19/1/93; cols. 835 and 836.]
I am not making a point about the training and enterprise councils or other bodies which are directly funded in that sense by the Government, but I want to question what is meant by "bodies funded by government". In a sense, that is the same point as that made by my noble friend Lord Aberdare.
It would be very unfortunate if we suddenly found ourselves drawing into the net not only charitable bodies but, for example, bodies that are financed through the Arts Councils. It happens that my wife runs an extremely good—a wonderful—charity "Live Music Now!" in Wales which takes live music of the highest standard to people who would never normally be able to receive it. It also so happens that that charity is punctilious in its use of the Welsh language. Its administrator is a Welsh-speaking Welshwoman who feels very strongly on the subject. However, it would be a harsh imposition on many organisations of that kind if they were suddenly to find themselves enmeshed in the system of schemes simply because they receive a grant from the Arts Council.
I notice that the chairman of the Welsh National Opera is in his place in the Chamber. When it embarks on its national tour, the Welsh National Opera properly prints its programme in Welsh. It has just done this. However, if it was faced with the wider need of carrying out a great deal of its activities in both languages, it would encounter serious financial difficulties. Having just left the board, I can speak at one remove. Furthermore, one wants to avoid the sort of entanglements that have arisen in Canada where, if an Italian opera has to have surtitles, they have to be given in both French and English. The thought of suddenly imposing the requirement to have surtitles in both Welsh and English is horrifying.
I do not believe that that is what my noble friend intended. I believe that he was thinking of much more directly funded government bodies. Therefore, I take the opportunity of this amendment to say that I wholly support the idea that advice and encouragement should be given to private organisations, charities and arts bodies, but I want to make quite sure that we are not being dragged down the road of imposing schemes on bodies that should be left in the voluntary field.
Lord Prys-Davies: I very much support Amendments Nos. 6 and 15. Amendment No. 6 merely authorises the board to establish updated practical guidelines. It is important that that power should be inserted in the Bill in case of a challenge as

171
to whether the board was acting ultra vires in publishing such guidelines. That is an extremely important point.
Turning now to Amendment No. 15 and the voluntary sector, this amendment meets the concerns that were expressed in the letter received from the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action, the Women's Institute and Dyfed Council Council and which have also been voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Voluntary organisations in Wales may not be as strong as in Britain. Their income in Wales does not amount to 3 per cent. of GNP, but the need for voluntary action is just as great—of that I am sure.
I am very impressed with the way in which the local authorities have been giving invaluable service in the disadvantaged areas of Wales. There are huge demands on their resources. In those circumstances, I take the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Elis-Thomas, that local authorities may find it very difficult to put part of their resources into the production and adoption of language schemes. Therefore, one very much favours the recommendation of the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action and the Women's Institute, which is reflected in Amendment No. 15.
I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify one point. As I understand it, under Clause 2(3) the board is empowered to make grants to charitable organisations subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury. If I have got that right, can the Minister tell us exactly how that will operate in practice? Will the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury be forthcoming on a case-by-case basis or can we assume that the board will be free to make specific grants within the limits of an administrative regulation to be issued jointly by the Welsh Office and the Treasury? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.
9 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: In considering these amendments, I think it is important to consider the distinction which the Bill draws between public sector organisations, which will be expected to produce Welsh language schemes, and all other organisations which will be placed under no such requirement. The hoard will be able to encourage and advise outside the public sector, but the Government believe that it is important that this boundary should not be blurred. The effect of this amendment would be to do just that.
In addition, the Bill as currently drafted would already allow the board to provide advice to private sector organisations where it deems that to be appropriate. The Government would not, however, accept the extension of the scheme concept to be the main thrust of such advice, and would certainly not consider it a matter sufficiently central to the success of those policies to be referred to on the face of the Bill.
Subsection (2) (c), reflecting the importance of that advice, escaped our self-denying ordinance concerning the addition of further powers to this clause. The board has shown in its work to date that much can be achieved by the provision of sensible advice and
172
encouragement to private sector organisations. The Government are anxious that the board should be able to continue with that role. The power in subsection (2) (c) has been designed specifically with that in mind.
I do, however, invite the Committee to agree that as currently drafted the subsection leaves the decision as to how the board carries out that duty with the board itself. That may well include the publication of guidelines of the sort which have been successful to date. It may, however, include many other things as well. Rather than draw attention to any particular initiative which the board may wish to pursue, I invite the Committee to agree that since that specific activity is already encompassed within the clause as drafted, and since the board has already shown itself well aware of the possibilities which guidelines can provide, there is no need for a further amendment.
The voluntary sector is also an area where the board has already been active and where the Government expect the board to be an important source of new initiatives in future. That process can only be assisted by the transfer of responsibility to the board of the Government's programme of Welsh language grants.
The voluntary sector is nevertheless another area where we must proceed with caution. Although there are many voluntary organisations which receive significant funds from government there are many which do not. It is intrinsic in their nature that voluntary groups should be able to decide their own policies on the nature of the Welsh language services that they provide. Government departments will, I am sure, give close consideration to requests for funding submitted as a result of such policies. That must, however, be a matter for the voluntary sector to decide.
In answer to the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I can say that the Bill will not place burdens on the voluntary sector. If voluntary organisations are delivering services which are the subject of schemes, it will be for the local authority to ensure that it funds extras to cover that cost. The Bill will place no direct financial burdens on the voluntary sector. I do not believe that the Bill will have any of the unfortunate implications mentioned by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in relation to the Welsh National Opera.
Lord Crickhowell: My noble friend spoke about voluntary organisations. I am not talking about voluntary organisations; I am talking about companies and artists, and I am asking about grants through the Arts Council. Can I take it that that will not lead to them being dragged into the network of schemes, but that they will remain in the private sector, so to speak, and so can proceed on a voluntary basis of choice?
Viscount St. Davids: The key is whether the Government pay directly for the organisation.
Lord Crickhowell: I am afraid that my noble friend is increasing my anxieties. I begin to wonder whether we have moved beyond the arts into education, because a great deal of Government funding now goes

173
indirectly through other bodies. It is not good enough for my noble friend to leave the matter like that. I want an assurance—and if I cannot have it now I shall seek another opportunity to have it when the point has been further considered—that organisations will not be dragged indirectly into the system merely because they receive grants from Government.
Baroness Seear: I had not intended to intervene in this nationalistic debate in which I have no part to play. I was alarmed—and I share the alarm of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—because a great many voluntary organisations are 75 per cent., 80 per cent., or 90 per cent. financed by government money coming direct from government departments. It will have to be made clear that the provision does not apply to them. It would cause the most frightful upheaval if it did.
Viscount St. Davids: It would be against the ethos of the Bill if it were to result in some of the apprehensions that the Committee has raised. I shall put the Committee's mind at rest and write to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for the response that he has given. It has been a useful short debate. We have been able to draw out the distinction between advice and the statutory scheme. We are, I hope, drawing the distinction between public sector provision funded by Government and indirect secondary provision. If as one of its members I may dare to speak on behalf of the Welsh Arts Council, I should expect that it would have to have a scheme. I should be surprised if it were not a practical one, which would not mean introducing and applying the policy to all the theatre and education activities in Gwent, for example, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred on Second Reading.
We can debate later the practical and reasonable nature of schemes, but on this set of amendments I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his support, which he showed so clearly. He has great experience of the voluntary sector and he explained how anxious it is. The Minister has gone a long way towards responding to those anxieties. The noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Prys-Davies, emphasised the importance of the board continuing its advisory role in relation to private companies and the voluntary sector. In his response, the Minister took up that point. I am glad that he emphasised that the Government see that as a subsidiary or secondary role but still a very important part of the board's work. On the one hand, we have the statutory schemes to which we shall come later; but in the area of advice to the private and voluntary sectors, there is the progressive role of the board. That is not compulsory but it is an area in which the board has power to provide advice to:
"other persons providing services to the public … and the Board may do anything which is incidental or conducive to the performance of its functions".
That meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It covers the ultra tires argument that the board is able to provide those additional services.
174
I should like to make one further point on the amendment in response to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. This is not Canada; it is the United Kingdom. We have a very different basis for our linguistic legislation. I should not like to see us going down the road of Montreal. That is also a response to one of our absent friends, the noble Lord, Lord Walker, whom I have also heard on this issue.
Lord Prys-Davies: Before the noble Lord with-draws the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister has obtained instructions as to how the grants under Clause 2(3) will be applied. Will they be applied on an individual case basis or will a regulation enable the department to grant aid?
Viscount St. Davids: I understand that the board will not need to seek the Secretary of State's approval on a case-by-case basis when making grants. Rather, detailed criteria and arrangements will be established in advance.
Lord Elis-Thomas: On the basis of the Minster's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("() keep under review the working of this Act and, where the Board is so required by the Secretary of State, or otherwise thinks it necessary, draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending the Act.").
The noble Lord said: A duty to keep under review the working of an Act of Parliament is not an uncommon duty to be placed on a statutory board. Therefore, this amendment does not introduce a novel principle. In fact, this amendment follows the precedent to be found in Section 43(1)(c) of the Race Relations Act.
However, after tabling the amendment I struck upon a more appropriate amendment for our purposes. The wording is to be found in Section 55 (1) (c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. As I read it, that places on the commission the duty to keep under review the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the words in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 go wider than those contained in the Race Relations Act 1976.
The point is important because we do not have comprehensive legislation which embraces all the legislation relevant to the Welsh language or, indeed, to the linguistic rights of an individual. I can think of important pieces of legislation which have a relevance to the Welsh language; for example, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Factories Act 1961, the Mental Health Act 1983, the Education Act 1948, the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Children Act 1989. That is quite apart from 65 statutory instruments.
Therefore, it is important that the board should be alert to developments in all relevant fields of legislation which directly affect users of the Welsh language. The board can then advise the Secretary of State on the need to update or amend legislation. I should have thought that it would be of enormous

