Lords Sitting of 4 February 1993

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

"Braer" Sinking: Proposed Code
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What interim action they propose to take pending the completion of the inquiries they have announced into the sinking of the oil tanker "Braer".
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, Department of Transport officials today met organisations representing oil companies, tanker operators and shipping interests. I am pleased to report that agreement has been reached on voluntary measures in the form of a code which will be promulgated by mid-March and which will be transmitted to the IMO for consideration and endorsement by the maritime safety committee in May this year. It is too early to anticipate the detailed provisions of the code, but it is intended that it will place voluntary restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas including the Fair Isle strait, the Isles of Scilly, the Minches and the Pentland Firth. We are still considering what other measures might be taken.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will welcome what the Minister said. I congratulate the Government very firmly on the action which has been taken as an interim measure pending wider international agreement. But will the Minister answer this: is there not an urgent need, made more so by falling standards among ships sailing the international seas, to restore higher standards and to resuscitate the British fleet and British seamanship, which stand for higher standards? What are the Government doing in that respect, bearing in mind that defects in foreign ships visiting Britain which have been inspected have trebled over the past five years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his initial remarks. It is more than just a question of maintaining the high standards which we have in the United Kingdom. What we have been pressing for, particularly through our presidency of Europe in the past six months—and we shall continue to do so—is to improve the standards both of vessels and crews throughout the world. Shipping is a very international business. Unless we raise standards throughout the world, which is what we are trying to do, we shall not achieve the success which we are aiming for.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while one rejoices to hear the news in my noble friend's
344
original Answer, can he say something about the methods of enforcement and what chances they have of being effective?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is one of the difficulties with the present situation. Although these are United Kingdom territorial waters there are also international rights of passage through those waters, agreed by Parliament and registered in the United Nations and at the IMO. Therefore, monitoring the codes is extremely difficult. That is why it is important to get the agreement of all the participants or as many of them as possible. There are about 3,000 tankers in the world and about 2,300 owners. It is very difficult to get an effective code on a voluntary basis. That is why there are these interim measures. We await the full report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I also welcome what the noble Earl said. As regards policing the code, surely an important part of that is to identify the offenders. Can the Minister say what are the chances of ensuring that some radar provision is made in these narrow waters so that the offenders can be identified when they are breaking the code?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question concerns not only radar, which is but a small part of the problem. As regards the identification of ships, that is under discussion with the IMO. These are voluntary codes. We have no mandatory right under international law to monitor the shipping. The system relies on the good will of all the parties and that is why it is important to get the agreement of all the organisations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the tanker was registered in Liberia which, I believe, it never visited? Have the Liberian Government taken any part in the discussions and if not, should not consideration be given to tankers being registered only with responsible countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Liberian registry is in fact run from New York and not from Liberia. It is also run by a Scot. The Liberian record for accidents is below the world average.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, according to information I received this morning, no payments have yet been made from the bridging fund set up for the purpose of helping the inshore fishermen and salmon farmers who have suffered severe financial loss as a result of the disaster? Can the noble Earl say when the bottleneck is going to be overcome so that these unfortunate fishermen can receive the interim compensation which they deserve?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is well wide of that on the Order Paper, but it is an important point. Work is being undertaken at this precise moment to try to ease the bottleneck.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend say how successful has been the use of the Frogmat and the Vikoma system in disposing of the oil in the particular event which is the subject of the Question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again I believe that that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. It was the sheer, raw power of nature —the power of the sea—that dispersed the oil. Certain man-made provisions such as the matting and the dispersants certainly helped.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the welcome voluntary code will include two matters which do not need to wait for the inquiries: first, that such vessels in certain waters should have a secondary standby power unit; and, secondly, an anchor which is usable in bad weather?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the full terms of the code have yet to be decided. The principle was agreed this morning. My noble friend raises important points which I believe are wider than the code itself and which are much more suited for the inquiry to be held by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, at the risk of being told that my question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper, can the noble Earl say whether there is any information available now about possible contamination of the food chain as regards human beings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is considerable monitoring taking place. Besides the two inquiries into the shipping side of the matter, an ecology study undertaken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is continuing to monitor all the kinds of questions which the noble Baroness asks.

Social Security Benefits: Fraud
3.9 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the Answer given by Lord Henley on 18th January 1993 (Official Report, col. 718) concerning large losses suffered over a term of years by fraud in the Department of Social Security, whether improvements should be imposed in the financial administration of the department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the department constantly seeks ways of improving efficiency in the administration of social security. From April we plan to introduce new financial incentives to encourage local authorities to clamp down on housing benefit fraud. We shall make greater use of technology to weed out false claims, and allocate a further £10 million over each of the next three years to help the Benefits Agency step up its flight.
Lord Benson: My Lords, a few moments before the session began the noble Lord was kind enough to explain some of the difficulties facing the Department of Social Security. Can he help on this point: would it not have been possible to have introduced a better system of financial administration some years ago
346
which, on the department's own showing, would have saved a great sum of money which has drifted away because of fraud?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there always has been fraud and I suspect that there always will be an element of it in a social security system that costs Her Majesty's Government something of the order of £80 billion. We are determined to do as much as we possibly can to stamp out fraud. As I said in my original Answer, we have made considerable progress and will continue to look at various other improvements we can make. We have to be aware that while wanting to clamp down on fraud, it is necessary that we have a benefits system that is accessible to those who have genuine claims. We would not want to go so far as to deny benefit to those who have a legal entitlement.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if a workfare scheme were introduced, that would help to cut down the amount of fraud in social security benefit payments?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would rather not speculate on the subject of workfare. As my noble friend said earlier in some of his responses, it goes somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we welcome the tone of the Minister's reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Benson. It was helpful. We on this side of the House certainly condemn fraud; it is clearly intolerable. However, does the Minister accept the recent findings of the National Audit Office that some 30 per cent. of sickness and maternity claims made by employers upon the DSS were found to contain monetary errors —that is, fraud—because the employer either claimed excessive sums or kept the payments that had been claimed and failed to pass them on to staff? I repeat that that happened in some 30 per cent. of cases. Will the Minister please crack down on employer fraud which plunders the taxpayer and denies sick and pregnant staff their financial rights?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that there was some criticism of the department in the National Audit Office report. I would not like to comment in any detail on that in advance of my department appearing before the Public Accounts Committee. But the noble Baroness should, I think, have pointed out that the Comptroller and Auditor General did recognise that the department had already made considerable improvements and was working hard to improve oversight of the statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay schemes. As regards the 30 per cent. error rates that the noble Baroness alleges, those error rates are not in fact representative. Checks were focused by my department—not by the NAO —on the employers considered more likely to make mistakes.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I welcome the fact that he evaded the question about workfare? However, now that it has been raised, will he tell the Prime Minister that,

347
notwithstanding the support shown for the idea in this House, there would be very strong resistance if he tried to bring in any possible system involving cheap labour?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made any remarks about workfare. What my right honourable friend was talking about was keeping those who are unemployed and the long-term unemployed in touch with the labour market. We already have considerable schemes within social security to do just that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, now that the Minister has answered a question which is wide of that on the Order Paper, will he say how many times income tax fraud and other taxation frauds are in excess of the particular fraud which is referred to on the Order Paper? Is it 100 times or 1,000 times? How many times?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is completely and utterly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, as was the question asked by the noble Lord's noble friend on the previous occasion when I dealt with questions about fraud. As I said on that occasion, Her Majesty's Government will continue to clamp down on fraud whether it be in the social security system or in taxation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the best way of keeping the unemployed in touch with the labour market is to adopt economic and social policies that give them jobs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is now going completely and utterly wide of the Question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support the Minister's resolution to clamp down on fraud wherever it may occur, but will the Government bear in mind that the incidence of fraud depends to some extent on the social climate within the country as a whole and that, generally speaking, fraud is the only growth industry at the moment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject the remarks of the noble Lord, but I certainly accept what he said about the social climate of the country. The only way we can win the battle against fraud is if we have the support of everyone in the country and if they let us know who is claiming benefits illegally.

Pensions: UK Citizens in Finland
3.14 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the recent conclusion of a reciprocal social security agreement with Finland, the retirement pensions of retired UK citizens living in Finland will be index linked.
Lord Henley: My Lords, United Kingdom retirement pensions paid in Finland have been index linked since 1984.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, although I am well aware of that point, I am grateful for the Minister's Answer because it confirms what I thought. When I read that an agreement had been concluded, I wondered how it differed from the 1983–84 agreement, which is in existence. However, if I may go on from that, can the Minister confirm that we have similar arrangements with 30 other countries including the United States of America, Israel and even Yugoslavia—we still have an agreement with Yugoslavia—Portugal, Switzerland and so on? Can the Minister also tell me the different principles that apply to negotiations with countries such as Finland and so on compared with those applying to our kith and kin in countries such as Canada and Australia?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord was well aware of the Answer, I wonder why he put the Question down on the Order Paper. The noble Lord again knows perfectly well what my answer will be and what my answer must be, because the noble Lord has asked this Question on a number of occasions. We have made a certain number of arrangements with other countries. We made them a number of years ago. As I said, the arrangements with Finland were made in 1984 following a commitment made as early as 1977. In the current climate, I do not think that it will be possible to increase fully or to give annual upratings to those claiming pensions in Canada for the reasons that I have given on earlier occasions to the noble Lord. Quite simply, it is a matter of cost. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to make very difficult judgments about where to spend the resources that are available for social security. To increase all pensions worldwide would cost some £275 million. Quite honestly, my right honourable friend feels that there are others who have a higher priority.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I have heard that reply for 20 years now? It is always similar except that the figures vary, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. There has been no change in the basic reply. I am still asking what principles are different. What is the principle of negotiation which differs between Finland and Canada?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is a straightforward principle—one of cost. My right honourable friend has to make very difficult decisions. When the commitment was given to Finland in 1977, there were some 11 old age pensioners residing in Finland and the annual cost was going to be £3,000. There are at the moment—if we take just Canada as an example—some 110,000 pensioners and the annual cost of giving them the full uprating would be some £70 million. My right honourable friend, as I said, has to make very difficult decisions about priorities.

The Highland Midge
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are giving further consideration to the useful service which could be provided by red mites in reducing the numbers of Highland midges, in the light of information now received by the Government from the Natural History Museum and other authoritative sources.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we have received further information from the Natural History Museum and from Professor Angus Stuart, formerly Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle. Contrary to what I indicated on an earlier occasion, it is clear that there are indeed mites parasitic to midges; but in the current state of research, there remains doubt over their potential to control midge numbers. I understand that it is not in the interests of a parasite to weaken the host to the point of death. Accordingly, we have no present plans to try to develop a midge-control programme on this basis.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for his full Answer, since he cast doubt on the very existence of the red mite when I raised the subject a few weeks ago. Has he received some much enlarged photographs of the mite effectively in action? Does he agree that promising methods of suppressing this ferocious nuisance deserve encouragement? Has he seen the recent research revealing that Queen Victoria, contrary to her usual directions, permitted smoking at Balmoral in order to repel the midges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no, I was unaware of that last piece of research. I do not retreat entirely from what I said on an earlier occasion. We still believe that the dreaded Natterer's bat has no contribution to make toward midge control. I am chastened by the fact that the research undertaken by Professor Stuart and others was ignored when I answered this matter previously. However, I understand that on "Tomorrow's World" last night there was an item which indicated that there was a midge fossilised in clear resin with a parasite mite still attached to it from some 70 million years ago. If over that extended period that parasitic mite has been unable to bring to an end the primitive midge, I fear that it is unlikely that any success against the ferocious Highland midge will be achieved during your Lordships' lifetimes.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while the Minister may have been forced to bowl out the bats and the mites which his noble friend has suggested may be a possible remedy for midges, perhaps I may ask this question. Will he consider congratulating his noble friend on his noble effort to cure what is one of the worst scourges of the north of Scotland? If mites will not do and bats will not do, he should by all means keep at it until we find something that will do.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are not idle in this matter. Projects are under way in the Department of Zoology at the University of Aberdeen and the Institute of Animal Health. The first seeks to identify the pheromones involved in the mating behaviour of midges, and the potential for their use in traps. I undertake to report any success to the House.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he should advise his noble friend that every time he asks this Question it is costly for the Scottish economy? If it is publicised, that ensures that fewer and fewer Sassenachs will go on the Scottish salmon rivers to fish, because they will be driven away by the midges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we appreciate that there is a delicate balance to be achieved. Despite all that, I still enjoin the noble Lord and his noble friends to visit Scotland as tourists as often as they wish to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it not a form of biological warfare?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend disagree with the comment that I recently heard that this subject has perhaps gone a mite too far?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, from where I stand, certainly!
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether he has ever been bitten by a Highland midge? If he never has been bitten by a Highland midge, in pursuance of his ministerial duties will he take time to go to the Highlands and let these midges have a good feed? He could then return much better informed about this important and serious subject.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I told the House on an earlier occasion, it is the pregnant female midge which is responsible for all the damage. I am all too familiar with her bite. I am aware that it can be extremely unpleasant. Notwithstanding that, I am still confident that those who know anything of the beauty and the scenery of the Highlands of Scotland will continue to visit them despite this pest.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on his persistence. The last time he asked the Question was only four months ago. From what the Minister has today said, we have made enormous strides during that four months. Leaving aside the 70 million years, if the noble Lord puts Questions down at four-monthly intervals that may speed up the process at Aberdeen and the Scottish Office.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall be able to carry out any further research into this vexed issue within a further four months. If there is any progress, I shall be happy to report it to the House.

Business
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on national roads investment plans 1992–94 that is to be made in another place.

Spring Bank Holiday Recess
I am aware that your Lordships have full schedules and that advanced notice of the parliamentary timetable may assist your Lordships in planning. I hope that it is not therefore premature for me to indicate that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the spring bank holiday Recess will begin on Friday 28th May and that the House will return on Monday 7th June.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Duty to issue guidelines]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 31, after ("issue") insert ("and publish").
The noble Lord said: All Welshmen talk too much!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I stressed the importance of publishing the board's productions when speaking to Amendment No. 10. What I said there, applies here. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I shall respond as briefly as I can. There is something in the noble Lord's first amendment, but nothing in the second. The difficulty is that the first amendment would have to be reconsidered to ensure that it is correctly framed. I shall accept his amendment in principle if I can take it away and look at it more carefully.
Amendment No. 24 would be counterproductive as it is currently drafted. Its effect would be to allow the board to issue or publish guidelines without the Secretary of State's approval since it would restrict the need for his approval to where issuing and publishing happen together. Quite apart from that undesirable effect, it seems to me to be unnecessary. I shall accept in principle Amendment No. 23.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about Amendment No. 23.
352
I note what he says about Amendment No. 24. We shall go away and reconsider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert:
("() The Board shall exercise its powers under this section so that the guidelines contain such practical guidance as the Board thinks fit for promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language including guidance on the following matters—

(a) the need to ensure that when communicating orally or in writing with any person resident in Wales, the language used, whether English or Welsh as the case may be, complies with the requirements of that person;

(b) the status of the Welsh language generally;

(c) the use of the Welsh language in the conduct of the business of the body;

(d) the criteria for the employment of bilingual staff;

(e) the arrangements for enabling staff employed by the body to receive tuition and achieve proficiency in the Welsh language;

(f) the monitoring and reviewing on a regular basis the scheme and its implementation;

(g) a complaints procedure.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to insert into the Bill general criteria to which the board should have regard when designing the draft statutory guidelines. The inclusion of the criteria in the Bill would have a number of advantages for the statutory board. First, the criteria would mean that the board would have clear guidance from Parliament as to the range of matters which should be detailed and defined in the guidelines.
Secondly, it follows that if the draft guidelines were within the criteria, that would avoid the possibility that at a later stage, when submitted to Parliament for approval, they would be challenged successfully on the grounds that they were going beyond what was necessary. If that were to happen, the board would have to go through the whole procedure once again of drafting and consultation, and that would be time-consuming. People in Wales are anxious that the guidelines should be approved by Parliament at an early date.
Thirdly, the Welsh Language Board has by now had about three years' experience of developing and applying voluntary guidelines. I feel sure that it knows by now the core elements that should be included in the guidelines. That point was touched upon by the Minister on Second Reading. As the core elements have been identified, they should be included in primary legislation. That would enhance the legitimacy of the guidelines.
Finally, there is another reason why we on these Benches believe that at least the principle of the amendment should be accepted. That is an important reason. One must never overlook the all-important point that the status of the guidelines, or of individual provisions of the guidelines, may well one day be challenged in the cold, analytical climate of the courts. If the guidelines came under examination in the courts, we believe that it would be important for the core elements to be given specific authority in the primary legislation.
I urge the Committee to accept the principle of the amendment. Once again, I am not wedded to the criteria which are set out in the amendment, but perhaps I may be allowed to mention that, apart from the inclusion of the complaints procedure—that is paragraph (g)—the criteria represent an attempt by me to summarise the main issues which are addressed in the board's voluntary guidelines for the public sector. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I rise to support the content of the amendment because I believe that it is an excellent attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to set out on the face of the Bill what many of us hope will be in the guidelines as laid down by the board.
In our earlier Committee deliberations and on Second Reading I made it clear that I accept the logic of the Bill as it stands; namely, that we have enunciated the general principle of treating both languages on a basis of equality. I feel strongly that the board should be seen to be a powerful instrument of that equality by ensuring that, in producing its schemes, it will be able to be effective in planning for the extension of Welsh within the public sector. On that basis this amendment sets out the principles under which the guidelines for schemes should operate. If the Minister is unable to accept the amendment as it stands, I hope that at least he will be able to tell us that that is the Government's intention.
I should draw attention in particular to the relationship between this amendment and the work already undertaken by the non-statutory board. The non-statutory board has been able to go a long way down the road of indicating to public authorities and also, in an advisory capacity which applies to other parts of the Bill, to non-public authorities what kind of schemes may be required in order to implement the principle of equality.
The amendment emphasises the use of the language and the employment criteria enabling tuition and proficiency. That is a very important area of training which will enable employees and public authorities to acquire the use of Welsh and become fluent in it. It also emphasises the need for a clear complaints procedure.
I am anxious that the board should be seen to be not only a promotional agency but also a conciliation agency. Where there is conflict about the implementation of bilingual policy or equality, the board should be able to undertake an active role of conciliation. The effectiveness of a complaints procedure will signal to people in Wales, whichever language they speak as their first language, that they will be able to turn to the board as an agency to resolve any conflict about the implementation of the policies.
For those reasons, I am pleased to support the content of the amendment. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will assure us that he expects the board to follow that direction when it sets out the guidelines for the schemes. To me the combination of the specific schemes negotiated between the board and public bodies and the general principle is the strength
354
of the Bill. However, both the general principle of the treatment of languages on the basis of equality and the specific content of schemes need to be equally strong if the Bill is to be effective. Without effective schemes, the Bill will be inadequate.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and what he is trying to achieve. The Welsh Language Board's guidelines will be crucial to the success of this legislation. The Bill establishes a clear principle which the Government intend should be the foundation of Welsh language services in the public sector. One of the board's key roles will be to offer guidance as to how this principle can be given practical effect. The guidelines will be central, both in illustrating the practical measure which should be contained in the schemes and in ensuring that the principle of equality is interpreted consistently across the public sector as a whole.
On reading the Bill, my own reaction was that I too could not see, in any great detail, what it was that the guidelines were to contain. I have no doubt that that is what lies behind the amendment. In part, this does of course reflect the fact that the guidelines are the board's responsibility. It must be right therefore that if the board is to undertake this task, the Bill should not attempt to do it for it. The more the Bill does that, the less discretion the board has in determining what the guidelines should contain.
That does not, however, mean that the Bill says nothing about the contents of the guidelines. The guidelines must be such as to ensure that public bodies are able to' give effect to the principle that the Welsh and English languages should be dealt with on a basis of equality. The purpose and underlying aim of the guidelines, therefore, is clear. It is this on which the Bill should concentrate and not the detailed content. I am sure that we could spend many hours discussing matters which are worthy of inclusion in the guidelines. I do not believe that that would be suitable. Parliament has to ensure that the Bill provides the board with a clear legal framework in which to operate. Having established that framework, we should allow the board to attend to matters of detail and to the practical issues on which its expertise will, in due course, become even greater than—dare I say it?—that which is available in this Committee today.
I am encouraged in that by the Bill's provisions which ensure that the guidelines are subject to public scrutiny. They will be the subject of extensive consultation. They will need to be approved by the Secretary of State and will then need to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
Through the Bill, Parliament will require the board to include in the guidelines all services which are provided by public bodies, because the schemes will cover all the matters. That is different from the current guidelines. In future they will have to give effect to the principle of equality, which is a new principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is anxious about the legal uncertainty of the guidelines. The uncertainty would be greater the more detail we tried to specify on the face of the Bill. It would raise a question as to whether the points which have not been detailed in the Bill could be included in the guidelines.

355
Once one says what must be included in the guidelines, it implies that that which is not listed should not or need not be included. I believe that it is best to leave such matters to the board.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Will he spell out to me in slightly greater detail the point he has just made; namely, that the schemes would give effect to the principle of equality and that that is a new departure in the Bill compared with the existing guidelines of the non-statutory board?
I believe that this is a very important relationship between the first principle of the Bill—the treatment of languages on the basis of equality—and the content of the schemes and the guidelines. If the Minister could spell that out, he would go some way towards enlightening people outside the Committee as to the real powers vested in the board by the Bill and the likely effect of specific schemes.
Earl Ferrers: One starts with the whole principle of the Bill which is to encourage the use of the Welsh language, to preserve it and enhance it. In order to achieve that there will be a statutory board which will lay down guidelines for public bodies. Those public bodies will base their schemes upon those guidelines. That is a statutory duty on both the board and the public bodies.
I understand the anxiety of some Members of the Committee to know exactly what will be in the guidelines. However, this Bill states exactly what the board's statutory requirements are. It is then up to the board to decide how, through its guidelines, to put those statutory requirements into practice. Once the guidelines have been produced, each public body will have to make its own scheme in accordance with those guidelines. I cannot go further in saying what the guidelines should be because that will be for the board to determine.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for supporting this amendment. I am sorry that the Minister has resisted the principle of the amendment. I fear that the Minister and the Government may be underestimating the extent to which these guidelines may come under attack in future. The guidelines are the key to the Bill. They are crucial to the Bill. The suggested criteria are not detailed criteria at all. I have grouped under five headings about 21 guidelines to be set out in the board's voluntary guidelines. I will not detain the Committee as we have further business. However, I take note of what the Minister says. I am disappointed with his response and we shall have to consider whether it is appropriate to return to this amendment or to an amendment along these lines. But, having said that, it seems to me that if the Minister is afraid of details, we might perhaps consider accepting the first subsection of my amendment, which states:
"The Board shall exercise its powers under this section so that the guidelines contain such practical guidance as the Board thinks fit for promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language".
If that wording were included in the Bill, it would at least tell us something about the board's authority to
356
design the guidelines and to decide what matters they contain. Would the Minister respond to that before I decide precisely where to go with it?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is like the serpent and is very beguiling. He has asked me to accept the first few words of his amendment. When I considered the amendment I considered what one might describe as the whole panjandrum and it was that which was not acceptable. In looking at the first few lines it would appear to me, speaking off the cuff —that is a dangerous thing to do—not to have great disadvantages. However, whether it would be appropriate to include it in the Bill is a matter that I should prefer to consider rather than give an immediate response.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for that grain of comfort. I, too, will reflect upon the Minister's comments. I shall decide whether or not it is appropriate to return with this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert:
("() The Board and the Secretary of State shall each take such steps as they consider necessary to encourage public bodies to adopt the policies and practices recommended in the guidelines.").
The noble Lord said: It would be helpful if the Bill confirmed that the Secretary of State himself has a continuing duty to promote the Welsh language and the objects of the Bill. Accordingly, this amendment places a responsibility on the Secretary of State to promote the Welsh language. As this important Bill stands, the powers are in the hands of the Secretary of State. I should have thought the corollary of that was that the Secretary of State should have a public responsibility to promote the Welsh language. He should not have power without public responsibility for promoting the objectives of the Bill. That is what we seek to embody in the legislation by means of this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It is certainly the Government's intention that public bodies should have close regard to the guidelines across all the services that they provide. That is clearly and forcefully taken care of in the Bill. There is no need to have a separate power to encourage bodies to comply with the guidelines. They are already required to produce schemes and therefore they must be complying. Schemes must comply with the purpose as defined in the Bill. In doing so they must have regard to the guidelines. I believe the noble Lord said the Secretary of State should not have power without also having public responsibility. However, he has public responsibility. The guidelines will be produced by the board and they will be given to the Secretary of State. He has to approve them and he then has to bring them to Parliament. As such he has that public responsibility. When Parliament approves those guidelines submitted to it by the Secretary of State, Parliament will endorse the Secretary of State's power.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should have thought in general the Bill places the responsibilities on the board and not on the Secretary of State. A great deal of power has been vested in the Secretary of State and we were particularly anxious that it should be clear that the Secretary of State still has a pro-active role to play in promoting the Welsh language. He cannot disengage from that merely because the Welsh Language Board is in existence. That was the point I was trying to make.
Earl Ferrers: I hope I can help the noble Lord. I do not think the Secretary of State will be negating his responsibilities. Later in the Bill it can be seen that, if a public body does not put forward schemes, the board can tell that public body to put forward schemes. If the public body still does not do so, the board can approach the Secretary of State and he can make that public body implement schemes which the Secretary of State himself will formulate. At the end of the road the Secretary of State has that power but the whole principle behind this Bill is to shift the onus on to the Welsh Language Board as that board will have responsibility and knowledge and it will implement the scheme. However, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State has responsibility.
Lord Prys-Davies: I welcome the reassuring words of the Minister. However, I respectfully differ from him in one respect. I believe that the continuing duty should have been incorporated in the Bill. However, that is another matter which we shall have to consider further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Approval of guidelines]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 reform Clause 9(3) and Amendment No. 30 proposes a new procedure in what is, I believe, very much the same spirit. Clause 9(3) would, in our opinion, be considerably improved if it read:
"After considering the Board's report and the draft guidelines the Secretary of State shall within the period of 40 days from receiving a copy of the draft approve the draft or, if he does not approve it, publish details of his reasons".
In our view that would introduce a note of brisk, businesslike efficiency, which is strangely lacking in the present formulation. It would also encourage a more open and public discussion of any disagreement, which would be very much in accord with the principle of open government wherever open government, so often espoused by the present Administration, is possible.
We prefer "shall" to "may" because it makes clearer sense. The Secretary of State has to do something about the guidelines and the Bill seems to say very little about what he must do if he does not approve the draft.
We suggest a period of 40 days as being sufficient and not too much. Your Lordships may recall that in the Old Testament the Children of Israel were frequently instructed that 40 days was a long time. In our view it would encourage the Secretary of State to be expeditious in his consideration. It also matches the 40-day period in Clause 9(6).
We propose that the Secretary of State should publish the reason for his disapproval so that there can be a wide-ranging debate on such matters of disagreement as may from time to time arise. Such a debate, if openly conducted, could conceivably produce an acceptable solution which had not occurred to people until the debate took place. If it did not, we hope that the requirement introduced by Amendment No. 30 would oblige the Secretary of State, in effect, to be locked up in a room in the Welsh Office with the Welsh Language Board, no one to be let out until they had come to an agreement.
We would be profoundly unimpressed if a situation were allowed to arise in which the Secretary of State unilaterally amended the draft guidelines and then laid before Parliament a set of guidelines in which the board itself manifestly had no confidence. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, is very apprehensive. I believe that I can allay his anxiety. First, however, I must point out that his amendment would require the Secretary of State to agree the nature of any amendments which he might wish to make with the Welsh Language Board. The guidelines which will come before Parliament for approval will, of course, be the guidelines prepared by the board, but it will be the Secretary of State who is responsible for what is put to Parliament.
Before he puts those guidelines to Parliament, the Secretary of State will consider them. He may wish to amend the guidelines. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, suggests that in that event the Secretary of State will produce guidelines which are thought to be the board's guidelines but which are not. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 9(4) he will see that,
"The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any draft guidelines received by him from the Board, with any amendments made by him under subsection (3) above".
Therefore, Parliament will see the draft guidelines which the board will have proposed to my right honourable friend. It will also see my right honourable friend's amendments. It will then be for Parliament to decide. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord's anxiety is misplaced.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that clarification. As I read Clause 9(4) I believe that it could be taken quite legitimately to mean what I understood it to mean. If I interpret the noble Earl correctly, he means that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any draft guidelines received by him from the board, together with any amendments made by him under subsection (3).
As it stands the subsection could be read as meaning that the draft guidelines as submitted to Parliament would simply include any amendments, which would not be identified separately. If I am