175
help to the Welsh Office if this kind of amendment, amended in the light of Clause 55 of the Sex Discrimination Act, were included in the Bill.
Lord Crickhowell: I should have thought that this amendment is almost wholly unnecessary. Already, Clause 2(2) (a) provides that the board shall advise the Secretary of State on all matters concerning the Welsh language. I am not sure that there is such a provision in the legislation covering the National Rivers Authority, but that has not prevented the authority from frequently suggesting to Ministers that there should be revisions of the legislation. At present there is a whole pack of suggestions before Ministers as they prepare the new environment legislation.
I cannot see that we need to insert a specific clause into the Bill. In a sense it is unnecessarily rather trying to tell the board how it should conduct its affairs. If it is alert and doing its job, it will note if there is any need to change the legislation. I believe that it can be relied upon to get on with its job.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support my noble friend on this amendment. I take a slightly different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is common practice now for everyone to have performance indicators, aims, objectives, targets and mission statements. They must on every occasion be assessed. Review is vital to monitor any kind of performance.
I concede that it could be argued that all of this is covered in the arrangements for an annual report which appear in paragraph 13 to Schedule 1 of this Bill. However, that annual report lays down some requirements. The board is required to report,
"on the discharge of its functions during that year".
It is required to do that but it is not required to say anything about whether it believes its functions are correct, adequate, imperfect or insufficient. Nothing in Clause 2, as we have it on the face of the Bill, encourages it to do so.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that in many cases bodies with which we have all been concerned from time to time simply take no notice of the fact that they have not been encouraged to do something and go ahead and do it. It may be that the Welsh Language Board would be perfectly happy and capable of doing that. However, in our view it would be an improvement to spell out a little more what is required. In our view the board should be empowered to offer comment on the adequacy of the vehicle in which it travels. The passenger should be able to criticise the bus. The board should appraise itself and advise the Secretary of State not only on what it has done, as it is required to do, but also on what it has not been able to do and could do to advantage if the Bill were amended in certain ways.
Self-monitoring is an important duty or function of the board and the activity may easily throw up weaknesses and lacunae which need to be treated by amendments to the Bill. I am not in any sense wedded to the particular words of this amendment and improvement could be made by adding a paragraph (d) to subsection (3) of Clause 2 to advise the Secretary of State of what changes should be made to the
176
board's functions that would meet the requirement. Some such power would be an improvement to the Bill and a help to the board.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: In compiling subsection (2) of Clause 2, the Government have been careful to limit the powers included to as few a number as possible. It is important that the board's most prominent powers should be spelt out on the face of the Bill, but it is equally important that the board should have as much flexibility as possible in future in determining how best to set about its task.
The power set out in this amendment does undoubtedly concern an activity with which the statutory board will wish to become involved. I would, however, offer the Committee two reasons why it would be unwise to include this. First of all, it might invite the retort: "What about the workings of other Acts?". The board does, after all, need to be in a position to advise the Secretary of State on the position of the Welsh language under all sorts of legislation, not only this Bill. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the Government will expect the board's advice to cover the workings of all the specific Acts that he mentioned.
Secondly, this activity as well as that of advising on other Acts is already subsumed within the terms of subsection (2) (a), as of course is that of advising on the workings of other Acts. This amendment would not therefore contribute anything to the Bill and indeed could be said to detract from it.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should not have thought that it would detract from the Bill. I should have thought that to place this duty on the board would be an assurance that it is keeping its eye on all the relevant legislation. I accept the point that the duty ought not to be restricted to the operation of this particular Bill. We need to be reviewing all the legislation which directly affects the Welsh language.
I am conscious all the time of the number of occasions when we have failed to come up with an amendment to legislation which clearly affects Welsh speakers. I think, for example, of the permanent power of attorney. We made no attempt whatsoever to secure a Welsh language version of that provision. However, I take on board the Minister's message to the Committee. I shall reflect on it and decide whether or not this is an issue to which we ought to return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("() advise persons seeking to extend Welsh medium provision in education so as to ensure that such provision is made available within reasonable travelling distance of all pupils and students who desire it.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first attempt to introduce the subject of education specifically into our debate although I have given the Minister advance warning, as it were, that I was going to mention this. This amendment seeks to give the power of advice specifically to persons seeking to extend Welsh

177
medium provision in education and to make that provision available within reasonable travelling distance of all pupils and students who desire it.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to give effect to the view expressed by many organisations, including the Welsh Medium Parents' Association— Rhieni Dros Addysg Gymraeg that a right of access to the extension of Welsh medium education is placed in the Bill. There is a long history to the debate about the role of Welsh education into which I will not enter at this stage of the debate in Committee, save to draw to the attention of the Minister the remarks of the noble Earl at Second Reading.
He emphasised the important role of education in the restoration and recovery of the language. We have already seen that quite clearly from the recent census figures relating to children and young persons in Wales. That has been the effect of continuing campaigns to extend Welsh medium education and the status of Welsh within schools and in further and higher education. The effect has also been to make such provision available particularly in areas of substantial population on the northern coast and South-East Wales where Welsh medium education has not previously been readily available. That extension has taken place by local authorities, sometimes tardily and sometimes positively, responding to the demands of parent groups.
Here I have a difficulty. I have always resisted the idea that in linguistic legislation in the United Kingdom we should place language rights on individuals. I believe it is an important principle that, rather, we should place those rights upon institutions. That is what we have done in the case of the national curriculum whereby, in treating Welsh as a foundation and core subject within that curriculum, we have ensured that it is a national language in South Wales. That process is being extended, although clearly it requires more resources. Similarly, we need to extend the ability of pupils to pursue Welsh medium education in response to parental choice. That is not the same thing as imposing a right upon individual parents to have access to that service. This amendment is a compromise to draw attention to the need to develop further the whole area of Welsh medium education and the tremendous goodwill among parents, pupils and the teacher unions towards that extension. There is also a need for the Welsh Language Board to take a proactive role in the development of Welsh medium education and its extension.
I hope that in that spirit the Government will respond by indicating that it is their policy to see the extension of Welsh medium education and that where practicable and reasonable—I use words that we will come to later in our debates on the Bill—that provision should be made available to all pupils within Wales. Clearly, there can be no compulsion upon individuals in this area, but where pupils and parents desire it, that opportunity should be made available with as good an access as possible and within a reasonable travelling distance at all levels of education.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendment. It is an attempt to bring the whole question of Welsh medium education to the heart of the Bill where I believe it belongs and to do it in a way that does not create rights for individual users of the language but the possibility for the Welsh Language Board positively to advise organisations seeking to extend Welsh medium education. In that way they can be supported directly by the board in its attempts to ensure that local education authorities and schools extend such provision and that Welsh medium education provision is planned with the assistance of the statutory board itself. This is an area where some local education authorities have been progressive and others have not been. I will not name any of them in our debate; it is invidious to do so and will be counter-productive. Here is an opportunity to take it one stage further by the Government making it clear that they see it as a function of the board to facilitate the development of Welsh medium education as one of the key sectors in the campaign to restore and normalise the position of the Welsh language throughout Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on these Benches are very much in sympathy with the general thrust of the amendment. It is, of course, nothing new. Pressure for Welsh medium education to be freely and easily available to all who wish for it has for many years been a consummation devoutly to be wished for many of us.
I hope that the noble Earl, when he replies, will not simply dismiss the proposal by saying that the amendment has nothing to do with the Bill. In a superficial sense he would be entitled to do so because the creators of the Bill gave it its present form in full awareness of the importance of education through the medium of Welsh and chose deliberately to exclude it except for the provision of schemes. Schemes for the use of the Welsh language have in the past traditionally been concerned mostly with questions such as receiving letters in both languages, creating conditions in which inquiries can be answered in Welsh, telephone answering in either language, and so on. Education goes very much further and deeper. It raises a number of questions which I should like to put to the Government, even though I do not expect them all to be answered in our debate tonight. There are some which I hope that the noble Earl will be happy to take away and consider later.
I should like to ask, for example, whether the Government envisage a scheme in schools creating opportunities for all subjects to be studied at all levels throughout the school through the medium of Welsh. Again, what curriculum proposals would they welcome in a scheme from one of the schools listed in the Bill? Would the Welsh Language Board be empowered to ask for changes in the curriculum in a scheme of an individual school because, for example, of the board's view of the linguistic and cultural ambience of that particular school?
Many of us would find it profoundly helpful if the Government could explain why the Bill does not address the relationship between the promotion of the Welsh language and the provision of education,

179
because nothing on earth would better promote the Welsh language than facilitating education through the medium of Welsh.
Will there, perhaps, be another Bill on Welsh medium education in the foreseeable future; or is that not envisaged? Why must a scheme, as the Bill currently stands, be presented by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales but not by the University of Wales or its constituent colleges or the new University of Glamorgan? Indeed, is there a comprehensive government policy on education at every level through the medium of Welsh at all?
I am sorry to put those questions in that way, but I should be grateful for any answers that can be provided tonight. I should also be happy to receive any correspondence before we reach a later stage, if that is possible.
While we favour the intention of the amendment, although we are a little puzzled by the implications, we notice that it does not specifically confront the question of cost. It is, after all, not only reasonable distance which is a criterion in this case but also reasonable cost. Many local education authorities are extremely worried at present as to how travel costs are to be met in next year's budget, and an open-ended commitment such as this is the last thing that they would welcome because it would present them with an insoluble problem. From our point of view the amendment offers the Government the opportunity to disclose the present state of its thinking on this central and vital question of Welsh medium education. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to enlighten and reassure us.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, identified some of the practical problems. Clearly there are practical problems. The amendment is curious. It takes us into a wholly different area and produces an extraordinary contradiction. On the one hand it seeks to have the board advising persons on how they may set about dealing with a matter which is clearly the responsibility of education authorities under the education Acts. If ever there was a case for using the influence of the board through schemes which can identify practical realities and which can be worked out after detailed consultation with the education authorities responsible for delivery this is it. That is the strength of the Government's Bill: it translates rather vague requirements to advise people on how to extend Welsh medium education in an enormous variety of circumstances into practical schemes.
I very much welcomed the confirmation by my noble friend Lord Ferrers at Second Reading that the requirement for Welsh medium education policies will be included in the schemes. He suggested that it would help to secure the improvement that we all desire and would ensure that parents are fully consulted. My noble friend pointed out that the board will play an important role in ensuring that the views that parents have expressed are reflected in the services which result. It seems to me that such interplay between the board and the education authorities, or the funding
180
bodies, which have difficult responsibilities, is exactly the relationship that we should have. I hope that the Government will stick to their present proposals and will not be led down a path which may bring them into a quagmire.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for that guiding advice. I certainly will not do as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, suggested and say that the amendment has nothing to do with the Bill. Of course it has something to do with the Bill. However, as my noble friend said, it takes us down a rather different avenue which we might do better to avoid.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the satisfaction that he seeks in the amendment. I am aware of the anxiety surrounding the provision of Welsh medium education in Wales and indeed of the interest that has been expressed in the way that the matter is dealt with in the Bill. But the Committee will be aware that in preparing the Bill the Government have been at considerable pains to avoid references to particular services. That is for one good reason: it is our intention that the Bill should apply to them all. I am only too happy to reassure the Committee that Welsh medium education is among those services. The organisations which are charged with the delivery of Welsh medium education will be among those which the board will advise. Welsh medium education will be included within the schemes. It will also be a subject on which the board will be expected to prepare guidelines. The effect of the guidelines will be to assist the providers of education in carrying out their duties under the Education Act 1944.
The board will therefore have a crucial role in relation to Welsh medium education. The Government have introduced a wide range of measures to strengthen the position of Welsh medium education. I can confirm that we intend the Bill to continue that trend. Welsh medium education will be included in schemes; and schemes will have to take into account the wishes of parents.
I hope that that explanation will allay the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
Lord Ells-Thomas: I do not wish to appear to be too easily satisfied because clearly it is an issue on which we have all had much correspondence and substantial lobbying. It is an area of deep anxiety to all of us as parents. In the past some of us have had to resort to the private sector when we were outside Wales in order to ensure that our children had Welsh medium education.
As to the Minister's response, I am fascinated that we are legislating on a Bill, which, by avoiding references to all services, applies to them all. If that is the case, then I have to be satisfied, but that needs clearly to be seen by those organisations that have contacted us on the issue.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the purpose of the board will be to advise those delivering education services as to how best that can be done; that certainly the development of Welsh medium education is within the schemes; that the Government