359
wrong about that, or if the noble Earl would like to consider the matter further between now and the later stages of the Bill, I should be quite content to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has shone a shaft of light on to a possible interpretation that I had not seen. I see now how the noble Lord may have construed that provision. It is my inclination to believe that my interpretation is correct and that Parliament will see both the draft guidelines and the amendments which the Secretary of State will have proposed. If that is so it will be the Secretary of State's responsibility and they will be the Secretary of State's guidelines. However, I shall make quite certain that the interpretation that I have translated to your Lordships is correct.
Lord Prys-Davies: This is an important point. It is our understanding of the clause that there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State substituting his own guidelines for those of the board. Is the Minister saying that when the Order in Council comes before the Houses of Parliament we shall have both the Secretary of State's version and the board's version and that Parliament will decide between the two? Surely that is not the case. What will be presented to Parliament for approval will be the guidelines as approved by the Secretary of State, which means that he could substitute his own guidelines for those of the board. It seems to us that the Secretary of State should not expect a reluctant board to prosecute his policy.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that there would be no question of that. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has thrown light on an area which I had not realised contained even a vestige of a shadow. However, I can see that there is disquiet and perhaps I can look at the matter again before the next stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Revision of guidelines]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 21, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. Amendment No. 31 is a probing amendment designed to give the Government an opportunity, if they feel so inclined, to explain in greater detail their reasons for proposing that the guidelines shall be set in concrete for a period of not less than half a decade.
It seems to us likely, especially in the early stages of the operation of the legislation when it becomes an Act, that all manner of unforeseen eventualities may arise which suggest that it would be sensible to alter the guidelines. Suppose, for example, that the guidelines included a provision on the lines of the one we proposed in Amendment No. 25 relating to communicating orally or in writing and that hitherto
360
unsuspected developments in information technology made it important to include reference to machine-readable forms or electronic mail or something of that sort. Why should the board's hands be tied for a period as long as five years?
A long time ago a famous cartoon appeared in Punch which showed two examiners walking through a wood in spring. One examiner quoted Wordsworth's lines:
"O cuckoo! Shall I call thee bird,
Or but a wandering voice?"
The second examiner added, "state alternative preferred. Give reasons for your choice." I invite the noble Earl to give reasons for his choice of five years.
In relation to Amendment No. 32, although every responsible public body will keep its schemes constantly under review, we believe that the duty to review a scheme every five years should be placed formally on each public body and appear on the face of the Bill for two main reasons. First, a large and complex public body such as, for example, a county council or health authority, might, because it has so much to do and especially if it has a good scheme which operates successfully, lose sight of the necessity to review its scheme. If the amendment appeared on the face of the Bill it would act as a reminder to a large and complex body of its duty, and that would be beneficial.
Secondly, in matters of linguistic change, developments take place constantly. Languages do not stand still. For example, one new Welsh medium school in any area which has not previously had one, can, within five years, change the whole pattern of language usage in that area. A local health authority or a fire authority might not necessarily register that change sensitively. In our view every five years it would need to take stock and simply palpate the processes of change. We propose five years because we believe that the review should be serious and substantial. Five years is a long enough time.
Amendment No. 33 speaks for itself, and simply requires that the board may ask a public body to give information on the review which it may from time to time need. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: Clause 10 represents one of the important points of flexibility in the Bill. The Government's intention is that the framework it provides should be able to evolve just as the use of the language evolves and that this Bill should therefore be able to stand the test of time. The essential feature of this evolution is that the board can determine, from time to time, that it would be appropriate for it to amend the guidelines.
It would, however, be a mistake to see this procedure being entered into lightly or indeed too frequently. Although a language is continually subject to change, the evolution we have in mind is one which takes place over decades and generations. Welsh language schemes must be responsive to change, but will not require wholesale overhaul according to the sort of timetable envisaged in this amendment.

361
The Government felt that it was reasonable to stipulate five years as the minimum period after which the board could initiate its first general review of schemes. I believe the Bill has it about right. The important decision will, of course, be that of the board once it is in place and once it can take its own view on these matters.
I would, however, draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the time period mentioned in subsection (2) relates only to the board's first review of its guidelines. Thereafter the frequency with which they should be reviewed will be entirely at the discretion of the board. It would, I believe, be a mistake to conclude from this that the board will wish to review its guidelines every five years. The important thing is that it will be for the board to decide.
On Amendment No. 32, at Second Reading my noble friend stated that one of the important features of the Bill is that the schemes to which it will give rise,
"will not be cast in tablets of stone".—[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 837.]
It is essential that we provide this flexibility not only to reflect the evolution of the language over long periods of time but also to enable public bodies and their schemes to respond to changing circumstances. Clause 15 provides for schemes to be amended to reflect any change in circumstances of particular public bodies. Such a revision can be proposed by the board or by the public body concerned. The public body will have an incentive to do so in order to ensure that its scheme does not refer to services for which it is perhaps no longer responsible. The board will be able to propose amendments so long as it is satisfied that there has been a change to the function or circumstances of the public body which makes this appropriate.
In Clause 14 the Bill also provides for there to be a more general review of schemes as a result of the board having revised its guidelines. Whether there is a need to amend schemes will of course depend upon the circumstances of individual public bodies. Before requiring schemes to be revised, therefore, the board can require a public body to conduct a review and to submit to it a statement of its conclusions. The ability to require such a review ensures that new schemes are introduced only where there is absolute necessity.
I am sure we are all agreed that we would not require schemes to be changed when that is not necessary. The main thrust of the amendments therefore is already taken care of in the Government's Bill. It is important not to impose too much bureaucracy on those organisations such as would be involved if every five years every single body were to review its scheme.
There is also the practical difficulty of what a review comprises. Does it involve taking a scheme out of a drawer and putting it back again? What is the penalty if that ritual dance has not been gone through? Who knows whether or not it has?
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and defence of Clause 10(2). However, it does not meet our anxiety. I agree with the noble Viscount that we do not want the scheme to be
362
amended unless it is necessary. But it is always my experience that the difficult task is to draft the initial document. One drafts the initial document, considers it and sees that mistakes have occurred. Let us assume that the board realises after year one that there has been a mistake in the guidelines. As the clause stands, it can do nothing about that for five years. We say that where the mistake occurs in the original drafting—that is where it usually occurs—the board ought to be able to come back within two years to put it right. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Baroness White: I hope that the matter will be reconsidered by the Government. I anticipate that there will be a preliminary period before those guidelines are issued. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. Then one has to wait five years before one can alter them. That is how I read the Bill; I may be wrong. That is too long a period when one is experimenting, as one will be in the first period. I hope that the matter may be reconsidered.
Viscount St. Davids: In the first five-year period the board will need to have a considerable amount of experience under its belt. It would be unduly cumbersome if a shorter period of time were imposed. The board will have to cope with a considerable number of diverse companies and organisations. If we were to reduce the length of time to the proposed two years, it would then put the board under other pressures which would be detrimental to the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: The Minister has not answered the question. If within 18 months the board sees that there is a mistake in the guidelines, is the Minister saying that it has to wait five years before it can be corrected?
Viscount St. Davids: No, I do not say that. The board can propose amendments to schemes at any time.
Lord Geraint: Perhaps I may ask one question of the Minister. Members of the board may be satisfied with the guidelines within the first five years. The Secretary of State may be satisfied with the guidelines. But if the majority of the people of Wales are not satisfied with the guidelines, what is the next option?
Viscount St. Davids: It is the board's responsibility to get the matter right. I cannot imagine that the type of board that the Bill envisages will create what would be a major nonsense.
Lord Prys-Davies: Does it help the Minister if we make the suggestion that the board should be entitled to revise the guidelines within five years at its discretion? That provision would help us to get round this difficulty.
Viscount St. Davids: Following the remarks that have been expressed on the amendment, we will take it away and return in due course.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said. His view about the speed at which languages change and develop is

363
not totally in accord with my brief experience of it. Languages develop much faster in certain cases than he imagines. He believes that the Bill has got it just about right; we on these Benches believe that on this matter the Bill has got it just about wrong.
I take the point which the noble Viscount makes about the first and subsequent reviews, and I am grateful for the clarification. We thought that Clauses 14 and 15 were not specifically precise and did not impose the kind of discipline that we had in mind. We were concerned about the duty and discipline of review rather than the more swinging 'sixties, permissive view that Clauses 14 and 15 appeared to have in mind. Once again, I am grateful for the clarification.
The noble Viscount mentioned the idea of a review as being some kind of ritual dance which could be indulged in, presumably annually at eisteddfodau and other meetings of the clan. He asked what would happen if a county council, for example, simply took its review out of the drawer, had a look at it, turned it upsidedown, shook out the dust and put it back. What penalty would there be if it did that and nothing else? Who would know whether it had revised the scheme?
I remind the noble Viscount that there are countless Acts on the statute book which impose the duty of review on one body or another. The same would apply there as applies here. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that that is the Government's's problem, not ours. However, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount said about taking the amendments away, and I shall think about it.
Lord Prys-Davies: The Minister did not reply to my noble friend's speech supporting Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. The point I wish to make about those amendments relates to an announcement made in another place on 27th February by the Secretary of State for Wales. He then said that the board would have the task of monitoring the implementation of the language schemes. I have seen no express reference in the Bill to the monitoring task.
In addition to the objectives which my noble friend outlined, Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 also seek to rectify that omission. Amendment No. 32 would require everyone to review the operation of the scheme every five years. Amendment No. 33 authorises the board to obtain information from the public bodies. Unless the Minister can assure us that the power to monitor and to obtain statistics is implied, then I ask the Government to think again about Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 before they reject them.
Viscount St. Davids: On the amendment, first, one could say that the board could not carry out its function unless part of that function was of a reviewing nature. Secondly, the public have the means of complaint to the board if the schemes are not carried out in the manner which is laid down.
Lord Prys-Davies: Concerning the second point, assuming that the board writes to a public body for certain statistics, does it have the power to ask the body for those statistics? I see no reference to that
364
power in the Bill. Secondly, if it has that implied power, what is the position if the public body refuses to comply?
Viscount St. Davids: The board is acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. The way I see it is that if an offender or potential offender did not comply with a request from the board, the Secretary of State could make the request himself.
Lord Prys-Davies: And thereafter?
Viscount St. Davids: If that fails, the Secretary of State can impose his own scheme.
Lord Prys-Davies: With great respect, we are not at the moment discussing the scheme, we are discussing the right of the board to obtain statistics from a public body. There is no specific authority in the Bill to enable the board to obtain that information. If Ministers confirm that it has an implied power to do so, and if the public body refuses to comply the board can ensure compliance, then I am satisfied. However, I am anxious that the board should he in a position to discharge its tasks. We believe that these amendments would buttress the board very much.
Viscount St. Davids: I am sure that the Bill enables the board to make these demands; but I shall go away and ensure that that is so.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Viscount and to my noble friend for having wrung out of the noble Viscount slightly more than I managed. In the light of the reassurances that he has given and his willingness to have another look at what has been a slightly sticky wicket for him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement on transport. Therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Road Improvements
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's plans for investment in national roads in 1993–94. I made a Statement to the House on 15th December about the Government's record level of support for expenditure on roads by local authorities. I am now pleased to be able to announce similar good news for the national road network of motorways and trunk roads.
"I am authorising the start of construction works in the coming financial year on 41 new road