181
see the crucial role of Welsh medium education; and that the wishes of parents can be taken into consideration.
However, I have to say to the Minister that parents and organisations representing Welsh medium education have told us continually that in the past they have been frustrated by the difficulty of having community provision or provision of Welsh medium education within reasonable travelling distance. Again, I shall not name individual local authorities, but we know what we are talking about. Some authorities have not always responded to the wishes of parents. We appreciate that there are difficulties with resources, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the point. However, if the Government are to give effect to the principle that the wishes of parents should be taken fully into account in developing Welsh medium education, then the Welsh Language Board has to be able to assist in the planning of the provision, assisting local education authorities and individual schools in extending it, and ensuring that resources are used in the most effective way to develop that provision.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little more about the way the Government see the board functioning, how they see the board taking a proactive role in the delivery of education services, and how they see the wishes of parents being responded to. It is an area of concern and, although I am prepared to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurance given by the Minister, I have to give notice that we may wish to return to the subject in view of the response that may come from other organisations to the amendments that have been moved and to what the Minister said.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—if that is what he wishes to do—perhaps I may refer to one omission. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked me a number of specific questions about education to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, also referred. The questions were quite detailed and I wish to absorb them, reflect on them and write to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about them. Perhaps I may do the same for the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, as I realise that it is an important point. I shall read what he said and give him a fuller answer.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, should not worry too much about appearing to be easily satisfied. If he is, it is a good trait, for which I commend him. I anticipate progress in that respect; it is nothing to be ashamed of.
Lord Davies: I speak as a member of an earlier edition of the Welsh Language Board back in the early 1970s. As a result of what I learned on that board, my four children went to a Welsh medium primary school and one of them is still there. By the time they were 10, they were all fluent in Welsh—the first of my family to have been so for three or four generations.
One point came out of the discussions we have just had. If the Welsh education authorities are abolished, as appears likely from my reading of other Bills due to come before us, the planning that needs to go into
182
Welsh medium education is absolutely vital for the regeneration of Welsh in Wales. However, that planning will no longer take place or is liable no longer to take place. That will mean that an important function will need to be carried out by the board on which it will have to concentrate. Choices have to be made in the distribution of resources and that cannot be done by individual schools. Certainly, in my part of Montgomeryshire one primary school covers a large area and one secondary school covers a large area. Other secondary schools have provision for the children to be taught in Welsh, but not across all subjects. That is an important matter which I hope will be borne in mind by the Government.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us his testimony and reminding us of the role of the Welsh Language Council, as it then was, and the activity of that council, and also for the point that he made about the planning of Welsh medium education. I hope that the noble Earl will, in responding by letter to those of us who raised these concerns, also refer to that issue.
We are likely to have in the legislation being discussed in another place a new statutory non-departmental public body with responsibility for the funding of Welsh schools, the Funding Council for Wales. Presumably that body will have to prepare its scheme. There is room here for planning across the board, whatever emerges out of the present education system involving local authorities. It has been put to us by many organisations representing Welsh medium education and educationalists generally that they see that the role performed by the the Welsh Language Development Committee of the Welsh Joint Education Committee—Pwyllgor Datblygu Addysg Gymraeg—has now been reconstituted. Part of it has been absorbed by the Further Education Funding Council, other parts of it being absorbed by the schools assessment and curriculum body.
There is concern that extending the work of this body into the work of the new statutory agencies will dilute its activity or strategic planning. I think that is what the noble Lord had in mind, and I am grateful to him for reminding us of the need for that. I hope that in the Government's response there can be further satisfaction. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 9.
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]

  Use of Welsh in communications with government departments or public bodies
  . Any member of the public in Wales shall have the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any government department or other public body which operates in Wales, or in any part of Wales, in Welsh or English unless such communication or provision of services is not reasonably practicable.").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my own, is to fortify and strengthen the principle that is found in Clause 2(2) (b)

  183
  and Clause 4(2) of this Bill in its present form. I hope that the noble Earl can find himself able to regard this as a helpful amendment. It is fairly limited in scope. It is limited on the basis of communication and the receipt of services from a government department or other public body, and it has the further overall limitation of reasonable practicability.
  I ought to stress that this imposes nothing on any member of the public. The present amendment is infelicitous because it omits the word "either" before the word "Welsh", but I think its meaning is relatively plain. It imposes nothing. It simply underlines that any member of the public within these limited parameters, subject to the overall limitation of reasonable practicability, has the option of choice. I hope that the noble Earl will find this helpful and be able to accept it. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Hooson: Together with this clause are grouped Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, which are the provision of new clauses. I lifted Amendment No. 40 bodily from the Bill drafted by the Welsh Language Board, with modifications only to its subsection (3) and leaving out subsections (4) and (5). Although the scheme of the Welsh Language Board's Bill was different from the scheme of the present Bill, this was the one clause it had which put certain requirements on government departments as opposed to giving individual rights.
  Whether one subscribes to the doctrine of equal validity or to the principle of equality (whatever interpretation is put on those two terms) this clause, which is the original Clause 2 of the Welsh Language Bill, requires government departments and public bodies when providing written material to, or otherwise communicating with, any person resident in Wales in the course of discharging executive responsibilities to do so in the language, whether Welsh or English, required by that person unless his or her requirements were unreasonable or compliance with them would be impracticable. Under my amendment it is for the government department or public body to justify any refusal to comply with any such requirement.
  Whatever doctrine is used, whether it is the doctrine of equal validity or the principle of equality, surely that is the minimum right and the minimum duty which should be on any government department. It is acknowledged that Welsh is to be an official language together with English. Therefore the provision, which is another way of providing the same kind of service, is necessary, as indicated in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Williams.
  Amendment No. 41 was lifted bodily from Clause 3 of the original Bill as drafted by the Welsh Language Board. It simply allows the use of Welsh or English in Wales for the purpose of complying with statutory requirements to provide information in writing or to submit documents to government departments or public bodies.
  It seems to me that the aim of those three new clauses is to provide the service that one can reasonably expect of an official language. Each of the
  184
  amendments carries the proviso that it should neither be impracticable nor should it be unreasonable. That is why I tabled the two new clauses. I have never read anywhere or understood why the Government did not accept those specific provisions in the Welsh Language Bill as drafted by the Welsh Language Board. I believe that the Welsh Language Board was an effective and efficient body. It worked hard and possibly had much more direct information available than anybody who has taken part in the debates.
  It seems to me also that the Government simply turned down or rejected the two general provisions within that Bill and I have not seen any adequate explanation for their doing so. That is the reason I tabled the amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, seeks generally to achieve the same result and I am interested to know the Government's reaction to the proposals.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: I am pleased to support my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Mostyn on these amendments because they revert to an area which I tried to cover earlier when I was talking of the provision of public services. In that case I was trying to specify that the content of services was clearly laid out so that the board's function in relation to the public sector would be clearly illustrated. That is why I am pleased to support the amendments. They set out how public bodies may respond through their duty to carry out the objectives as set out in the Bill.
  The Government will perhaps respond by saying, "That is covered by the schemes". Again I do not want to sound as though I am trying to usurp the role of the Minister by speaking from here, butt suspect that that is what the Government will say. The whole point of the amendment is that it sets out the requirement on government departments and public bodies as it will be implemented in practice.
  What concerns many of us is that we should be able to make clear to the public in Wales what provision will be made available as a result of the Bill. The amendment sets out precisely what the obligations will be. Therefore I do not believe it is contradictory that we set out in the amendments the use of Welsh dealing with government departments or public bodies. It is not contradictory to the provision of public schemes or to the principle as set out in the first clause of the Bill. It complements rather than detracts from those principles and shows quite clearly what the content of schemes in the administration of those government departments and public bodies and their services would appear to be. I fail to see why the Government cannot respond more positively, setting out what are the implications of the Bill in terms of the scheme as it will be provided. This will strengthen rather than weaken the work of the board. The Government are relying a good deal on the staff and members of the board to carry out the principles and practice through the schemes as set out in the Bill. The amendments will strengthen the activities of the board and make its work even more acceptable. I am therefore pleased to support them.
  Lord Crickhowell: As I read the new clause thoroughly for the first time during the discussion I

  185
  became more and more concerned about it. There is a problem which is addressed quite sensibly in the schemes. An individual may say, "I want a certain publication to be in Welsh". The organisation has to establish that such a demand would be unreasonable or compliance with it would be impracticable. Subsection (2) goes on to say that,
  "a requirement made in any case by any person shall be presumed to be reasonable and compliance with it shall be presumed to be practicable unless the contrary in either case is proved".
  What one will get is a whole series of arguments.
  I am the chairman of an organisation that has a strong Welsh language policy. Our Welsh region publishes in Welsh most of the things that we do. But we have a large number of highly technical publications for which we get a very limited demand in Welsh. We print a good many of them even though there is a limited demand. There are publications that we produce which I confess we do not automatically translate into Welsh. We would find ourselves in each case perhaps having to explain, to prove and to establish that it was not a productive use of resources to publish an enormous scientific document on some obscure subject for which one might get only one request. On the other hand, if one has a scheme the organisation can sit down with the Welsh Language Board and discuss practicalities. The scheme is published and the organisation can turn to the scheme and say, "We have discussed this. The Welsh Language Board agrees that this would be unreasonable and impracticable". There is therefore a quick and speedy answer.
  I can see a great jungle of horror for any organisation if every time someone picks up the telephone and says that he wants this or wants that the organisation has to prove that that is an unreasonable request. The truth is that we know that there are individuals who may choose to do just that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will have met some of them. I have met some of them. They are those who would seek to bring the whole thing almost to breakdown. It is a much better system to have a Welsh Language Board able to sit down and work out these things for the general good of the language and thereby not get ourselves into disputes of that kind.
  Lord Hooson: Perhaps I may respond immediately to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The noble Lord mistakes the purpose of the amendments. The amendments are a general provision. They in no way displace the requirement of the Welsh Language Board to prepare schemes. Schemes will be prepared. The schemes will undoubtedly be evidence from which any organisation such as his own could say, "The Welsh Language Board did not consider that it was unreasonable not to do this". That would be the strongest possible evidence against any individual who was trying to argue to the contrary. The provision sets out the general principle showing what a citizen is normally entitled to unless it is impracticable or unreasonable.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Amendment No. 9 is particularly important. I shall come to Amendment No. 40 later
  186
  on. It is particularly important as the principle of equality will probably not work outside a language scheme. If there is a relevant language scheme the individual will look to it for his rights and the duties of the public body. It may well be that there are no language schemes because it will take time for them to be prepared. In that event there is no guidance in the Bill as to how the principle is to apply. It is rather surprising that there should be this gap in the Bill. Possibly, that is the biggest single omission from the 1967 Act; namely, that there was no criterion for the application of the principle of equal validity. Amendment No. 9 provides a definition of rights and that is invaluable.
  I am not quite certain how it came about that my name is connected with Amendment No. 40. I am sure that the fault is mine. I have been able to support part of that amendment as it takes us back to the two qualifying conditions which were suggested by the Welsh Language Board and which were heavily criticised by many people in Wales, including myself.
  Applying the two-fold test which we find in Amendment No. 40 we approach the claim from two sides. First, it has to be reasonable and, secondly, it has to be practicable for the public body to comply with it. The test of reasonableness in that context leads to many difficulties. Who will have the authority to decide what is reasonable? Again, would that be on a case-by-case basis?
  There was considerable strength of feeling about that test. Many people found it offensive that they should have to establish that their claim was reasonable. For my part I would be very reluctant indeed to discard a right merely because it was considered that the claimant was unreasonable in making the request in the first place. It would be conceding that the claimant never had a right because the Act had established that he cannot have a right to make an unreasonable request.
  In practice it may well be that the position turns on the test of practicability, which is a different issue. I am glad that the Government have rejected the two-fold test. No one has written to me favouring the reintroduction of that test. Many people would be deeply concerned if the Government were tempted to reintroduce it.
  10 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: I believe that we are all trying to get to the same end; it is merely a question of which route is the better one. I go along with the caution of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell over this matter. The Government have for many years sought to facilitate the desires of people in Wales to be able to choose which language they want to use in any particular situation.
  The Welsh Language Act 1967, for which some Members of the Committee now present were responsible, took a very important step which was guaranteeing the choice of using Welsh in the courts whether or not the individual concerned also spoke English. Since then the promotion of choice has guided developments in the use of Welsh across the