365
schemes. Assuming the remaining statutory processes are completed, we will have started all these schemes by March next year. They represent new investment in the nation's infrastructure of over £1.3 billion. I am arranging for a list of the schemes to be included in the Official Report and made available in the Vote Office.
"Expenditure on new construction and maintenance of national roads will reach £2,092 million in 1993–94. This is the highest level for over 20 years in real terms, and one of the highest ever. In a difficult year for public expenditure, this level of spending clearly demonstrates the extent of the Government's commitment to capital expenditure and to investing in the nation's roads and, as we showed on Tuesday, rail infrastructure. The sum includes £550 million for the capital maintenance of roads and bridges and £1,369 million for new road construction.
"The 41 new starts are in addition to the substantial construction programme which is currently taking place. We have 51 schemes under construction, mostly started in the last couple of years. During the course of 1993–94 100 miles of new or improved roads will be opened to traffic.
"One aim of the programme is to tackle increasing congestion on the core motorway network: we will be adding a fourth lane to 18 route miles of motorway, including the M.25 in Surrey and the M.62 in Greater Manchester. The North-West will also see the start of construction on the long-awaited remaining link on the M.65 around Blackburn. The biggest single project to start will be the upgrading to motorway of 13 miles of the A.1 between Walshford and Dishforth in North Yorkshire, part of the A.1 motorway between London and Newcastle.
"Another key objective of the road programme is removing through traffic from our towns and villages. Nineteen bypass schemes will be built across the country, taking heavy traffic away from streets in towns and villages. In addition, on-line improvements will be started on 11 other routes, including the A.66 northern trans-Pennine road, the A.11 to Norwich, and the A.27 south coast route.

National roads: New starts for 1993–94

Region

Road number

Scheme name

Total works cost 1£ million

Miles

Northern

A.66

Stainmore—Banksgate

11

3·7

North West

M.62

Junctions 14–17 widening

13

2·5

North West

M.65

Blackburn southern bypass (Contract 1)

56

13·1

North West

A.6M—M.56 link (Central section)

16

2·2

Yorkshire and Humberside

A.1(M)

Walshford—Dishforth

113

13·1

Yorkshire and Humberside

A.65

Burley in Wharfedale bypass

9

1·8

Yorkshire and Humberside

A.65

Gargrave bypass

7

3·7

West Midlands

A.45

Stonebridge grade separated junction

12

1·3

West Midlands

A.50

Blythe bridge—Queensway (Phase 1)

73

3·0

West Midlands

A.435

Norton—Lenchwick bypass

24

7·5

"I am particularly pleased that we will now be able to start work next year in tackling some of the worst bottlenecks in London through a programme of nine junction improvements and other schemes. Taken in conjunction with the red routes network, which will also come on stream from 1994, this is a sensible, cost-effective and environmentally friendly response to congestion in the capital.
"All these 41 new schemes will bring substantial economic, safety and environmental benefits to road users and the country as a whole. They are particularly important in helping to reduce the costs of congestion to industry. The value of the benefits from these new schemes in terms of accidents avoided and time savings to road users has been assessed at £2.5 billion, and this is before any allowance for the net environmental gain achieved by reducing urban congestion and taking traffic away from town and village centres. All the new schemes have, of course, been subject to full environmental assessment and have been designed sensitively, so as to fit into the landscape as closely as possible. This is how we aim to minimise any adverse environmental effects; indeed, we can sometimes reduce the environmental effects of an existing road with a new scheme.
"The £550 million to be spent on capital maintenance is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. I will be announcing the details of the maintenance works before the start of the new financial year, but can confirm now that sufficient funding will be in place in 1993–94 to avoid deteriorating road conditions, as well as ensuring that the programme of bridge strengthening remains on course. Higher expenditure on maintenance will also mean that the latest techniques of traffic management can be applied to minimise delays to the road user.
"The levels of investment I am announcing today will continue to meet the needs of business and the community and provide the right conditions for economic growth. In addition I shall be publishing a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads which will also examine the scope for attracting more private finance."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Following is the list of schemes referred to in the Statement:

Region

Road number

Scheme name

Total works cost1£ million

Miles

East Midlands

A.17

Leadenham bypass

3

6·0

East Midlands

A.17

Wigtoft—Sutterton

7

3·0

East Midlands

A.52

Ashbourne relief road

4

1·6

Eastern

A.11

Besthorpe—Wymondham improvement

25

5·4

Eastern

A.11

Stump cross—Fourwentways improvement

28

3·4

Eastern

A.12

Lowestoft eastern relief road

1

0·8

Eastern

A.47

Walpole—Tilney High End bypass

23

6·2

Eastern

A. 140

Scole—Dickleburgh

12

1·3

Eastern

A.428

Bedford southern bypass

51

5·4

Eastern

M.40

Junction 1A-3 widening

55

7·5

London

A.12

Hackney—M.11 (Contract 2)

62

1·5

London

A.12

Hackney—M.11 (Contract 4)

60

0·9

London

A.13

Cotton street

8

0·6

London

A.13

Butcher row

1

0·1

London

A.13

Heathway—Thames avenue

54

5·0

London

A.13

Thames avenue—Wennington

58

3·1

London

A.40

Long lane—West End road widening

4

1·5

London

A.406

East of Falloden way

42

1·4

London

A.406

Dysons road

63

1·5

London

M.1

Junction 1

5

0·4

South East

A.27

Patching junction improvement

11

1·6

South East

A.249

North of Iwade—M.2 improvement

47

7·0

South East

A. 303

Bullington cross

4

2·5

South East

M.25

Junctions 10–11 widening

36

4·8

South East

M.25

Junctions 7–8 widening

32

3·1

South West

A.30

Shallowater hill

2

1·3

South West

A.30

Indian Queens, Fraddon, St. Columb road bypass

21

5·3

South West

A.31

Ashley heath grade separated junction

11

1·0

South West

A.46

Batheaston—Swainswick bypass

51

3·3

South West

A.417

Brockworth bypass

32

3·3

South West

M.5

Junction 18 improvement and Avonmouth relief road

13

1·0

TOTALS

41 Schemes

1,148

141·6

1 Including VAT.

4.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is a very full Statement and a very important one. Perhaps I may ask a number of questions. First, are we to take it from the Statement that all the money is to be provided by the Government or is some of it to come from local authorities? That is not made very clear. Secondly, is the Minister aware that there is still no sign from the Government of an integrated transport strategy? The policy is fragmented. It is heavily weighted in favour of roads. There is no indication as to how the Government propose to meet the sustainable transport objectives agreed at Rio when, despite their assertions, appalling under-investment remains so far as the public sector is concerned.
Can the Minister confirm that however the road building programme may be stepped up and obviously some increase is required, it cannot begin to meet the Government's own estimates of an increase in road traffic in the United Kingdom of between 83 per cent. and 140 per cent. by the year 2025; and in rural traffic of between 127 per cent. and 267 per cent. over the same timescale? Are those burdens not completely unsustainable?
How is the expenditure to be divided between construction and maintenance? There has been massive neglect-potholes all over the place will be the
368
experience of all noble Lords —making our roads more like those of a third world country than those of a country in modern Europe. Should not maintenance take far the greater share of the priorities accorded?
The Statement says that environmental impact assessments have been carried out. Are those wholly in conformity with the European Community directive, bearing in mind the fact that this country still faces litigation from the European Community in relation to Oxleas Wood and other projects associated with the Channel Tunnel?
While increased road spending will result in employment-I should like to hear the Minister's estimate of the growth—how does that contrast with the number of jobs currently and in the future being lost on the railways and other public transport modes? Is it not a fact that due to the 8 per cent. return required from British Rail's freight sector, customers are already moving from rail to road? Is not that move, estimated at something like 100,000 lorry loads and involving cider from Somerset, cement from Cornwall and chemicals from outside Cambridge, in conflict with the Government's assertions that they wish to encourage a move from road to rail? And that is just the beginning.
We have argued that a massive re-ordering of priorities in terms of public expenditure in the transport sector is required to enable a proper

369
transport strategy to evolve capable of meeting the environmental objectives set out at Rio and within the European Community and accepted by the Government. How does the Minister propose to go about achieving those objectives? Finally, does he recognise that planting trees on motorways does not represent a substitute for a transport policy which would properly integrate all the environmental considerations to which I have referred?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is difficult at short notice to disentangle the wheat from the chaff. I think it is true to say that so far as numbers are concerned, we are merely fleshing out the Autumn Statement. So often in government Statements these days we see the same amount of money coming before our eyes three or four times. So while some of what the Statement says is welcome, we should not go overboard as if suddenly £2,000 million has appeared from the Exchequer. It has not.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, one is glad to see jobs being created in the construction industry. We have all been calling for that for a long time. But what the Statement means in net terms remains to be seen. We are still in a position where the Government do not have a transport strategy: the Statement is no substitute. I remember not many years ago, when I asked whether the Government had a transport strategy, being told that the Government had a strategy for roads and British Rail had a strategy for rail. Now, there will be no British Rail to have a strategy for.
Some of the details in the Statement can be confusing. According to paragraph 4 there will be 100 miles of new or improved roads opened in 1993–94. But in paragraph 2 we are told:
"Assuming the remaining statutory processes are completed, we will have started all these schemes by March next year".
Are we talking about new roads or roads already under construction? The numbers can be extremely confusing.
The environmental consequences of some of the projects being started are rather worrying. The widening of the M.25 is being undertaken, it seems, without any reference to studies that might have been made of expansion at Heathrow. How far has that been integrated into the road programme? What increased volume of traffic do the Government anticipate as a result of the extra roads? We know perfectly well that traffic expands to fill the space available on the roads. It would be interesting to know whether the department has any idea of how many extra vehicles will be enticed on to the roads as a result of widening.
There is no doubt that parts of the A.1 are desperately in need of improvement. But it is noticeable that there are no improvements north of Newcastle. I am sure that some of our Scottish friends who look to the A.1 as part of their transport system will not be best pleased in that regard. Most of the investment, as usual, is in the South-East of England.
370
I notice that the value and benefits from the new schemes is assessed at £2.5 billion. I wonder how that was arrived at and by whom. The Statement says,
"before any allowance for the net environmental gain achieved by reducing urban congestion and taking traffic away from town and village centres".
It is not a reduction in environmental pollution; it is merely a shift. I am not saying that I oppose bypasses being built to take the congestion away from villages and towns. But let us not pretend that there is an enormous environmental gain. Overall there is not. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I believe that the Government's pretence that landscaping is an answer shows insufficient understanding of the environmental problems caused by traffic.
Can the Minister say, in regard to paragraph 9, whether the programme of bridge strengthening includes the bridges in London? If so, how many more bridges will be closed and when? If we continue to close them on the scale that has occurred none of us will be able to get across to the south bank. Also, I was amused to see that the latest techniques of traffic management will be applied to minimise delays to road users. I understand that on Hammersmith Bridge that will be done by a man with a red flag.
I believe that there is a mistake in paragraph 10 where it says:
"In addition I shall be publishing a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads".
I presume by that the Statement means "intra-urban roads". Are the Government considering road pricing between towns or in towns? As always, we have piecemeal policy on transport from the Government. It is about time that they woke up to the fact that it is not as simple as just widening a few motorways. It is a much broader problem.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think I can thank both noble Lords for their welcome to the Statement, although both asked a number of questions which I shall try to answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the money was government money or local authority money. Of course it is government money. We are talking of trunk roads and motorways which are not local authority concerns. They are the concerns of the Department of Transport; so it is government money. On 15th December we announced the programme for local authorities.
With regard to whether or not the investment that we are carrying out is heavily weighted in favour of roads, as the noble Lord suggested, I would take issue with him. Our investment in roads, both national and local, is £2.9 billion; our investment in public transport is £2.2 billion. But as the public travel on roads, everybody stands to benefit by the considerable sum of money that is being invested.
Of course the current programme and the proposals announced in the Statement are not enough to meet the forecasts published in 1989. However, they are part of an ongoing programme. As I said in the Statement, they represent nearly the highest level ever in real terms and certainly the highest for 20 years. The environmental impact assessment meets all EC

371
requirements, just as we believe that the existing environmental impact assessments meet those requirements.
Employment was mentioned by both noble Lords. On the basis of CBI estimates, the investment announced in the Statement will sustain over 30,000 jobs in the construction industry. I can understand the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with regard to road starts and completions. The schemes are not started and completed in one financial year. There is a situation where a number of schemes are started, probably in the previous two years and perhaps before that. We have announced 41 new schemes, and during the next financial year there will be an investment of just over £2 billion in those works.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. Is he saying that what is said in paragraph 4—in other words, the 100 miles of new roads during the course of 1993–94—has nothing to do with new money?
Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that will be the completion of works already in progress. In addition, there will be the 41 new starts. It is a rolling and continuous programme.
The noble Lord was concerned about the environmental consequences of some of the works proposed. However, the environmental consequences of not carrying out the works are just as worrying and there are certainly benefits from our proposals for changing existing road pattern use.
With regard to bridges in London, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer he seeks. Some bridges are local authority bridges and some are government bridges. The commitment that we have made is to improve the standard. The noble Lord is right with regard to the policy announced in the Statement. The pricing document to which the Statement refers is the pricing of roads between towns. As the noble Lord knows, there is a separate discussion and inquiry taking place for road pricing in towns.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe it is the turn of our side.
Baroness White: My Lords, no. It is our turn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think not. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend replied. No one from our side has yet put a question.
Unlike noble Lords opposite I warmly welcome the Statement made by my noble friend. He is to be congratulated on having maintained the size of the road building programme under the threat of difficult economic conditions. The fact that a large number of jobs will be retained in the construction industry must be good news. Does my noble friend agree that it is not only those involved in the construction of the new roads who will be grateful for the maintenance of' the programme, but that it is also the case that road construction is probably one of the quickest ways of
372
translating government capital expenditure into benefit for the economy as a whole, bringing in as it does cheaper transport for all those involved in trying to make this country wealthy? Does my noble friend agree that what he has announced today, particularly the new bypass programmes and the expansion of the M.25 and the A.1, will be widely welcomed?
My noble friend may be able to remind the House what proportion of taxation and expenditure by motorists in the form of road tax, fuel duty and so forth is actually being spent in the programme. It is still not a high proportion when one starts to make comparisons with expenditure on railways and so forth.
My noble friend mentioned also that the new roads comply with the European Community environmental impact assessment studies. That is to be welcomed because those environmental standards are part of our domestic requirements. Does my noble friend agree that under the new doctrine or wish for subsidiarity, that is something which should be clawed back from Brussels? There can be no real reason why Brussels and the European Community should have a say in something which should be purely a domestic issue —the construction of our own roads. Perhaps my noble friend can say whether that is one of the things which, under the new desire to translate subsidiarity into action, we can ask to be clawed back. I am prepared to accept that there are transport issues which cross frontiers in which the EC should have a say. But something such as this, which is a purely domestic issue, we should get back under our own control.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. He was right to draw attention to the fact that we have maintained the size of the road programme in times of economic difficulty and of constraints on public expenditure. That, as he agrees, is to be widely welcomed. It is to be widely welcomed by the travelling public and in particular by industry. There is nothing worse for industrialists than having their lorries and vans stuck in traffic jams, with all the consequent environmental pollution that that causes, and also the increased costs of moving goods from one place to another.
As a result of this programme, as my noble friend rightly says, the completion of the roads which are at present under construction and the 41 new starts will give a boost to industry in excess of that given to the sustenance of jobs in the construction industry. I agree with him about the EC impact assessment. I think he would agree with me that it is right that we all obey a common rule as to the effect on the environment. But it is certainly not up to the European Community to tell us where to put our roads. We can put our roads where we want to put our roads. However, we also ought—and it is right that we do—to carry out an environmental impact assessment first.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that none of the 41 new constructions will pass through a national park? We have been told about the environmental assessments that are being made and about the requirements of the European Community.

373
However, certainly so far as the approaches to Snowdonia are concerned, I should have thought that the suggestions from the European Community would be quite unacceptable to anyone concerned about the environmental consequences thereof. I hope that he can at least tell us that none of the propositions that he has put before us affects our national parks.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as I am aware and from the information that I have, none of the proposals that I have mentioned in the Statement today affects a national park. I shall write to the noble Baroness if I prove to be wrong. The noble Baroness mentioned Snowdonia. Of course this Statement has nothing to do with Wales or Scotland, only England.
Baroness White: Splendid!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not know that I can welcome this Statement at all. The Statement accepts the fact that there will be a huge growth in road traffic in the next decade or two; whereas I believe—and I thought in fact the Government believed until this afternoon—that we need to deter a huge increase in road traffic, and indeed that it should be policy to transfer traffic, particularly goods traffic, from road to rail. There is everything in this Statement that encourages traffic to move from rail to road, and that is precisely what we do not want.
Furthermore, the Government appear to be dealing with traffic, roads and transport in a piecemeal fashion. It is undoubtedly true—and a read of today's Evening Standard will show this—that there is increasing evidence of a good deal of ill health arising from road traffic in towns because of the pollution that the internal combustion engine and road vehicles cause. There is a wider range of diseases now that are thought to be caused by road traffic fumes. There is nothing in this Statement, so far as I can see, that will discourage traffic from entering urban and built-up areas. Indeed there is everything in this Statement that will encourage more vehicles to arrive more quickly in the urban areas.
I find this particular Statement disappointing because it deals with only one part of the transport system, only one issue relating to the road system. It does not deal with the real problems being faced not only by road users but by the general population because of the effect on their health now and in the future due to the rising incidence of disease from traffic fumes.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is right: this Statement deals solely with roads. It is designed to do exactly that, and it deals with that effectively. I was disappointed by what the noble Lord said. I should have thought that he would have welcomed the Statement, and the increase in choice that we maintain for the consumer to travel by whatever means the consumer finds desirable. There is no question that, unless one imposes enormous restrictions on the liberties of people, which I know
374
the noble Lord would be the first to condemn, there will be a rise in traffic, and it is right that we cater for that.
I know that the noble Lord would wish to read what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading on the British Rail Bill in another place earlier this week. There he will see a statement made by my right honourable friend with particular reference to increasing the amount of freight on rail; to move it from road to rail. I hope that the noble Lord will not forget the shipping industry. The shipping industry takes 25 per cent. of the freight that travels within this country. I am one of those who is keen to see freight transferred not only from road to rail but from road and rail onto our ships that ply our coasts.
The noble Lord was rightly concerned about road traffic in towns. So am I, and so is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and that is why we have made the proposition for bypasses. The noble Lord will remember the debate that we had on traffic in our cities on Wednesday of last week in which he took part.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Earl clear up one point that arose during the earlier exchanges with his noble friend? Did I understand him to say that in our construction programme of trunk and motorway roads we respect, and intend to respect, the European environmental standards; that it is not true to say that our road building programme is simply a local domestic matter; that, in that respect, subsidiarity cannot be a sort of panacea and a general rule for all our road building programmes; and that we are in fact subject to the standards of the European Commission?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, let me make clear what I said to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and I hope that this is welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is right that we meet the environmental standards not only of our own laws but also those that have been agreed in the Community. But it is wrong for the Community to tell us where we will build our roads. Yes, we must meet the standards, but where we want to put roads and bypasses surely is up to this country. I hope that the whole House would agree with that.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome this Statement for four reasons. First, it will give a welcome boost to the construction industry throughout England. Sometimes we get boosts to the construction industry in various parts of the country, but this seems to be fairly widespread. Secondly—and there is no mention of this in the Statement—to my certain knowledge three of the proposed changes are currently accident black spots. There is no reference at all in the Statement to the effects on reducing accidents; it is all about congestion and environmental impact. That reduction will be very welcome indeed.
Thirdly, I welcome it because of the bypasses, a point that has already been mentioned. Although people will be able to enter towns easier because of bypassing other towns en route, we hope that we will

375
not have the same situation as we have on so many sunny Sunday afternoons with some small towns becoming clogged up with endless traffic jams and asphyxiating fumes. Bypassing some of those towns will avoid that.
The other point I want to make concerns the EC. I find it staggering that when I travel elsewhere in the Community I find a lot of posters saying, "This road was constructed with the help of European Community funds", and you see these little blue flags with the 12 stars. Is there a case for some of this funding to come from the European Community for these necessary roadworks? Including VAT some £1,148 million—which is only 2 per cent. of the total road fund taxation—is received from motorists. We should go to Brussels to see whether they can make some contribution. I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful for the welcome which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave to the Statement. The measures will certainly benefit the travelling public and industry. One of the special areas of anxiety to the noble Baroness which will be met is in reducing the accident black spots at junctions in London which I mentioned in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will know them well in Hackney and on the M.11. I am sure that he too will welcome these measures. I welcome the noble Baroness's concern for the villages and towns which will now be bypassed. I agree so much with her on that matter. There is nothing worse than villages and towns being affected. If we can get the traffic to go round a town on a bypass, that will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as well.
As regards EC funding, limited funds are available under the transport infrastructure programme. I am not quite clear how much will be available for the road programme in England. However, I gather that some might be available for the road programme in Wales; but that is subject to something totally different.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the Statement. I believe it was agreed all round the House in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird last Wednesday that the car is here to stay, and that one cannot legislate as to when people can use their cars. This Statement is very apt in that respect. There are a couple of points which I wish to ask my noble friend. Are there any plans (they might already exist) for widening the M.1 and M.3 just past the M.25? When one drives out of London, either to the West Country or to the North, one comes to a complete stop because of traffic congestion. Are there any plans for adding an extra lane for a certain length after one joins the M.1 or M.3 after the M.25?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux gave to the Statement. As regards his particular anxieties, from the map in front of me, I am unable to give him quite the answer that he would like.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we welcome certain road developments. This side of the House recognises that there is a need for certain roads to be developed, particularly bypasses. We fully support the need for them. Listening to the debate this afternoon—if one can call it that—it is one which we have heard so often. I must echo the point which has been made; namely, where is a real strategy for transport planning in this country? That is missing in the Statement. There was a debate in the other place on Monday on rail privatisation. I have read the report of that debate very carefully. If the Minister reads fully the whole of that debate, where will he see any indication of an integrated policy for road and rail? It is not there.
This afternoon the noble Earl compared the balance of expenditure between road and rail. How much of the £2.2 billion reserved for rail is for the Channel Tunnel? I am not trying to decry expenditure on it. Figures are rolled out, as they are for other ministries as well, without any detail as to their purpose. Can the Minister say how much expenditure is on railway development?
I realise that we are not debating railways today, but in view of what the noble Earl has said, I must refer to them. Is it not the fact that the Government have already decided that there is going to be a steady reduction of the public service obligation and grants? We need to have a strategy. As regards roads, we consider that bypasses are necessary besides roads to the docks. There must be a strategy.
The Government talk glibly about moving freight from road to rail. Examples have been given in the press in the past few days that because of freight charges the Freight Transport Association and other haulage people will move their goods from road to rail according to the charges. Therefore, it is essential that the rail charges are such that that is encouraged. Where do the Government indicate that they recognise that and where is their strategy? We have talked about roads, and about railways on Monday, but that is not sufficient. We need a full-scale debate to discover what the Government's intentions really are, and what their strategy is.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has great wisdom in these matters. On reflection, I believe that he would agree that his comments took the discussion rather wider than the Statement to which I must confine myself. I do not believe that we talk at all glibly about moving traffic from road to rail. I know that the noble Lord has read with care the Official Report of another place as regards the British Rail Bill. He will see in that report exactly what my right honourable friend said on the matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to go back to the issue of the exodus of freight from rail to road, which is the very opposite of what the Government seek to achieve. Why does the Minister introduce this red herring about the Community wishing to dictate our transport road requirements? There is nothing of the sort. What the

377
Commission is duty bound to do is to investigate whether the Government have complied with the European environmental impact assessment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the first question raised by the noble Lord I have already answered; the second question was answered in response to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Brabazon.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about the development of technology for road pricing, especially in the cities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not at the moment.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
4.57 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 11 [Preparation of schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Consultation on preparation of schemes]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert:
("() Where a public body fails to comply with any directions given to it under subsection (1) above the Board shall have the power to apply to the court for an order of judicial review.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to join with the Minister in strengthening the powers and the reputation of the board. The anxiety which we have derives from Clause 12 of the Bill. Subsection (1) of that clause states:
"A public body preparing a scheme for submission … shall carry out such consultations as may be appropriate".
Subsection (2) states:
"A public body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Board".
We see that the obligation is there but we cannot find any sanction for non-performance. Therefore, this amendment simply entitles the board to have power to apply to the Divisional Court for an order of judicial review. It is to give a legal sanction to the board to secure enforcement of the obligation in Clause 12(2). I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: We have made quite good progress this evening and I hesitate very much to intervene. But I hope that my noble friend cannot accept this troublesome amendment. The noble Lord reminded the Committee of Clause 12 which is a very sensible clause. It sets out that,
"A public body preparing a scheme for submission to the Board shall carry out such consultations as may be appropriate in order to ascertain views representative of Welsh-speaking members of the public".
Subsection (2) states:
"A public body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Board in connection with the performance of its duty under subsection (1) above".
If there is a dispute between the public body and the board as to what is appropriate in certain circumstances and as to whether such consultations should take place, the amendment seeks to ensure that
378
the board should have the power to take the matter to the High Court for a judicial review. It would be wrong if the High Court were to engage in seeking the proper answer to the question of consultation on such matters instead of the issue being solved amicably, as it should be resolved, between the board and the public body. The whole purpose behind the Bill is to achieve co-operation, not coercion.
Therefore, I think that it is entirely wrong to include in a Bill the power to have a judicial review. The power to seek judicial review does not have to be written into a Bill. It may well be that circumstances arise in the course of the board's activities when it might seek a judicial review, but to include that in the Bill in conjunction with the very sensible Clause 12 seems extraordinary.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has misunderstood the amendment. It does not relate to a judicial review of a failure to carry out consultations; but a judicial review of a failure to comply with directions. If the Minister were to say now that the noble Lord is correct and that no specific power of the board is required in the Bill to entitle the board to go for a judicial review, I should immediately withdraw my amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is correct. If a body has consulted—and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, says that it will have consulted—and if it makes a scheme, then it is up to the body concerned to make certain that the scheme accords with the guidelines. I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir that it will do that by co-operation. The board and the body will discuss together and, as a result of that discussion, there will be a scheme. If the board fails to produce a scheme or if anyone says that there has been inadequate consultation, one does not then take the matter to judicial review. I agree with my noble friend that that would be the wrong step to take because, as he said, one is trying to achieve co-operation, not coercion. In fact, the board would say to that body, "You have not implemented that scheme", and it would not approve the scheme. It would tell the body to produce another scheme. If, in the end, the body did not produce another scheme, the board would then go to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State would ultimately give a direction. If the body still did not produce the correct scheme, the Secretary of State could go to the High Court for a writ of mandamus, and if the body still did not produce the scheme, it would be in contempt of court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect, I think that the point has been missed, so I shall make it again. The obligation under Clause 12 is on a public body, as defined, to "carry out such consultations". That is its obligation. Clause 12(2) states:
"A public body shall comply"—
not "may", but "shall"—
"with any directions given to it by the Board in connection with the performance of its duty under subsection (1) above".
Its duty under subsection (1) is not to produce a scheme, but to carry out consultations.