  187
  public sector. The Bill seeks to make that choice the norm across the whole range of communications and services to which it applies.
  The principle that Welsh and English should he treated on a basis of equality quite obviously brings with it the choice as to which language people will use when they have dealings with the public sector. Obviously that must be the case, whether we are talking about communications generally, which are referred to in Amendment No. 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, or Amendment No. 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. It may be the submission of written material to a body which is referred to in Amendment No. 41. Communications of every nature are therefore subsumed within the principle of equality as established by this Bill. The important point is that the issue is dealt with in this Bill but in a manner very different from that proposed by the Welsh Language Board.
  The cumulative effect of Amendments Nos. 9, 40 and 41 would achieve some of the same ends as the Bill before us but by rather different means. In particular, they seek to grant rights to individuals. I am bound to ask myself what the practical result of establishing rights for individuals in this context would be. It is, of necessity, the case that the right must be limited by considerations of what is reasonably practicable. In every case therefore where an individual tried to exercise his right, a public body could explain that it was not reasonably practicable for it to respond. Only by going to court could the individual establish whether he in fact had a right or not. The Government do not believe that that is the best way of ensuring an adequate level of service. It is not a burden that we would therefore propose to impose.
  The Bill, by contrast, requires that the ways in which a public body will provide for individuals to be able to exercise their choice of language should be agreed in advance between the public body and the Welsh Language Board. Reasonable practicability will still be a consideration, but we shall not be requiring the individual to prove what that criterion means in each instance. We shall place the powerful Welsh Language Board in the position of the advocate on behalf of individual Welsh speakers.
  I do not think that there is any argument with the concept of choice which is embodied in these amendments and about which your Lordships have rightly expressed anxiety. However, I do believe that the Bill as drafted provides a better way of ensuring that the individual knows what that choice is and how it can best be exercised.
  One of the most important distinctions between the board's Bill and that of the Government is the role which is played by the guidelines—not the schemes, but the guidelines. We are not rejecting these basic policy objectives. These matters will be covered in the guidelines which the board will be required to prepare. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was quite right in his anxiety about the practicalities. The board will be able to consider detailed issues such as he mentioned in relation to every single body which prepares a scheme, and the guidelines will make the board's intentions perfectly clear.
  188
  I hope that the Committee will consider that the system that we have provided in the Bill is the best route by which we can attain the desires which your Lordships have expressed in other amendments.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I must say, with some regret, that I find the rejoinder of the noble Earl deeply unconvincing. I am speaking to Amendment No. 9. I take the criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made of the much lengthier amendment, Amendment No. 40; but I was glad even at this late stage in the evening to notice that he did not seek to impugn Amendment No. 9 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
  The noble Earl constantly speaks of "facilitating desires" or his desire that choice should be "the norm" or that it should be "a route" along which we must all proceed. But what needs to be attended to is what route, to what terminus and for what purpose. All that Amendment No. 9 suggests is that the purpose is to enunciate rights. A right is a perfectly simple thing. It is something which is yours in law which is capable of being enforced. To "facilitate desires" or to make choice "the norm" does not attend to what people want, which is a clear categorical expression of the rights of the Welsh speaker or the English speaker in Wales.
  Amendment No. 9 is modest and moderate. To use the benchmark that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly used, it is capable of practical operation. I have heard nothing from the Minister to indicate that the right claimed to be specified in Amendment No. 9 is something that the Government think should not be the right of a Welsh or English speaker in Wales.
  Lord Crickhowell: Before the noble Lord sits down, as he has tried to call me in support of his amendment on the grounds that I did not mention it, perhaps I might be allowed to say that my objections to Amendment No. 40 apply in almost exactly the same way to Amendment No. 9.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not see that they can apply in the same form, because Amendment No. 40 is different and raises different hurdles to be overcome by various public bodies. However, my proposition remains that Amendment No. 9, as we have put it down, with the possible typing error of the omission of the word "either" before the words "Welsh or English" is a moderate expression of what I have understood the Government to be agreeing to; namely, those are rights which should be capable of enforcement. The mechanism of enforcement, 99 times out of 100, will be through the Welsh Language Board's schemes, but it is important, not as a matter of cosmetics, but of clearly expressed and understood principle, that they are legal rights that residents in Wales shall have.
  I ask the Minister at least to reflect further. We are all putting a great deal of reflective homework on his desk. I ask him to reflect further, because we shall wish to return to this issue at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may say something before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment. As I see it, he is trying to put into the Bill a clause which says, first:
  "Any member of the public in Wales shall have the right to communicate with"
  someone else in Welsh. I do not see that such a right needs to be enshrined in the Bill. One can write and communicate in whatever language one likes. So there is no point in putting that right into the Bill. The important point comes in the second part of Amendment No. 9 which states that a person has the right:
  "to receive available services from, any government department or other public body which operates in Wales".
  There we have a complete contradistinction to what we are trying to suggest in the Bill: that the Welsh Language Board should set the guidelines, and then the individual organisations should operate their own systems. The noble Lord is seeking to cross over that
  190
  arrangement by including in the Bill a provision which is bound to override the principle upon which the Welsh Language Board should operate.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. They merely illustrate the fallacy behind his thinking. He says that the Welsh Language Board can set guidelines. I can understand that. As I said, 99 times out of a 100 those matters will be resolved through the operation of the schemes which the board will set up. If one wants to set guidelines, one needs to ask oneself, "Guidelines for what?" Our answer is, "Guidelines for the obtaining and enforcing of what should be a simple human right for someone who lives in Wales". That is the point, with great respect—I do not mean this tendentiously —which the Minister has presently missed. Reflection may assist. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 10:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

  Annual report of the Board
  .—(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year the Board shall make to the Secretary of State a report on its activities during the year.
  (2) Each annual report shall include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates, in respect of matters falling within the scope of the Board's duties and the progress made towards achieving the objects of the Act.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each annual report before each House of Parliament, and shall cause the report to be published.").
  The noble Lord said: The last paragraph of Schedule 1 requires the board to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State. This amendment transfers that requirement from the small print of Schedule 1 into the body of the Bill. It does so in order to emphasise its importance. I appreciate that in law the provisions of schedules are in no way inferior to those contained in the main body of the Bill but as this is a short Bill, I see no good reason why the duty to produce an annual report should be shunted into a schedule. It should be contained in a clause of the Bill.
  The second but more important point is that what is immediately apparent and important as regards the amendment is that it would require the annual report to include not only a survey of the developments during the preceding calendar year but also a report on the progress made towards achieving the objectives of the Act.
  If the report deals only with the events of the preceding year, the record may appear to be very successful: so many language schemes may have been implemented; so many may be in the course of preparation; so many public bodies may have introduced monitoring arrangements and so on. And yet, notwithstanding that encouraging news, the statutory board may be ignoring a long term problem if the objectives of the Act are to be achieved.
  I believe that if the board is to gain the trust and confidence of Welsh speakers, it is vital that the annual report should be addressing the longer term dimensions. The amendment places a duty on the board to be alert to the long term objectives, what has been achieved and what remains to be achieved. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My point is simple and brief. The most positive aspect of this Bill in the view of many of us is the establishment of the statutory board. We may disagree over many of the details relating to it but surely we all want it to succeed. We like it and we wish it well. Therefore, it must give some public account of its stewardship annually and it must publish that account so that it can be read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested and —dare I say it?—summarised and analysed in the Western Mail.
  In our view it is not sufficient to tuck that requirement away in the fewest possible number of words at the tail end of Schedule 1. It requires a higher place at the table if it is to be given its due importance
  192
  and priority. We should say to it, "Friend, go up higher". That should be laid down and spelt out on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It seems to me that this amendment simply adds a few words to what is already in the Bill. It is quite clear that everything which is required is contained in paragraphs 13(1) and (2) of the schedule. This merely adds words. It suggests how a board, which one hopes will be responsible, should give a report on the discharge of its functions. If such a report does not include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates, matters falling within the scope of its duties and progress made towards achieving the objectives of the Act, then it is not a responsible board.
  The only addition which the amendment makes is that a copy of the annual report shall be laid before each House of Parliament and:
  "shall cause the report to be published".
  The Committee will know that once a copy of the board's annual report is laid before Parliament, it is published.
  10.15 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Thomas. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, when I first noted that the noble Lord considered that the provisions for the board's annual report should be moved from Schedule 1 to the body of the Bill, I thought that was odd. It seems to me that the schedule is very much the place for this sort of detailed provision. I was glad my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir thought the same.
  I note, however, that some changes have been made to the wording of paragraph 13 of the schedule. I note that the noble Lord suggests that the board should make a "general survey of developments". In essence, I suppose he means a sort of "state of the language" report. I do not think the Government would want to argue against the desirability of the board undertaking this sort of work. Keeping the state of the language under review would seem to be in keeping with the board's general function of "promoting and facilitating" the use of the language. I do not think, however, that we should tie the board down to doing this via its annual report. The board may wish to report on the state of the language in another way or at different intervals. It should be free to do so. The board should also be free to decide that a study of the language itself should be published separately from the day-to-day details of the board's operations and finances.
  As the Bill stands, the board can undertake this type of study as and when it considers appropriate, and it can of course bring any study to the attention of the Secretary of State and of other interested parties whenever it wishes to do so.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that we need an account of the board's stewardship and that that account should be published and made public. The amendment seeks to have the report published. There will be an annual report and we are agreed that the report should be laid before