379
My simple point—and it really is of the simplest ——is that the body is obliged to carry out consultations. That is its duty. The board may give it directions, but if it fails to comply there is no sanction. I am suggesting that there should be a longstop—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, that it should be a longstop. At present if there is a failure to comply, the board is toothless. I am suggesting that it should be given a denture.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that the board is toothless. If the body has not carried out the consultations when it prepares the scheme for approval by the board, the board would not then approve it because it would say, "You have not carried out your consultations. Go and carry out those consultations and then produce a scheme for us to approve." That is the sanction.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: But if the public body still refuses, the ultimate sanction —and here I agree with the noble Earl—is that the board may prepare its scheme but the Secretary of State may impose a scheme. At the end of the day, there may be the directed imposition of a scheme, still without any proper consultation.
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree with every word that has been spoken by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. We very much agree that we should go along the route of co-operation, but Clause 12(1) gives the board the power to issue directions. That is an unconditional power. Indeed, it is the only unconditional power that the board has been given. 'The question raised by my noble friend is: what happens if the public body refuses to comply? If it refuses to comply, the Bill does not provide an answer unless the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, is correct and that, in those circumstances, the board would be able to apply for judicial review proceedings. That is my understanding of the position.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is correct. As a last resort, the board could apply for judicial review —as anyone can. But that would not be the route normally taken. As I have explained, the board would say to the body, "Go and produce a new set of schemes after you have had public consultation." The sanction behind it in the end is that the Secretary of State could impose a scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may say that there would not have been public consultation and that would be the drawback for the body because the chances are that such a scheme would be very much tighter and harsher on that body than would have been the case if the body had gone out to consultation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the Minister. We simply wanted to probe the point. Now that we have had an unambiguous indication that, in some circumstances, the board will have the locus to go for judicial review, accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Approval or imposition of schemes]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment which simply seeks to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may". It raises for consideration whether such wording might not be better in order to ensure an early decision on the part of the Secretary of State. We fear that the word "may" presents endless grounds for delay if the Secretary of State is indecisive or worried about offending either the board or the public body. I should very much welcome the view of the Committee and that of the Minister. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: I think that it would be a mistake to concentrate overmuch on the powers contained within subsection (5) of this clause and to which this amendment relates. I would draw the Committee's attention instead to the powers granted to the Secretary of State by subsection (4). This allows the Secretary of State to refer schemes back to the board and the public body concerned. This seems to me by far the best way of resolving disputes of this nature.
The intention of the Bill, however, is that the Secretary of State should be empowered rather than required to impose a scheme should there continue to be a failure to agree. There is nothing sinister about this. Granting the Secretary of State powers of this nature is fully in conformity with the pattern adopted in many other Bills. What would not be in conformity or, indeed, helpful, would be to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State in the way proposed by this amendment. What is important is that the Secretary of State should have the power to impose the scheme himself. The Bill as drafted ensures that he has.
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall consider the answer, and, if appropriate, return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Failure by public body to give effect to scheme.—(1)
.—(1)A complaint of a failure by a public body to give effect to a scheme approved by the Board may be made the subject of civil proceedings by any person who claims to have been directly affected by that failure.
(2) Proceedings under subsection (1) above shall be brought only in a County Court but all such remedies shall be obtainable in such proceedings as would be obtainable in the High Court.
(3) The Board may, if it thinks fit, defray, or contribute towards, any fees or expenses incurred by a person in relation to proceedings or proposed proceedings under this Act, provided that such a person applies to the Board for assistance under this subsection.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any remedy, including proceedings for judicial review, available to a person (apart from this section) in respect of a failure to observe a provision of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We regard this amendment as being of the greatest importance. It entitles an

381
individual member of the public who complains that a public body has not discharged its statutory duty when a scheme has been approved by the board or the Secretary of State to be able to sue for damages. We would expect that to be a power exercised relatively infrequently. We believe that it is important as a matter of principle. A person who suffers racial harassment or discrimination is entitled to damages; a person who suffers discrimination on the grounds of sex is entitled to damages; sexual harassment is a ground for damages.
We merely suggest that, if the languages are of equal validity, are to be treated on a basis of equality, or are both official languages, and an individual is legitimately aggrieved, he or she should be able to go to the county court and sue for damages. They would of course be relatively modest. One is thinking, I suppose, in terms of possibly £500 or £1,000. If the Minister wished to insert such a limit, we would find that unobjectionable.
Consequential to that legal right, power is given to the board to assist such a plaintiff in respect of legal expenses and, for the avoidance of any doubt, if there is a judicial review remedy for the individual, that would be maintained intact. It is important as a matter of principle that it should be understood and reflected in the Bill that those are rights for individuals.
Although the board will draw up schemes, and will have enforcement machinery, as will the Secretary of State, it is the individual who is aggrieved, not the board, not the Secretary of State. I understand of course what the Minister has said, that, in due time, if directions made by the Secretary of State are not complied with, then, by virtue of Clause 19(3), the Secretary of State, as the ultimate weapon, may go to the Divisional Court and ask for judicial review. Because of the underfunding of the court system and the lack of judges able to try these difficult questions, judicial review takes up to two years. An urgent application for judicial review, if one is exceptionally lucky, can get on within one year. So the hurt, the distress, the legitimate complaint, will inure for some time. Apart from that, these are rights for individuals which should, in rare circumstances, give the individual the right to sue in the county court.
It is not a probing amendment; it is not a questioning amendment. We, on this side, with great respect, regard it as fundamental. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I oppose the amendment again for the reason that I have expressed before. It is a great mistake to try to write into the Bill that recourse to the courts will be an answer to the Bill's purpose. The Bill's purpose is to try to advance, through co-operation and understanding, the Welsh language. If it is written into the Bill that people who have complaints should have recourse to the courts, that will not advance the Welsh language.
People who have suffered damage in any way by reason of a public body's breach of its duty in law, could bring an action, but I do not know why that
382
should be put into the Bill. It can lead only to trouble. One can see many an occasion when people will be making complaints just to make political points.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If there is no right specified in the Bill, what would the action be? What right of action for damages would the individual have?
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir. It would make too much of the Bill to have recourse to the courts. As I said earlier, the great idea is to have as much co-operation as possible. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a distinguished member of the legal profession, and I have no doubt that he is used to suing for damages. He is anxious to see that there is such a recourse in the Bill. There are drawbacks to that, and I shall try to explain why.
Members of the public must have a right of redress. At the moment they have a number of avenues for redress. That can of course involve recourse to the courts, but in the majority of instances that will not be so, presumably because it would be too expensive.
The ombudsmen play an important part, as do the many and varied tribunals which exist in different parts of the public sector. The noble Lord said that the principle contained in the amendment is important. We must be careful about that, because, in considering the new complaints machinery for which we are providing in the Bill, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the rights of redress available to Welsh speakers reflect those available to non-Welsh speakers. We should not create any imbalance. Such an imbalance would be created if a Welsh speaker could approach the courts and claim for damages where a public body had failed to make a Welsh language form available but a non-Welsh speaker was unable to go to court and claim damages for a failure to provide an English form.
Perhaps I may give an example. If a Welsh speaking person went, for example, to British Rail, and said, "Can I please have a timetable in Welsh?" and British Rail said, "I am so sorry we have run out of all the Welsh ones but you can have an English one", the person might say, "I want a Welsh one. Under your scheme you undertake to provide a Welsh one. I shall take you to court". An English-speaking Welshman would go to British Rail and may say, "Please may I have an English timetable?" The reply might be, "We have run out of English timetables, but you can have a Welsh one". That English-speaking Welshman would not have recourse to the courts in the same way as the Welsh-speaking Welshman would under the amendment.
In considering the alternative means of redress, it is important to have regard to what it would mean in practice for a Welsh-speaking consumer. A Welsh speaker should not have to initiate civil proceedings to obtain a satisfactory level of Welsh language service. That would represent an imposing obstacle for many Welsh speakers and offer no certainty as to the outcome. Obviously individuals must have a right of redress where there has been a failure of the scheme. The Bill takes account of that.

383
First, since the board will have been instrumental in agreeing the schemes, it will have a special incentive to ensure that those schemes are complied with. There is then the formal complaint mechanism which is provided for in the Bill, where a person can complain to the board that that is not being done. Despite that, Welsh-speaking consumers will be able to expect the board to use its influence to ensure that failures of schemes are rectified as a matter of urgency. Although it may be a comfort to some to look forward to a formal upholding of their complaint at the end of a lengthy investigation procedure, the majority of Welsh speaking consumers will be more interested in receiving the service which the public body has undertaken to provide. The important point is that the board's ability to secure implementation of any recommendation which it may make will be backed up by the Secretary of State's powers of direction. That should ensure that the board's advice is heeded.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to press this matter. Not too long ago when I started at the Bar a famous judge, who had just started on the Bench, was Mr. Justice Caulfield. If you put forward a particularly weak proposition to him, he used to put his spectacles on the end of his nose and say, "Is that your best point?" I want to look at the noble Earl's best points, but I believe that I shall need my magnifying glass to find them. I quote the noble Earl when he said that it is absolutely agreed that it is important that the individual citizen should have some form of right of redress. I waited, clutching the end of the Bench and clenching my teeth to find out what was to be the form of redress. The answer is that there is none.
If I live in Birmingham and have a black skin, I can rightly claim compensation by way of damages for the gross insults done to me as an individual. I do not have to complain about the local authority or the person in Woolworth's or anywhere else. I can complain and receive damages. If I am wrongly discriminated against because I am a woman who wishes to leave work to have a child, I can claim damages. Some day someone will be able to explain to the Committee why someone who is wounded linguistically in the same way has no right to damages. I await such an explanation with a degree of anticipation and incredulity.
It is said that there will be redress internally in the Bill; there is none. I hope that the Minister will concede that we have done our best to be helpful. On many occasions we have said that we have welcomed the discussions that we have had because we all want this to emerge as the best possible Act. I do not wish to breach confidences, but I understood that the board would have the power to recommend compensation. Have the Government changed their mind? Where is the compensation to be found in the Bill? There is no redress for the individual except, at the end of the day, on the direction of the Secretary of State. In most cases that will be sufficient. However, if there is the wound of which I speak, which is not dissimilar in class, category or degree from the wounds of which I spoke earlier, then compensation should be available.
384
I take the case of the man with the timetable. I hear Mr. Justice Caulfield again inquiring, "Is that your best point?" The man with the timetable who is told that there are no more timetables will be told by any competent solicitor, with which Wales is well stocked, "Do not be a fool. You do not have a case." If that man wanted to be a fool and take his case to court, the judge would listen patiently and award him nothing.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, fortify me in my opposition to the amendment. He said, quite rightly, that if there is sexual discrimination, damages can be obtained. If there is racial discrimination, damages can be obtained. However, the noble Lord is seeking to put into the Bill the right to damages for linguistic as opposed to sexual discrimination. I believe that to be wholly wrong. It alters the whole basis of the Bill and must be opposed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: On this side of the Committee we think to the contrary; namely, that that is entirely right and that it is a matter of the utmost seriousness to us and to many of those who have submitted evidence to us and who have written to us as individuals.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, that everybody wants to go forward in a spirit of good will so that we achieve the best possible legislation on which we all agree. However, we are dealing with a matter of law. The context of the amendment is the context of the citizen's rights. Many people who wrote to us stressed that the Bill as it stands is very strong on bureaucracy and the powers of the Secretary of State but has virtually nothing to say about the individual rights of the citizens of Wales in any respect.
Rights of redress are central to our understanding of the Bill. Am I right in thinking that the noble Earl said and meant that the strongest right in this Bill for the individual citizen is the right to complain to the board? If that is the individual citizen's strongest right, we are in a parlous state.
Lord Aberdare: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord who has just spoken what is his answer to what has been said by my noble friend; namely, that he is seeking to give rights to Welsh-speaking citizens which are not enjoyed by English-speaking citizens.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may respond to that because it was my dog that raised that rabbit. The proposition put forward is erroneous. If a monoglot English-speaking resident of Wales is discriminated against, we believe that he should have the same rights. However, experience has shown that linguistic discrimination tends to be experienced rather more by Welsh speakers than by English speakers.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, cannot get away with that. He is trying to put into the Bill a provision which is slanted one way. The noble Lord gave an example of a black-skinned person in Birmingham being racially abused. That person can