  193
  Parliament. However, I am bound to tell the Committee that in my view this amounts to publication by another name. There is nothing to stop the board arranging a much wider distribution should it decide to do so or should it receive requests to do so. I would, however, expect there to be far more interest in the other kinds of publications the board is likely to issue rather than the annual report. It makes far more sense therefore for the board to determine its own priorities in this respect. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the Bill is best left as it is at present.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am somewhat disappointed by the response of the noble Earl. To the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, I would only say that the additional words incorporated in the proposed new subsection (2), namely,
  "progress made towards achieving the objects of the Act",
  are important. That is a new provision. The provision in the schedule does not require the board in its annual report to have regard to the,
  "progress made towards achieving the objects of the Act".
  It is, after all, the principal role of the board to ensure that it is achieving the objectives of the Bill.
  Before the Minister slams shut the door, I wish to mention that this amendment broadly follows the lines of an amendment that was suggested to me by a wise, distinguished and experienced Welshman who has occupied some of the most senior posts in Wales. I would be grateful if the Minister could consult again with his colleagues in the Welsh Office on the merits of this amendment. If it is not to be brought onto the face of the Bill, will the Minister inquire whether the final words of the proposed new subsection (2) could be incorporated in the schedule? That would be a step forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions about the Board]:
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("Board") to ("shall") in line 17.
  The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I move Amendment No. 11. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 12. Without, I hope, laying ourselves open to any accusation of undue suspicion and scepticism may we, in putting forward this amendment, seek some reassurance from the Government about the words which this amendment offers to delete? In particular I wish to ask the Minister three questions. First, why is the first part of Clause 3 necessary at all?
  In this Bill, as in a few others, all power already subsists in the Secretary of State. The board has functions—perhaps we can still call them duties—and activities but it has no particular powers of its own. It cannot compel anyone to do anything; nor, as far as I can see (I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me to the contrary), can it refuse to do what it is told to do by the Secretary of State. If any of the members of the board do so, they could find themselves unable or unfit to discharge their functions
  194
  under paragraph 2(3) (c) of Schedule 1. Is not the expression "shall comply" in Clause 3 taking a steam-hammer to crack a peanut?
  Secondly, perhaps the noble Earl can give us some idea of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may need to use those very potent powers. Will not the board have singularly failed in its duty or function if he is ever compelled to issue general directions to it? Is there not a vast range of action lying between the two words "general" and "special"? I suppose that a general direction may be to double the charges that the board is making for the provision of services. On the other hand, a special direction may be to sack Dai and fire Fred by Friday. Such a wide range of unspecified powers will surely make the board and public bodies at least uneasy. Thirdly, is it not more usual and helpful to permit such powers only after a process of consultation? For example, I have in mind Section 4(4) of the Iron and Steel Act 1949, as revived in the 1967 Act, where it is provided that the Minister shall after consultation with the Corporation issue directions. In a few other Acts to which my attention is drawn I find that the process of consultation before the Minister issues directions is not uncommon. Will that not be welcome in this Bill in helping to conciliate everyone? I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: The Government obviously want the board to be independent. It is also important that the board is accountable. The Bill gives the board a very wide remit. We believe it is right to ensure that there is proper democratic regulation of how the board carries out its functions. If that is not the case many people in Wales may legitimately ask from whence the board has derived its authority.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has said that we have used a steam-hammer to crack a peanut. That is a glorious phrase but I believe it is a slight exaggeration. The provision we have made concerning directions from the Secretary of State is not unique in legislation that sets up non-departmental public bodies. I believe it is also the right model for this board and for the operation of the Bill. The Committee will note that in dealing with the role of the board in agreeing Welsh language schemes and monitoring their operation, we have built in a very considerable element of flexibility. In a number of important places the board is able to proceed as it considers appropriate. It is absolutely right that we should not put the board in a straitjacket; it should be able to tailor its actions to the circumstances of each particular case. But ultimately the board must be accountable to the Secretary of State. That accountability has to be reflected in the Bill; otherwise, the board is just an organisation on its own with enormous powers and there is no facility for reining it back should it go wrong. The powers of direction of the Secretary of State are a very important reserve remedy in the unlikely event that the Secretary of State felt that the board was not conducting itself correctly or could profit from change.
  When the board receives a complaint under Clause 17 about an alleged breach of the scheme, we have provided, as it is necessary to do, for the board to determine whether to investigate that complaint. That

  195
  would allow the board to dispense with vexatious or groundless complaints. If a complainant were ever to feel that the board had misjudged the importance of his complaint, to whom could he go for a second opinion? Here I believe that the Secretary of State's powers of direction are right because they ensure that he is in a position such that an individual could appeal to him to study his case. If it transpired that the Secretary of State was satisfied that the board had made a mistake he has the powers to act on behalf of the complainant.
  I hope that your Lordships will see that those powers of direction for the Secretary of State are not an attempt to render the new Welsh Language Board a servile creature. If that were the case the board would be of no use to anyone. Its function is simply to be an independent champion of the Welsh language, but it must be accountable to the Secretary of State and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. Clause 3, which follows a pattern which has been used for other non-departmental public bodies, ensures that it is.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: For what I have just received, may the Lord make me truly thankful. I am grateful to the noble Earl for a very clear answer to questions of which he had no previous notice. I shall need to think about what he said, discuss his words with my noble friends and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Duty of notified public bodies to prepare schemes]:
  Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 33, leave out ("both appropriate in the circumstances and").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14. So far as I am concerned, and I am sure that I speak for many other noble Lords, at this early stage of a Bill our amendments have been couched deliberately to be probing amendments. They are intended to discover what is the Government's thinking in these matters and to have them pronounce the result of that thinking publicly so that the matters can be considered hereafter.
  When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill I indicated that I thought that it was inappropriate to have the qualifying words,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable",
  in Clause 4(2). Since that time I have reflected further on the clause. The more I reflect on the whole of Clause 4 the more troubled I become. In many ways it is the heart of the Bill because, quite apart from the general provision that the Welsh Language Board should promote and facilitate the use of Welsh, which is its general duty, Clause 4 contains the main thrust of the Bill: that public authorities should prepare schemes and that those schemes should pay regard to the guidelines issued by the board. What is more,
  196
  subsection (2) contains the only real reference to the guiding principle of the Bill, save for the Long Title. That is a very odd place to put it.
  Clause 4(1) states that a public body:
  "shall prepare a scheme … for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) below".
  Then we look at subsection (2) and we find that:
  "The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
  One would have expected that principle to have been spelt out in the first clause of the Bill. It has been said that the words,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable",
  govern the schemes. As I understand the subsection, I believe that there is considerable danger that it could be argued that those words govern the principle rather than the schemes. If that were so, it would be a weakening of the Bill.
  I am equivocal about whether those words should be removed. I can see advantages and disadvantages; it depends on the circumstances. But if one takes my first amendment and removes the words,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances",
  the subsection would provide,
  "so far as is reasonably practicable".
  My first question therefore is this. What do the words "appropriate in the circumstances" add to the words "reasonably practicable"?
  The words "reasonably practicable" have been interpreted many times by the courts. For many years I undertook work for the Coal Board and one was constantly interpreting the words in Section 102(8) of the Coal Mines Act 1911 which provided that the Coal Board had to conform to all the statutory requirements so far as was reasonably practicable. The courts have interpreted those words many times both in that context and in the context of other Acts. What do the words "appropriate in the circumstances" add?
  If one takes the second amendment and removes the words "reasonably practicable", the subsection provides that,
  "The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect, so far as is appropriate in the circumstances, to the principle".
  Why does one need the two provisions? There may be a purpose. I had not fully appreciated that. In discussions on the matter the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, indicated to me that there might be benefits in providing,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
  I am anxious to know the situation that the Government have in mind. Why is the noble Earl confident that those words govern the scheme rather than the principle? That is fundamentally a more important question than the other two.
  At a later stage we should consider carefully the provision of the whole clause. It seems to be the kernel of the Bill. The provision has been set out in an odd way. I am totally puzzled to know why the principle should be buried in a subsection and not put in a more prominent place. I beg to move.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: It is again a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who has moved a probing amendment which seeks to find out the precise meaning of the two phrases. They are important phrases in that they qualify the schemes which are the implementation of the principle, which is the Bill. They are either a piece of extremely clever parliamentary drafting by the responsible department and by the Government's lawyers or they represent a qualification which might not be effective in the implementation of the Bill. In the amendment we are trying to establish precisely which is the case.
  I mentioned earlier that I thought it was extremely important to get the basis of legislation for language policy right. It is important that we reject the principle of individual linguistic rights as not being practical for legislation within our framework of law-making in the United Kingdom. We should not go down that road, which was originally pursued by the Welsh Language Board and Members of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my colleague Dafydd Wigley in another place. The purpose of those Bills was to pursue the development of individual linguistic rights between individual citizens and government departments. That principle appears in other statutes and is generally recognised in linguistic law world-wide.
  However, the principle here is of placing upon public bodies within the public sector a duty to produce schemes within a framework known, in the earlier clauses of the Bill, as treating the languages,
  "on a basis of equality".
  It appears to me that these phrases could be generously interpreted as providing for a sophisticated form of language development. I shall not say "linguistic planning" in case the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gets too excited. It should be possible to provide, within the framework of these schemes, a form of language development with the provision of varied language services throughout Wales. I wish to know from the Minister whether I am accurate in interpreting these two key phrases, "appropriate in the circumstances" and "reasonably practicable", as providing the board with the necessary powers and legal back-up to enable it to implement schemes in a sensitive way in the linguistic patchwork which is Wales, and in the delivery of linguistic services, linguistic provision, through the statutory undertakings, the public bodies that are referred to in the Bill.
  Such a linguistic diversity includes public bodies which practise mainly through the medium of Welsh. Some local authorities in western Wales do that, but not exclusively in western Wales; there are other public bodies in other parts of Wales which have a policy of administering mainly or as a first language through the medium of Welsh. I would not wish to be party to a piece of legislation that put that into question. Where a public authority wishes democratically to reflect its linguistic community by using Welsh as its first language of administration, I believe it is important in the linguistic patchwork—to use that metaphor again—that it be facilitated.
  On the other hand, one does not wish to have a situation where individual citizens or groups within
  198
  such a locality feel themselves to be debarred. That is where the provision of simultaneous translation, bilingual information and so on is so important.
  Equally, in other parts of Wales, increasingly in the urban centres, particularly Cardiff, there is a developing Welsh medium community and substantial Welsh medium education provision. So the language is being returned to public life in a way which one would not have imagined possible 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. That also needs to be encouraged in a sensitive way.
  So it seems to me that within these phrases there is either a "cop out" for the board and its schemes, or there is an opportunity to develop the principle of equality in a sophisticated and sensitive way. I hope that it is the latter and that the Minister can say so.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I believe that the two limitations qualify the schemes rather than the principle. The paper from the Welsh Office makes it clear that without the qualifications, the schemes are not workable. That emerges from the paper. I believe that the limitation of being "appropriate in the circumstances" should be left out of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, sees that there may be merit in that particular qualifying condition, but it is my impression that the Welsh Language Board is uncomfortable about this limitation.
  I fear that it has its immense dangers. The danger is that it can invite a heavy reliance on the status quo. The fact that the result might be to help in one or two areas in Wales where public bodies are already energetic in implementing the principle of equal validity is not sufficient to justify it. In Wales overall it would probably be more damaging to the restoration of the language. Others can equally rely on the limitation to argue that it would not be appropriate in the heavily Anglicised parts of Wales where the Welsh language is no longer habitually spoken to provide the machinery to implement the provisions of the Act. Indeed, an illustration is to be found on page 3 of the Welsh Office paper.
  I have a fear that more often than not the status quo would not benefit the Welsh language, and the condition could become an excuse for some public authorities to do nothing to implement the provisions of the Act. It could be an escape route from the Act. The words "appropriate in the circumstances" should be rejected, but I am sure that this is an area to which we shall have to return at a later stage in the Bill.
  10.45 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: I can see that we are going to have to return to many matters at a later stage in the Bill. I was worried when the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that the more he reflected on this the more he is troubled by it. I realise that these are probing amendments and I shall do my best to explain the position, but if they were incorporated the result would be to state unequivocally that English and Welsh should be dealt with on a basis of equality. That would underline the status that we all intend the Welsh language should enjoy. The clear statement of that principle is certainly fully in accord with the aims of the Bill. The single,