385
claim damages. However, the point is that a white-skinned person in Birmingham who is racially abused also has the right to damages.
I gave an example of a gentleman who was trying to obtain a timetable. The noble Lord cavalierly asked whether that was the best example that I could give. It was a simple example and I thought therefore it might appeal to the noble Lord because he would be able to understand it.
The noble Lord is a barrister and is in a confrontational mood this afternoon. I cannot see why he wants to be confrontational. The amendment is not concerned with whether somebody is being discriminated against but whether a public body is not doing what it should do, is empowered to do by law and what the board has said it should do. If that public body is discriminating against one person, it is discriminating against all the Welsh-speaking people.
In his great excitement to claim damages for his friends, perhaps the noble Lord will consider again the Welsh-speaking gentleman who goes along to ask for the timetable and is not given one because one is not available. Let us suppose that he does not go to a wonderful solicitor who tells him that he has not got a case but instead he goes to another equally clever Welshman who tells him that he does have a case. Let us suppose that that case is taken to the court and he wins it. There will be a queue of people at that railway station asking for timetables and knowing perfectly well that they are not available because they will wish to obtain the same compensation. That premise is discriminatory and is against the whole ethos of the Bill, which is not coercion but co-operation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to be accused of being confrontational because that is an accusation which I have never heard cast against me in the past. I agree that if someone in Cardiganshire managed to obtain compensation because he could not obtain a timetable in Welsh, the rest of the residents of Cardiganshire would be queuing up for timetables. I am only in confrontation with the noble Earl because we are deeply divided on principle. Although we are dealing with the matter in a spirit of good humour —as always, I hope—there are important matters here.
My simple question, couched in an extremely non-confrontational tone, was to ask whether I am mistaken because on an earlier occasion I thought it was said that it was anticipated that the board would have power to recommend compensation. I do not think that I misheard.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I cannot vouch for the hearing of the noble Lord. That is a matter for him. I can only tell him it is not our intention that the board should award compensation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl was present at the same meeting. Therefore the stance has changed and I recognise that. However, the fact remains that a certain type of discrimination is the foundation of damages. I simply suggest that if a
386
proper case can be made out—if it were a trivial case, the judge would throw it out—to show that an individual has been wounded in his individual rights, then compensation should lie. That is a perfectly moderate, non-confrontational observation.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord will agree that his amendment would constitute one way traffic and that would not be fair.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If the Minister wishes to give equivalent rights—he believes those rights are lacking—to English people who are wrongly discriminated against in Wales, I personally would warmly applaud his effort.
Lord Prys-Davies: It would be helpful if the Minister can clarify the rights of an individual who has been directly affected by the failure of a public body to carry out a scheme. As I understand it, the route which is available to that individual is to make a complaint to the board. That is the one new right that has been given to a Welsh speaker—the right to complain. Then the board may investigate the complaint and may issue a report. The public authority may refuse to comply with the recommendation in the report and, ultimately, the Secretary of State may apply for mandamus. Assuming, as I think we must, that notwithstanding good intentions, in the rare circumstances—those were the words of my noble friend—that the worst may happen and the public body refuses to comply with the board, the Secretary of State may refuse to order mandamus proceedings. Does the individual have any right in those circumstances? Can he go to the court?
Earl Ferrers: Anyone can go to a court. Anyone can take anyone to court on the basis of civil proceedings. However, that is unlikely to happen because it is very expensive. We come back to the proposition that if one person is being discriminated against—that is an unfortunate word—it would mean that every Welsh speaker was being discriminated against. If that is so, it would mean that the public body concerned was not carrying out the duties which it undertakes to do and which it has agreed to do under the terms of the scheme. Anyone who feels that way has the right of complaint. There is a complaints procedure where one approaches the board. It is up to the board then to approach the body concerned and tell it to put its house in order.
Lord Prys-Davies: Under the Bill there is a non-legal route. In a sense it is a political route in that one complains to the board and there is then a route to the Secretary of State. Ought there not to be an alternative route—the legal route? Should there not be a right to go to the court and seek a judicial review order? The Minister said that everyone is entitled to go to the court but that is expensive. We recognise that it is expensive. The third subsection of the amendment allows the board, if it thinks fit, to contribute towards the legal expenses to be incurred by a person who wishes to take proceedings. Of course the costs of mounting a legal action against a public body are beyond the resources of most individuals and even of

387
pressure groups who might wish to take proceedings. Is the Minister saying that where the individual has failed to obtain redress along the route prescribed in the Bill he may go to the court and in those circumstances the board has the discretion to contribute towards the cost of financing an action?
Earl Ferrers: No, I am not saying that. I can only come back to the principle that we have tried to adumbrate which is that we do not wish everyone to end up in the courts. We are trying to encourage the use of the Welsh language. We have gone a long way down that road by stating that guidelines and schemes will be produced and if schemes are not produced properly the board will not agree to them. Then the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, encouraged by his litigious noble friend behind him says, "Let everyone go to court and try to get some money." That is not the route we want to take. If someone is personally aggrieved, he can approach the ombudsman. If he wants to take the body concerned to court he can do so, but if that body is not fulfilling its duties as regards the Welsh language it is a matter for the Welsh Language Board to put right. I can see that the noble Lord feels he is following a good old ferret down a rabbit hole, but I hope he will realise we have adopted the best course.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am deeply distressed to think that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies ever needed encouragement from me to be litigious. This is an important matter. The Minister said that discrimination is an ugly word. It is an ugly word. It is also an ugly activity and that is why the word attached to it is ugly. I shall be obliged to withdraw this amendment. Nevertheless I say—I hope with every care—that this issue will cause a good deal of hurt and a good deal of anger to those who are most interested in these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Investigations]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, line 28, leave out from ("case") to end of line, and insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, an investigation shall be conducted in public unless the Board determines that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case for the investigation to be conducted in private.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. As regards Amendment No. 37, there are three good reasons for preferring the wording of this amendment to that which appears in the Bill. They are not adversarial or confrontational reasons. Consequently, we offer the amendment in a spirit of conciliation and good will which I hope the Minister and Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber will accept.
First, we believe that our wording is much more in harmony with the Government's declared policy in favour of open government where open government is possible. At present that area is too closed and we wish to open it up. Secondly, where most public bodies are
388
concerned in Wales, there would assuredly be great public interest in an investigation by the board into any alleged non-compliance. I hope the Committee will believe me when I say that in the deepest heart of Dyfed this is hot news. People there would be very interested in being personally present at any investigation of this kind.
Thirdly, in all investigations of this kind the presumption should surely be that they take place in public, if that is at all possible. The amendment clearly places the onus of proof on anyone who argues that a private hearing is necessary. We maintain that that is the right way round. Can the noble Earl spell out for the Committee any of the circumstances in which it is thought that a private investigation would be so vital? Will he produce his best point as regards why the Bill puts the onus this way round rather than the way we are proposing?
In Amendment No. 38 we are simply proposing that an organisation should be spelt out as something slightly different from a person. As regards Amendment No. 39, I have spoken before on the importance of the board making its proceedings as public as possible. I remind the Committee that the word "publish" does not imply the printing and distribution of a large number of glossy pamphlets. A press release can in most cases suffice. The amendment uses the word "may" and not "shall". I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that there is no difference between us on this issue. Nor is there anything sinister in what is written in the Bill. Clause 16(2) states:
"The procedure for conducting an investigation under this section shall be such as the Board considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case".
In other words, that gives the board total discretion to do what it considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The subsection also states that:
"an investigation may be conducted in private".
That provision was included in order to remove any uncertainty. The investigation may be a small one and the board may invite people to come and discuss the matter. Alternatively, the investigation may be of a larger nature, in which case there would be a public meeting. The intention is to allow the board to choose the correct procedure applicable to the circumstances of each individual case.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful for that reassurance. However, I still consider that for emphasis it would be clearer, better, and more reassuring for the people of Wales if it were stated on the face of the Bill that the investigation should normally take place in public although provision could be made for an investigation to be conducted in private. If the noble Earl is prepared to give a few days' thought to the possibility of some slight rewording I would be reassured.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether I shall give the matter a few days' thought, but I shall certainly give it some thought.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful for that reassurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Complaints of non-compliance]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 37, after ("person") insert ("or by an organisation with a special interest in safeguarding and promoting the use of the Welsh language,").
The noble Lord said: I appreciate that the word "person" can mean a group. That may well be the case in respect of many provisions of the Companies Act. However, I am worried that in Clause 17 the complainant is defined as:
"a person who claims to have been directly affected by a failure of a public body to carry out a scheme".
He has to show that he has been affected directly. A group would almost certainly not be able to satisfy that precondition. Yet an omission on the part of a public body might raise a matter of general significance. In those circumstances it should be possible for a group to make a complaint.
If the Minister confirms that the word "person" also means a group then I am content. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the noble Lord that the use of the word "person" in Clause 17 would cover the type of organisation which is referred to in Amendment No. 38. My advisers tell me that the use of the word "person" in this context includes bodies corporate and unincorporate. I hope that that reply will comfort the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: That reply is satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 18 [Reports on investigations]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 9, at end insert ("and the Board may publish the report.").
The noble Lord said: I have already said as much about publishing as perhaps the Committee would wish to hear. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was so expeditious that I was momentarily floored, not least because, in respect of the previous amendment, I was looking at the wrong amendment when I rose to answer the noble Lord. However, I discovered that fact in time and the answer that I gave was the correct one.
It is certainly arguable that the board would be able to publish any reports which it had prepared under the terms of Clause 18. This matter is so central to the whole of the Bill that I very much agree with the noble Lord that we must remove all vestiges of doubt. Perhaps I could take the matter away and consider it again. I accept the amendment in principle, but should like to make certain that the wording is correct.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Responsibility of government departments and public bodies
.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other enactment, it shall be the duty of—

(a) every government department, and

(b) every public body,

the executive responsibilities of which extend to Wales, when providing written material of whatever nature to, or otherwise communicating by any means whatsoever with, any person resident in Wales, in the course of discharging its executive responsibilities, to ensure that the language used, whether Welsh or English, as the case may be, complies with the requirements of that person unless those requirements are unreasonable or compliance with them would be impracticable.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, 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; and the test of what is reasonable or practicable as the case may be shall be objective.
(3) Every government department or public body such as referred to in subsection (1) above shall in discharging the duties imposed by that subsection have regard to any guidelines issued under this Act for the purpose of giving practical guidance with respect to those duties.").
Lord Geraint: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hooson who is unable to be present today. He had to go back to Montgomery to attend the funeral of a close friend. However, he feels very strongly about the amendment tabled in his name and would like to have the right to speak on this very important subject at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of the Race Relations Act 1976.1976 c. 74
.—(1) The Race Relations Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 4 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Communi-cation in Welsh.
4A. For the purposes of this Part of this Act a requirement or condition relating to an ability to communicate in Welsh shall be justifiable where the person to whom it is applied would, in the course of employment to which the requirement or condition applies, deal on a regular basis with persons who normally use Welsh and the level of ability required is no greater than is needed to do so.".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to insert a new subsection in the Race Relations Act. Local authorities in North and West Wales in particular are concerned as to when they can lawfully stipulate that relative proficiency in the Welsh language is a condition of employment without being in breach of Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Experience has shown that there is a potential conflict between the Race Relations Act and the appointment