  199
  unequivocal principle underlying this Bill therefore is that "in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on the basis of equality".
  Having said that, what we need to bear in mind is that this Bill is not a statement of policy obectives but it is an attempt to change the law. While it may, therefore, be appropriate for the Government to have far-reaching policy objectives the important thing about the Bill is that any changes which the Bill may make to the law should be administratively practicable. The Bill does not focus upon the principle of equal validity because that principle does not correspond to the change which we are aiming to secure. The Government also do not believe that public bodies should be required to introduce measures which are unreasonable burdens, and it is therefore essential that the Bill should reflect that point.
  I do not believe that any of your Lordships would have argued for unreasonable burdens to be placed upon public bodies. If we are agreed on this policy objective then it is essential that it should be reflected in the Bill, as it is in Clause 4(2) as drafted. Quite apart from the fact that the clause as drafted accurately reflects our intentions in this respect, perhaps I can explain why, in the Government's view, it would be a mistake to see the qualifying phrases, which are the subject of these amendments, as any sort of threat to the Bill's wider objectives.
  First, the phrases apply to individual schemes and not to the underlying principle, which is established by the Bill. The principle is not therefore constricted in any way; only the extent to which individual public bodies are required to give effect to it. It is also important that both phrases are present.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was worried about the words "reasonably practicable" and "appropriate". Many measures may be reasonably practicable, but they may not be appropriate given the circumstances of a specific organisation. The phrases have different meanings and both must be present if the duty which is established in the Bill is to correspond to the objectives which we are hoping to achieve. It may help to consider why both phrases are necessary in the light of a concrete example.
  It could be argued, for example, that it is "reasonably practicable" for a local authority to recruit a Welsh speaking member of staff to perform a particular Welsh language function, wherever in Wales that body is located. But it may not be appropriate to do so if a local authority in, say, South-East Wales, is only called upon to provide that service once a year. In those circumstances the local authority and the board must have the flexibility to consider providing that service in some other way, possibly by recourse to a translation service. It is essential that the Bill can address such practical issues.
  Then, as I have already made clear, public bodies will not be able to take a subjective view of what they believe to be,
  "appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
  200
  The interpretation will need to be objective in every case. It will need to have been agreed by the Welsh Language Board, and public bodies must be able to demonstrate that they have had regard to the board's guidelines. Ultimately that could be tested in the courts.
  I have sought at various times to explain the difference between the Bill which was originally proposed by the Welsh Language Board and that which is before your Lordships. Although there are significant differences in the patterns of the two Bills, it is indicative that on this point at least there is some degree of agreement between them. The board's Bill talks about complying with the requirements of consumers in Wales unless those requirements are unreasonable or compliance with them would be impracticable. I understand that amendments which have been suggested by Gwynedd County Council, and of which a number of your Lordships will be aware, also make reference to the phrase "reasonably practicable". The Government, therefore, are not alone in considering the practicabilities of the issue.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was concerned whether the qualifying phrase governed the schemes or the principle. My reading of Clause 4 is that it is clearly to do with the preparation of the schemes; it is the schemes which have to be reasonable and practicable. The principle is referred to elsewhere in the Bill. It is referred to in the Long Title; it is referred to in Clause 2(2) (b), and that is without any qualifying phrases. I can therefore confirm that the principle stands alone.
  I am happy to accept the interpretation of the phrase by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. He asked whether it was a flexible and sensitive scheme. It is. There is a flexible provision and it is a foundation which bears detailed scrutiny. In my view the phrases are correct and proper ones to include in the Bill. I hope therefore that I have enlightened the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and at least eliminated some of his worries.
  Lord HoosonThe noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has enlightened me to a degree. But I am extremely uncertain about the provision. In Wales there is considerable fear that those words will enable the principle to be detracted from. As we are thinking aloud, and the Government have been extremely good on this particular Bill in having an exchange of views, perhaps I may put forward a suggestion which occurred to me as I listened to the noble Earl. Clause 4(2) includes the principle. Why cannot the Government consider a clause along the following lines as the first clause in the Bill:
  "Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages shall be treated on the basis of equality as is hereinafter provided"?
  That is taking the first words of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Most of the attack was on the words that followed, so let us leave aside for the moment the doctrine of equal validity and so on. Let us add to those words the principle that is spelt out in Clause 4(2). Clause 4(2) would then read:

  201
  "The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle set out in Clause 1 of the Bill".
  That would absolutely ensure that the words "appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable" could only apply to the scheme.
  I put that forward as a suggestion. I have been thinking aloud in the light of what we have discussed through the whole evening, going back to the first amendment which created a great deal of interest. This clause is the heart of the Bill. Such an amendment or couple of amendments might make the Bill more acceptable. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Meaning of "public body"]:
  Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert:
  (" () a government department;").
  The noble Lord said: I do not see why government departments should not be included among public bodies. I know that it is the Government's intention to ensure that government departments conform to the broad policy that the Welsh Language Board will adumbrate but I see no reason why they should be excluded from the list set out in Clause 5.
  It is said that it would be very difficult for the Welsh Office to insist that other government departments conform to certain requirements set out by the Welsh Language Board but I do not see that that can be a real objection. For example, every government department of whatever nature has to conform to certain requirements with regard to safety provisions. This requirement has to be enforced by a particular government department. Now this is a government policy. It is intended to govern all government departments. Why should it not be provided for in the Bill?
  I am intrigued to know what is the constitutional doctrine which has been hinted at that prevents the inclusion of government departments here. If it is intended that government departments should be included within the spirit of the Bill, why not spell it out? The intention of a particular Secretary of State or of a particular government is not enough. Governments pass away, as do Secretaries of State. They come to the House of Lords. One is not certain what the attitude of a future government or a future Secretary of State might be. So why not spell it out in the Bill? I beg to move.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Clearly, there is a case to be made for this amendment and there is a case to be made against it as we have heard it adumbrated in our earlier discussions both inside this Chamber and outside. At the centre of the objection to the amendment lies the difficulty of the Secretary of State's power to require other government departments to do something. But it is not enough to say, "Well, they will all prepare schemes anyway" because
  202
  we are dealing with law, and law cannot depend on goodwill or whim or being a good fellow or trying to lend a hand.
  The central question is: can government departments be required to prepare schemes or not? If they can, should they? And if they cannot, can we afford to ignore them? I shall be grateful if the noble Earl can tell the Committee what efforts have been made to solve the legal problem; what possibilities have been proposed; what options have been investigated and why every suggestion has been shown to be impossible? I do not doubt for one moment the Government's complete goodwill on this matter. But I believe that it would help us all to learn what efforts the Government have made to include themselves in.
  Earl Ferrers: The Government have explained on a number of occasions and have given the assurance on a number of occasions that government departments and indeed other Crown bodies, should prepare Welsh language schemes just like other public bodies. We intend that that should come about. We have made provisions at Clause 20 governing the special circumstances of Crown bodies.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said in a moment of great pontification that there is a case for this amendment and there is a case against it. He would not get many enemies that way. It is not desirable that government departments should be included in the list of public bodies in Clause 5. If they were to be included, it would follow that the Bill's enforcement provisions were also to apply in the case of government departments.
  This is quite an important point and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, found difficulty in understanding it. There has been a government indication and assurance that government departments will produce schemes. I repeat that assurance. The enforcement provisions rely in the end on the Secretary of State having the power to give directions. That mechanism provides for breaches of this legislation to be speedily resolved without the need for lengthy and expensive litigation. It is not a mechanism which can be applied in respect of the Crown because one would get the absurd situation of the Secretary of State having to direct himself. That is a legal peculiarity which we must avoid.
  Therefore, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that for practical purposes it simply is not sensible to put into the Bill a provision which enables the Secretary of State to direct himself. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that even when I pass away, as he so graphically decided, nevertheless the Government will continue to ensure that government departments do make schemes.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Earl sits down, is not the answer to give the board power to apply to the court rather than simply the Secretary of State, which we find in Clause 19(3)?
  Earl Ferrers: The idea is that if a person has an objection to what the board has done, he has recourse

  203
  to the Secretary of State who can direct the board. That is the way it should be, unless I have misunderstood.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand that. But if one looks at Clause 19, one sees there that the Secretary of State has power to make directions. If the directions are not complied with, as set out in subsection (3), he may apply to the Divisional Court for an order of mandamus. If there is a constitutional knot which needs to be either undone or cut, the way to do it is to give the board power to go to the Divisional Court: end of problem!
  Earl Ferrers: It is not exactly the end of the problem. If the board goes to the Divisional Court when the board is, in fact, a creature of the Secretary of State because it is responsible to the Secretary of State, one would get the same position in the end. The Secretary of State would end up having to give directions or to be taken to the court by his own creature.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no problem at all with a creature taking a government department to the Divisional Court, as recent history amply shows. The Commission for Racial Equality, for instance, institutes legal proceedings, and so do many other similar bodies. If one does not leave the sole power and opportunity of going to the Divisional Court to the Secretary of State, and gives co-terminus or parallel powers to the board, there is no further problem. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would then be appropriately and civilly answered.
  Lord Hooson: I do not find the answer very satisfying; but of course it all depends. At the moment, totally accept the reassurance of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the Government intend that all government departments should comply, as it were, or provide schemes that would satisfy the Welsh Language Board. Such a reply might be important in the interpretation of this Bill whenever it becomes law in the future.
  I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is correct. I know of cases in which I have been involved where bodies have taken government departments on a mandamus or "judicial review" as we should call it these days, and I see no reason why the Welsh Language Board should not be allowed to do that. However, this is a matter on which we must reflect further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert:
  ("() a public utility;").
  The noble Lord said: This is the briefest amendment standing in my name this evening, and since I hope to catch the last available public utility to Cardiff, I shall be as brief as I can on the subject.
  It is important that we look at this issue because we are now coming to the question of privatising public
  204
  utilities and this opens up a whole new prospect for the Welsh Language Board and its activities. I want to know how the Government perceive the privatised utilities as relating to the work of the board and the principle of the Bill. Clearly, all of these are already undertaking policies of a similar nature to those that might be agreed in schemes by the board once it is established. When Clause 5(o) refers to
  "any person (whether or not a body corporate or unincorporate) who appears to the Secretary of State to be exercising functions of a public nature"
  would that include the public utilities? If the Minister can confirm that, then I shall again exhibit some satisfaction and I might catch my last train. I beg to move.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I said what I had to say about this on Second Reading and I was not totally convinced then or subsequently that I have had a really satisfactory answer. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that I said on that occasion:
  "surely public utilities, whether privatised or not, must be required to provide a bilingual service and to prepare schemes to that end. Clause 5 leaves so many questions unanswered. British Telecom is partly privatised but where does it fit? British Rail as it stands would have to prepare a scheme but when it is privatised it will not. A public service is a public service whether it is provided by the local authority, a government department or a private utility. Surely all of them should be required to prepare schemes to provide their service to the general public bilingually."—[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 874.]
  I think my views there are broadly in line with those of the Welsh Language Board, and there is a wide range of support for the inclusion by some means of these public utilities. It is an important and, in Wales, an emotional matter. I need not remind your Lordships that water in particular is a very sensitive matter in Wales. Many of my countrymen have served terms of imprisonment because their views and actions on the right use of that element did not accord with the laws of the land.
  On the matter of Amendment No. 18, I would only wish to add one illustration to what has been so clearly stated by my noble friends. Among the many letters I have received since Christmas on the subject of this Bill comes one from a gentleman in Pembroke. Now, the Committee may care to be reminded that Pembroke is not in the heartland of Welsh-speaking Wales. South Pembrokeshire, "little England beyond Wales", has been largely English-speaking since quite soon after the Norman Conquest, and since Pembroke is well south of the so-called "Landsker", the line which divides English-speaking Pembrokeshire from Welsh, my correspondent has certainly not been swept along on a great tide of Welsh nationalist feeling against his more sober judgment. He writes as follows:
  "From the enclosed leaflet which I have received with my telephone bill you will see that British Telecom proposes to end bilingual bills and divide its customers into sheep and goats. Only those who actively pursue Welsh language bills will receive them in future".
  He sent me a copy of that little pamphlet which reads splendidly in English, although I do not quite know what the tone in Welsh is. It states:
  "Dear Customer,
  We are pleased to send you your new style phone bill.
  This bill is in English only because there is insufficient room on the new bill to produce it in both Welsh and English.

  205
  However, to meet the known demand from customers for an entirely Welsh bill, we are pleased to be able to offer a choice of bills printed in either English or Welsh.
  Your future bills will continue to be sent to you in English, but if you wish to receive your bill in the Welsh language please let us know by calling 0800 800288, free of charge".
  He goes on:
  "Perhaps you could bring pressure to bear to stop this retrograde step. Many Welsh people whose knowledge of Welsh is not fluent would still like to see the language in use. There are also families where only some members speak Welsh. We shall never see full acceptance of the language until industries feel that its use is important for all our futures".
  He makes his points reasonably, gently, more in sorrow than in anger, but he is manifestly concerned that this supplier of a telecommunications service is prepared, unilaterally, without consultation, and for no better reason than,
  "there is insufficient room on the new bill to produce it in both Welsh and English",
  to reduce what he feels to be his right to receive his bill in both Welsh and English.
  British Telecom's reason for the change, as stated here, is stupid, and I hope that the Government will ask why it insults the intelligence of its customers by sending them such a patronising and puerile pamphlet. It is precisely because such cases as these exist that many of us believe this amendment to be so necessary.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Essentially, Amendment No. 17 goes hand in hand with Amendments Nos. 18 and 21. Amendment No. 18 has rather more specifics than Amendment No. 17. The reasons we have sought to have them included are entirely those of practicality. First, those utilities, whether public or private, are extremely important economically; secondly, they are extremely important socially; thirdly, they are monopoly institutions; and, fourthly, they are of such general significance in the life of any community that they should be the subject of a requirement for schemes.
  Earl Ferrers: Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 centre around the privatised rather than the public utilities. I can understand why the Committee takes a special interest in the privatised utilities. They are providers of essential services with which we all have to deal regularly. Public utilities are among the bodies it is intended that the Secretary of State should specify, using his power under paragraph (o). That means that, for example, the Post Office will be required to prepare a Welsh language scheme. The nationalised industries—for example, British Rail - to which one of the amendments that we are considering refers, fall within the definition of "public body" and will be required to prepare schemes.
  Obviously in the beginning—and it is only a beginning -in listing public bodies in Clause 5 we have sought to strike a balance between making clear indications of our intentions and avoiding making the clause over-burdensome. That is why we do not see the various public utilities and nationalised industries separately referred to.
  As regards the privatised utilities, all Members of the Committee will be aware that the major utility companies operating in Wales have already adopted
  206
  praiseworthy policies for the use of the Welsh language. They are shining examples of what can be achieved on a voluntary basis. Some people like the successful status quo and I believe that, on balance, they are probably right.
  I am aware also that both amendments before us would impose duties not only on the major suppliers, of which we have all been thinking, but also on a number of other smaller companies which conduct only limited business in Wales.
  The Committee will be aware of the line which has been drawn between the private and public sectors for the purposes of the Bill. We consider that the objectives of attracting inward investment into Wales, the business of creating jobs and thereby regenerating Welsh communities are so important that nothing should be allowed to interfere with them. We must avoid the danger of legislative requirements in respect of the use of Welsh being perceived by some as a significant additional cost of operating in Wales, in which case it may be seen to provide a deterrent. The experience of many businesses which are already established in the Principality is that a sensitive use of Welsh does not entail those costs. However, it would be all too easy to give rise to such fears.
  It is the distinction between the private and public sectors which is of the greatest importance to us. We hold the view that to bring the privatised utilities within the remit of the Bill would be to blur that distinction. Therefore, we do not consider that the list in Clause 5 should be amended to include a reference to privatised utilities. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—I hope that he will catch his public utility—that the power given to the Secretary of State in paragraph (o) cannot be used to extend the Bill to the utilities.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: I am dissatisfied and disappointed because I believe that it is important for the Government to look again at the position of the privatised utilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, indicated, there is a distinction between public service privatised utilities and the private sector per, se. Indeed, there is a very important difference between those services already existing in Wales and the whole question of inward investment by outside capital.
  Clearly, one does not wish to interfere in any way or provide a deterrent in that respect and there is nothing in the Bill which does that. However, we are talking about established services and companies that were in the public sector. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, those have now adopted sensitive policies but that was not always the case. Indeed, one does not need to remind the Committee that those policies have come about as a result of pressure and campaigning.
  The anxiety which many of us have is that unless there is a framework within which those major monopolies can co-operate with the board, however that is structured, then a large part of the commercial and service experience of people as consumers in Wales will be missing from the remit of the Bill. I am not satisfied but I am conscious of the time and I willingly give way to the noble Earl.
  Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to send the noble Lord away disappointed or dissatisfied. I realise that this is a complicated matter. I gave the Committee the views of the Government which we strongly believe are correct. However, we do not believe them so strongly that we are not prepared to consider matters. Of course I shall consider what the noble Lord said.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a very important matter. An elephant remains an elephant whether it is privately owned or publicly owned. It is not the nature of the ownership that matters; it is the nature of the beast. Simply to say, without any reasoned explanation, that the line the Government draw is between public bodies and privatised bodies is nonsense. It is wholly a matter of indifference and irrelevance to a consumer who wants to be dealt with in an appropriate way in Wales as to whether British Rail by then has become privatised in full or in part or whether gas has been partly sold off, wholly sold off or is public or private. That is a complete and utter irrelevance. It is the nature of the service, its significance in the community and its importance to the consumer that matter, not who owns it, in what circumstance and in what percentage.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I very much want to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. It seems to me that the question of the ownership of the enterprise should not be the determining factor in whether the enterprise should produce a language scheme. The determining factor must be the nature of the service and whether it meets the fundamental needs of the individual.
  Possibly one should mention the significance of the case from the European Court of Justice relating to Foster and others v. British Gas plc which established that an employer cannot evade the obligations of a directive applying one of the fundamental principles of the EC by pleading that his is a privatised enterprise. The right to use one's language is a fundamental right and a privatised company ought not to be able to escape that commitment merely because it is privatised. The question does not turn on the ownership of the enterprise. I would be grateful if the Government could reconsider their attitude towards the public utilities.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: The Minister of State at the Welsh Office indicated publicly, or gave a public undertaking, when this Bill was first published that the Government would seriously consider areas for amendment. It seems to me that this question of public utilities—the noble Earl will have heard the arguments —is one that the Government might well reconsider either in this Chamber or during the passage of the Bill in another place. Taking what the Minister said as an undertaking to reconsider in that way, and mentioning in his absence the Minister of State from another place, I hope that the department concerned is able to listen. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 3, line 28, at end insert:
  ("() any private company successfully obtaining a tender under arrangements for compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of services within Wales").
  The noble Lord said: The theme of the final amendments is taken up in this amendment. The arguments in favour of public utilities, to the extent that they provide public services within the meaning of this Bill, apply with the same force to enterprises in the private sector which have contracted with a public body, a local authority or a health authority to provide services to meet the fundamental needs of the individual.
  Once a language scheme attaches to the service, a client or a public body must be able to rely on that shield even when the service is contracted out to the private sector; in other words, the language scheme will follow the client. I do not see that there is a specific clause in the Bill which deals with the position.
  I wish to put three questions to the Minister. First, will a public body be under a duty to include in a tender and in a contract a provision relating to the need for a provider of services to implement a language scheme in line with that of a public body? Secondly, will the public body have a statutory right to monitor how the language scheme is being carried out? Thirdly, will it be lawful for the public body to take these matters into account in awarding the contract? I beg to move.
  Lord Crickhowell: I intervene briefly on this clause partly because I spoke at some length on the general subject on Second Reading. I did not intervene on the previous set of amendments because I did not want to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, from catching the last train to Wales.
  First, I believe that this amendment goes too far. I do not think that the noble Lords who moved it can imagine the variety of situations covered by competitive tendering. There is a very large variety of such situations, often involving small groups of individuals and perhaps former employees doing related services. To extend the Bill on the terms proposed by the amendment is to go too far. I share some of the doubts expressed on the last set of amendments about the public utilities.
  I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers knows that there is perhaps no one who has been more concerned with attracting inward investment to Wales. I spent a very great part of my time as Secretary of State concentrating on that single task. I understand perfectly what he says about the private sector as a whole and completely endorse it. However, generally speaking we are not seeking inward investment in Wales to provide public utility services. We already have quite close control over those services. For example, in the case of the water industry, Ofwat has extensive powers over the way in which the industry relates to and charges its customers and the introduction of such things as metering. I cannot see that it is an enormous extension of principle to say that this is a topic that perhaps exceptionally may be covered.

  209
  I voiced some of the problems in the Second Reading debate and will not repeat them. There are organisations, such as Severn-Trent, that deal with a very small part of the Principality. But I hope that the further consideration promised by my noble friend will look at the whole issue again and return to it later. There will be grave worries and anxieties in Wales if we do not get it right. We may spoil the effects of an otherwise excellent Bill if we do not get it right. I hope that my noble friend will reject the amendment because it will interfere quite unreasonably with a very large number of diverse organisations. However, I hope that he will give most careful thought to the points raised in the earlier debate.
  Earl Ferrers: Again, I find myself in some sympathy with the view that has prompted the amendment. Public bodies now provide services in increasingly diverse ways. They include the award of contracts to private sector organisations for the delivery of services such as refuse collecting, catering and so forth. We are anxious that that type of arrangement does not result in less provision being made for the use of the Welsh language in the delivery of such services. The Bill already ensures that Welsh language schemes cover those types of services. The delivery of a service may be contracted out, but the responsibility for providing it still rests ultimately with the public body. It is the local authority that has the statutory duty to provide a refuse collection scheme. That remains the case even where it has contracted a private company to carry out the collections. The public body with the responsibility for the service will be required to prepare a scheme and agree it with the board. It may be that excluding part or all of the scheme will fall to the private contractor, but that need not be a problem. The public body will simply need to specify the requirements as to the use of Welsh as one of the elements of the contract.
  Therefore, I think that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is unnecessary. It will also have the undesirable consequence of requiring the private contractor, once it has won a contract, to approach the board and agree a scheme. That will make such a private company unique in having itself to go through the procedure of preparing a scheme. It would also cut across the statutory responsibility for the delivery of the service, which remains with the public body. The Bill as drafted, therefore, provides for the Welsh language scheme for the service to be determined by the public body before any contract is awarded.
  The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked three questions. He asked whether the public body will have a duty to put in a tender. If the public body has a duty to carry out such a task and is subcontracting that task to a tenderer, that would have to be included in the tender. He asked whether there was an obligation to monitor the service. As the public body is the body which is responsible for complying with the scheme then, of course, it has the right to monitor what is happening. The noble Lord also asked whether the public body would be able to take these matters into account when awarding contracts. The answer to that question is the same as to the first question. If the public body contracts one of its services and has an
  210
  obligation to fulfil certain elements of the scheme it will be up to that public body to ensure that the contractor is able to carry out those obligations, will carry them out and has carried them out.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am very pleased with the noble Earl's reply. He has answered the three questions in the affirmative and I am content. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 3, line 28, at end insert:
  ("() any body mentioned in Schedule (Public Bodies) to this Act").
  The noble Lord said: At the outset perhaps I may say that this is a probing amendment, although it is now rather late at night. The amendment provides us with an opportunity to obtain some information on the shopping list contained in Clause 5 and some omissions from the list. It is a restricted list, embracing 14 categories of local authorities, health authorities and educational institutions. One can think of a longer list, longer even than the one mentioned in the schedule which is attached to the amendment. The Welsh Consumer Council suggested the addition of 20 or so organisations to our own list. Our own list has no special significance, except to indicate that there is a wide variety of organisations which, in our view, should have been included in the shopping list.
  The amendment is intended to elicit guidance on a number of important practical points. We want to know why the Bill has singled out the 14 categories for mention in Clause 5. I had assumed that those were the bodies which would be called upon in the first instance to produce language schemes. If that is so, is there not a likelihood that other bodies not mentioned in the clause will not be required to produce language schemes for some years? In any event, we should like to know how many bodies, leaving aside the 2,000 schools in Wales, does the Secretary of State contemplate will be brought in by Orders in Council in the foreseeable future. Will it be about 50, 100, 150, or more? And how many years will it take before the target number is achieved?
  As to the best of my knowledge Wales has not received any information about this rolling programme, I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions. It would also be appreciated if he were to place in the Library a list of the bodies to which it is contemplated the Bill will be extended under Clause (5) (1) (o). I beg to move.
  11.30 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: The form of the amendment illustrates only too well the difficulties which the Government faced when they sought to compile the list within Clause 5. Of necessity, the list of bodies on the face of the Bill has had to strike a balance between completeness and what is practicable. I discovered that the Cabinet Office's guide to Public Bodies contains over 800 different organisations in England and Wales. They may not all provide a service in Wales but the point serves to illustrate how unwieldy the Bill would become if it sought to list them all.

  211
  Therefore we had to have some form of compromise. Some organisations would be left off the list, as indeed is the case too with the list which is included in Amendment No. 61. The Wales Youth Agency is one of the prominent organisations which is not included on that list.
  The Government's list strikes a reasonable compromise. It lists all the major public sector organisations in Wales, and those whose services have influence on the largest number of people. We must remember that in addition the Secretary of State can use his general powers to specify every other public sector organisation as a public body for the purposes of the Bill.
  I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Bill contains a reasonable compromise with regard to brevity and completeness, there being full knowledge that the Secretary of State can add to that list, which will have to be approved by Parliament, by statutory instrument if necessary.
  The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked how many public bodies the Secretary of State would have in mind. I cannot tell him the exact amount but there would be more than 100 in a fairly short period of time. The period of time is partly dependent on the advice of the board and it is difficult therefore to answer that point immediately.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he assist on Clause 5(1)(o)? It refers to,
  "Any person (whether or not a body corporate or unincorporate) who appears to the Secretary of State to be exercising functions of a public nature".
  Would a privatised utility ever be capable of falling within that category of exercising functions of a public nature?
  Earl Ferrers: A private utility does or can exercise jurisdiction in the public field. But the Welsh Language Board, and the whole principle underlying the Bill, relates to public bodies and not to private bodies. In that respect therefore it would not cover the private body.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am a little bothered by the Minister's reply. I wonder whether the Welsh Office could do better. Does the Welsh Office have a timetable for the implementation of the Bill? We have the names of the 14 categories in Clause 5. When does the Welsh Office contemplate that the schemes will have been implemented with regard to those bodies? As I understand it, there will be more bodies, taking the number to about 100. When will that target be achieved? The Minister used words to the effect, "not before very long". Can he give us a date? My worry is that there will be huge areas of public life in Wales that will not have the benefit of a language scheme. Nor will they have the benefit or the principle of equal validity.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord asks a difficult question. It is hoped that the board will be set up within about two months of the Bill becoming law. After that it depends on the speed at which the board can deal with matters in front of it. It would be quite difficult to set a timetable and to give a reasonable
  212
  indication because it depends on the number of bodies involved and the speed at which matters could he dealt with.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether the proposed chairman of the new board has been identified and approached?
  Earl Ferrers: He has not been announced.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: That was not my question. I asked whether he had been identified and approached.
  Earl Ferrers: I think that is one step towards giving the second answer. I prefer not to comment on it.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may come back now, before we withdraw the amendment. We have been given an indication of when the board will be established. We have not been told the date by which the schemes will be ready for implementation. It has just occurred to me that perhaps it may be better to restructure the Bill so that it applies to all the bodies named in the schedule immediately it is enacted. Every public body would be required within, say, 12 months to draw up and implement a language scheme based on the voluntary guidelines issued in 1989 by the present board. In that event, a Clause 6 notice would become a default mechanism when a public body failed to produce a scheme within a prescribed period or produced a scheme which, in the opinion of the board, did not reflect the voluntary guidelines.
  It seems to me that that would be cheaper and less demanding on the resources of the board and the time of the staff. There is a great deal of concern that years may elapse before the language schemes will be operating across the board.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord produces an idea but I think it would be unreasonable to impose too many constraints of time. We are asking for quite a lot to be undertaken. There is good will and the board will want to get on with the job and produce the answers as quickly as possible. But to say that within a specified time—the noble Lord said 12 months—everyone affected must be in a position where the schemes will be operative might put undue pressure on the board and possibly the organisation. It would be better left to good will, on the perfectly good understanding that it will be done as quickly as possible.
  Lord Prys-Davies: We shall have to study the noble Earl's words carefully and reflect on whether we ought to come back at Report stage. There may be a great deal to be said for requiring the authorities to produce a language plan within 12 months or such period from the passing of the Act so that the Clause 6 mechanism becomes a default mechanism. However, the idea occurred to me as the Minister was responding to the amendment and I am not pressing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 3, line 31, at end insert:

  213
  ("() The duties imposed on a body by this Act shall continue even when such a body ceases to be called a public body for the purposes of this Act, provided that the body remains in existence providing equivalent services or conducting equivalent business as that provided or conducted as a public body.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is introduced in the interests of continuity and consistency. Support for the Welsh language provision, regardless of the swings and roundabouts of political policies in other areas, might be damaged if it were to be observed that a public body, on ceasing to be a public body, joyfully jettisoned its language scheme and imposed a monolingual regime against the wishes of a significant minority of its customers.
  Is it not always dangerous to contemplate taking away from any body a right or privilege to which it has grown accustomed? Try taking away from the dog Fido the bone that he has earlier been given and which he is currently gnawing with relish and delight and Fido may well feel that the situation requires him to take a hefty chunk out of the purloiner's hand by way of comment. Even so, and not otherwise, might it be in Wales if citizens found that a privilege that they had previously enjoyed was suddenly no longer available to them. What possible advantage could there be to permitting a public body which became a private body to abandon its scheme for the promotion of the Welsh language? It would hardly save significant sums of money. It would certainly win bad publicity and forfeit good will. If I dare adapt the words of Holy Writ:
  "When from him that bath not is taken away even that which he hath, there is sure to be wailing and gnashing of teeth".
  I beg to move.
  Viscount St. Davids: The Government do not believe that moving a public sector organisation into the private sector should necessarily lead to any reduction in the level of Welsh language service provided. Indeed, the experience of the utility companies which have been privatised to date has been highly encouraging in this respect. Welsh Water is of course seen as a model towards which others can aspire; and I am aware that British Telecom in Wales has also received considerable praise of late for its Welsh language policies. Having said that, I have considerable reservations as to whether this is something which can be readily legislated for.
  If a single large organisation which belongs to the state transfers to become a similarly large organisation within the private sector, then of course the transfer of Welsh language responsibilities becomes a relatively simple affair. The same would not be the case where a public sector organisation is distributed among a large number of private sector suppliers. I have some sympathy with this proposal, and it is one that I would wish to consider in much greater detail.
  I would just repeat the Government's view that the fact that a body moves from the public to the private sector should not in itself lead to any reduction in the Welsh language service it provides.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: If that is so it blows an enormous hole in that rather insecure vessel that was
  214
  being floated earlier that there is a difference between public and private. The two are wholly mutually inconsistent.
  Viscount St. Davids: I have just said that I would wish to consider this proposal in much greater detail.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am deeply diverted by the highly unconvincing examples that the noble Viscount managed to summon up in support of his case. I am glad that the Government have sympathy about taking it away and thinking about it further. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, line 31, at end insert:
  ("() Where the Board considers it appropriate to include within the meaning of "public body" any body not included, it may so recommend to the Secretary of State, giving its reasons for so recommending.").
  The noble Lord said: We now come to the last amendment of this evening. This amendment gives to the board the right to recommend to the Secretary of State that a body be included within the meaning of "public body". I accept that in practice the chairman and the officers of the board will have made representations to Ministers and to Welsh Office officials that the body should be included. But suppose that the Secretary of State repeatedly refused to include such a body, notwithstanding strong evidence that it should be within the definition of a public body within the meaning of the Act? Where then does the board go? How does it get out of this impasse?
  As the Bill stands the board has no statutory right to request that a body be included. Accordingly, the rejection of its recommendation is not a matter that would be reported in the annual report. But if it is a function of the board, or if the board is authorised to nominate a body for inclusion in the list, then the board would have to report in the annual report on the exercise of that function.
  The advantage of putting that function into the provisions of the Bill is that the board would be obliged to report to the Welsh public on the exercise of that power. That at least should help to concentrate the mind of Ministers or officials when they are asked by the board to extend the list. I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has raised a matter which I had not anticipated. As I understand it, it concerns what happens when the board wants to include a body in the list but the Secretary of State does not. I would prefer to reflect upon the matter rather than giving an off-the-cuff answer.
  The noble Lord would like to see that provision included in the board's annual report. As I see it, there is no reason why it should not be included. I do not believe that it would necessarily be right to make it an obligation to include it, but there is nothing to stop the board putting it in. I should have thought that if they felt so strongly they would wish to put it in. Perhaps I can consider the matter further and advise the noble Lord later.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for that response and for the time being I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.