391
policies of some local authorities. Some Members of the Committee will know that that has been the subject of litigation.
The issue is the cause of considerable anxiety in Gwynedd and Dyfed. Four of the local authorities in North Wales and South-West Wales have written to us in support of an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 43, as have a large number of Welsh voluntary organisations. The amendment mirrors wording proposed by the Welsh Language Board.
There is obviously no problem when the linguistic condition relates to a post involving the teaching of Welsh. However, lawful linguistic requirements should not be restricted to such posts. There is a need for such a requirement for many posts in the public sector. Without the amendment, or an amendment along these lines, the present uncertainty and anxiety will prevail.
I understand on good authority that the board's amendment was acceptable to the race relations commission, subject to an additional proviso to take account of applicants who are able and willing to learn Welsh if appointed. That proviso was acceptable to the Welsh Language Board. It is my understanding that the commission has agreed that an amendment to Section 4 of the 1976 Act should be incorporated in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that my understanding of the position is correct.
The local authorities and others were surprised, and very sorry, to find that the Bill does not address the problem. However, if the Bill incorporated the amendment, modified to include the proviso which the commission has agreed with the board, the problem would be resolved. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am pleased to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, indicated, the proviso was part of the original submission of the Welsh Language Board. It is also strongly supported by local authorities which have been trying to practise a policy of linguistically sensitive service delivery. I refer in particular to the so-called caring professions—social services, health care, social work practice, and so on. The equivalent of what is known in the jargon as ethnically sensitive social work practice in the context of the Welsh language is linguistically sensitive in those areas. To ensure that potential receivers of services can have their service through the medium of a language of their choice involves appointment procedures requiring competence in the language.
In an earlier debate we had reference in clear terms —I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—to the effect of different forms of discrimination on individuals. However, there is a difference between sexism, racism and "linguism". When we talk about language policy, we refer to the potential for persons to be able to receive training in another language and therefore to become proficient and competent to be employed, thus removing any potential discrimination.
Obviously I do not ask for affirmative or positive discrimination in all areas. However, where the delivery of the service is required through the medium of Welsh, there is room for positive discrimination in
392
order to ensure that people are recruited who are able to provide a service through the language. However, as important as the initial advertisements using the phraseology that individuals should be competent in Welsh is the provision that people who are recruited to public service (where that service is required to be a bilingual delivery) should have the opportunity to learn the language.
In that context the Welsh Language Board and the schemes have an important contribution to make. It would be possible to specify in advertisements that candidates for public appointments who do not have a fluency in the language will have opportunity to avail themselves of that skill. That is an important dimension of the policy. It allows for recruitment to the public services in Wales to be made flexible. It ensures that linguistic and other skills are available for those who provide such services.
The amendment raises a matter of concern which has arisen in specific cases. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson—he apologises for his absence—has been personally involved in an advisory and legal capacity. In some cases an attempt has been made to use the race relations legislation—I strongly support the legislation—and to extend it to linguistic discrimination. Again there is a distinction to be made. Equal linguistic opportunity is not necessarily the same as equal general opportunity or equal opportunity in terms of a multiracial society. Such distinctions are very sensitive. They have to be developed and set out clearly.
There are a number of ways of doing so. One is to amend the Race Relations Act, as set out in the clause. I commend another way to the department, although I repeat that from the Cross-Benches I do not seek to usurp the role of the Minister. It is to consider the ways in which the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and any other such agency which is not directly accountable to the Welsh Office, can arrive at schemes with the Welsh Language Board. That course would clarify the position. One would then have an agreement in the public services between public bodies that were not necessarily accountable to the Welsh Office, as the Welsh Language Board is to the Secretary of State, but were accountable to other Secretaries of State. They would then be able to come to an agreement between the Welsh Language Board and those bodies. The statements would describe the policies on recruitment and services to be delivered in the Welsh language.
That would immediately clarify the situation. I commend that course to the Minister today, if, for any reason, he cannot accept this sensible amendment.
Viscount St. Davids: If I understand the intention behind this amendment correctly, its aim is to clarify the circumstances under which an employer may justifiably stipulate an ability to speak Welsh as a condition of employment. Given the implications which this Bill will have for the delivery of Welsh language services throughout the public sector, which will in part be dependent upon the presence of Welsh-speaking members of staff, it is certainly an area where we need to remove any uncertainty.

393
I am pleased that the amendment, while seeking to clarify this issue, does not seek to interfere with principles of existing employment law by removing the need for such language requirements to be justified. Given the growth in Welsh language services which we all want to see, I think that that is particularly important. It may be that we see a growth in a number of posts where a knowledge of Welsh is essential. What the Government do not believe would be desirable would be a move to a position where all posts are so described. This will not be the case under the Bill. It is not our intention that all public servants, for example, must speak Welsh. The successful implementation of this Bill does not depend on that. We would not have brought it before this Committee if it did.
I therefore have considerable sympathy with the objectives underlining this amendment. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way. What is being suggested by the amendment is a clarification of the justification criterion contained in the Race Relations Act 1976. First, the concept of what is justifiable in this context is already to some extent defined by case law. Secondly, the Government's view is that, if required, it would be far preferable for clarification to be achieved by means of non-statutory guidance. I would expect the Welsh Language Board to have an important input in the content of such guidance. I understand that the board would expect the commission to play an important part in the guidance to which I have referred.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for his initial response. However, perhaps he will answer my more detailed question and specify whether commissions and bodies, such as the EOC and the CRE, which are not accountable to the Welsh Office as a department, but are public bodies operating in Wales, will be expected to draw up schemes within the terms of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: I understand that that is so.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for the obvious sympathy of the Minister. However, I am not convinced that we have to rely on an assurance in the terms that he has expressed: that it may be adequately covered one day in the indefinite future when a language scheme may be agreed between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality. As I understand it, those bodies have agreed that this is a proper matter to be included in the Bill. Given that we have the provision before us, the assurance should be embodied in the legislation and not simply left to an assurance, an undertaking or a scheme to be agreed at some time in the future. I shall study with my noble friends what the Minister said; but we believe that there is a case for embodying the principle in this clause in the Bill.
In addition to reflecting an agreement between the board and the commission, the amendment reflects to a large measure a significant part of the decisions of the European Court of Justice in the Groener case, to which I referred on Tuesday. Is it not possible for the
394
Government to reconsider their position and agree to embody the amendment, together with the commission's proviso, in the Bill? If the Government were to agree to do that, it would remove the uncertainty and be a source of great satisfaction.
6 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: The Race Relations Act requires that the language requirement should always be justifiable. It does so without specifying any particular language. It would be to imbalance such legislation if the position of Welsh as a condition of employment were to be clarified but not that of any other language. Therefore the issuing of non-statutory guidance seems to us to be by far the best way of resolving the issue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Welsh is a language of the United Kingdom which is of official status or equal validity.
Baroness White: All of us, even those who were doubtful about this, share the view of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that Welsh is different in Wales.
Viscount St. Davids: I do not think that I need any reminder about the Welsh language in Wales. This is a Bill which, by promoting the use of the Welsh language, will bring with it a greater cultural cohesion in Wales. References to race relations or similar matters should not be on the face of the Bill. As I said, the Race Relations Act already makes the provision that a language requirement should be justifiable. That is the way we would like to leave it.
Lord Prys-Davies: The race relations commission has a bank of information, knowledge and experience. It believes in and supports the amendment that is confined to the Welsh language as being compatible with its policy. Since that is the attitude of the commission, why are the Government concerned? The commission sees no problems here.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Perhaps I may pursue the argument a little further. Although I would not be one to make distinctions between languages, it is a distinction already made between so-called ethnic minority Community languages (which, although they are international languages in their own right, are so described in the United Kingdom) and what we are talking about here—namely, a national language. We all agree that in one sense or another it is national within Wales and official within Wales. The whole argument of the Government in the earlier context is that we do not need to write "official" on the face of the Bill, it is self-evident that that is so. If that is so, there is no problem about making a distinction in the case of Welsh in Wales and this does not necessarily relate to the position of other Community languages within the United Kingdom.
Where there have been cases in the past where one piece of legislation linked with racial equality has been, in my view, misused in the area of linguistic equality, we need to make that clear. Where better to do it than in this legislation?
Viscount St. Davids: I still maintain that any inclusion of an amendment of this nature would be totally against the ethos of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: Is that the considered view of the department?
Viscount St. Davids: Given the strength of feeling which I find in the Committee, I shall take the matter away and give it further consideration.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for that response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Use of Welsh in legal proceedings]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("spoken") and insert ("used").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It seeks to change the word "spoken" to "used". I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: We gave an undertaking during the Second Reading debate that the Government would be bringing forward an amendment to Clause 21 concerning the use of written evidence in Welsh in the courts. The Minister of State at the Welsh Office has given a similar undertaking. I am happy to repeat that undertaking today though the Committee will note that it has yet to appear on the list of amendments tabled by the Government. Clause 21 of this Bill as it currently stands repeats the provision contained within the Welsh Language Act 1967. I understand that the general policy of the courts is to interpret this provision as extending to written evidence. The Government are however anxious that this should in future be reflected in the law. The amendment we propose to introduce will ensure that it is.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for those sympathetic comments. He called in aid the 1967 Act. I also call in aid that Act and in particular the preamble. It is in these terms:
"Whereas it is proper that the Welsh language should be freely used by those who so desire in the hearing of legal proceedings in Wales and Monmouthshire".
On the basis of that preamble, the Government should now honour the commitment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: They should do so not only on the basis of the preamble but on the basis of the marginal notes to the clause which refer to the use of Welsh in legal proceedings.
Life would have been made much easier if the Minister had just accepted our amendment. There is an important point here that there should be no difficulty about the operation of legal proceedings. In these amendments we are moving away from the general discussion of the board and the statements of principle and on to the detailed provision which, as the Minister reminded us, is in part a recodification of what was in previous legislation. It is time that the Government got it right and specified it clearly on the face of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: As I said, the Government will bring forth an amendment which we hope will meet the noble Lord's requirements.
Lord Elis-Thomas: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s.10 of Juries Act 1974.1974 c. 23
.—(1) Section 10 of the Juries Act 1974 (discharge of summonses in case of doubt as to capacity to act effectively as a juror) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After "understanding of English" there shall be added the words "or (where a trial is to be held in Welsh) of Welsh".").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment which is of great significance. It would entitle a defendant, where the trial of his criminal matter was to be held in Welsh or substantially in Welsh, to have jurors to try him who could comprehend his language.
Clause 21 makes it quite plain that:
"In any legal proceedings in Wales the Welsh language may be"—
and it will be—
"[used] by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates' court to such prior notice as may be required by rules of court".
That means that presently a defendant who is a Welsh speaker is entitled as of right, with no notice given, to go to the magistrates' court and conduct his criminal matter before the magistrates in the Welsh language. No notice is required.
The practical validity of that is, as we all know, that there are many magistrates' courts in many different areas of Wales where the magistrates are wholly familiar with the Welsh language; so are the advocates, the clerk and all participants. That is a much more common experience, if I may respectfully put it that way, than many English people imagine who do not live or work in Wales.
Let us take a practical example. A man is charged with stealing £200. He can go to the Cardigan, Aberaeron or Aberystwyth magistrates' courts and as of right with no notice have the tribunal listen to him conduct his case in Welsh. He can call his evidence and have his advocate act in Welsh. However, if he elects to go to trial on that same charge of theft of £200, he will not have the right to be tried by a jury of his peers who understand his language. We simply say, I hope with care, that that is simply not just. The suggestion put forward in the amendment, which is one of fundamental importance, even though its practical incidence will be limited, is that Section 10 of the Juries Act of 1974 should be amended. Where a summons to attend for jury service has been served, Section 10 reads:
"Where it appears to the appropriate officer, in the case of a person attending in pursuance of a summons under this Act—
in other words, to be on the panel—
"that on account of physical disability or insufficient understanding of English there is doubt as to his capacity to

397
act effectively as a juror, the person may be brought before the judge, who shall determine whether or not he should act as a juror and, if not, shall discharge the summons".
The amendment that we propose is that after "insufficient understanding of English" there shall be added the words:
"or (where a trial is to be held in Welsh) of Welsh".
That would give equal validity to the rights of the Welsh speaking defendant as is given to the English.
After all, there are still people in some parts of Wales whose grasp of English is imperfect, though their grasp of Welsh is excellent. If such a person attends as a prospective juror on the panel, he may well say, "I am not really up to sitting as a juror in English. There are complicated documents. I won't follow them properly because I am much more familiar with Welsh." Then the judge will invariably ask him to stand down if he has not made his request to the appropriate summoning officer.
What is suggested here as elementary justice is that, if a Welsh speaking defendant wishes his trial to be conducted substantially in Welsh, he should be entitled as of legal right to have the same inquiry put to the jury panel: "Are you familiar with the Welsh language? If not, you must stand down." The judge must decide.
That is very important. I readily reiterate that it will not happen very often. But things that do not happen very often can have enormous effect, influence and consequences. If the amendment is not accepted, the words about equal validity and about both languages being official will be exposed as a sham. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I referred on Second Reading to the strong case for empanelling Welsh-speaking juries. I warmly support the eloquent and effective case which has been put by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn.
I believe that the failure to provide juries able to understand Welsh has been a major disincentive to the use of Welsh, especially in Crown Courts. I have read the criticisms and the objections, but I am bound to say that I am not moved by them. I understand that they come in the main from the Home Office. It seems that it fears it would open the gates to a flood of requests for ethnically composed juries. It is difficult to follow the logic of that. The basic difference between Welsh and an ethnic party's language is that Welsh is our native language. Any person in Wales, whatever his ethnic origin, has a statutory right to use Welsh in the courts. Any argument to the contrary flies in the face of the intention and spirit of the Bill; namely, that:
"in the … administration of justice … the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
It has also been argued that the ability of a Welsh-speaking juror to understand a complicated legal argument in Welsh would be insufficient. That, in my estimation, is a somewhat specious argument, bordering on the offensive. The answer which any Welsh-speaking judge who knows his Welsh jury must from experience give is that the ability of a Welsh speaker to follow a complicated legal argument in
398
Welsh is not likely to be any better or worse than the ability of his English-speaking compatriot to understand a complicated legal argument in English. A sensible judge is likely to explain matters in a way that the jury is likely to understand, whether his directions are given in English or in Welsh.
Furthermore, any argument to the effect that juries consisting of Welsh-speaking persons are more likely to bring in perverse verdicts in cases where a party or witness speaks Welsh would not only be inaccurate but offensive as well. It would echo the words of a distinguished Victorian Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherley, who in 1873 refused to appoint a Welsh-speaking county court judge to the mid-Wales circuit on the ground that an English litigant might think that a Welsh-speaking judge would not be capable of doing justice. In subsequent years, we have proved beyond doubt that Welsh-speaking judges are among the best in the country. I believe that the arguments for this new clause are unanswerable and I appeal to the noble Earl to accept it.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I feel a little embarrassed because every time that I have risen to my feet this evening it has been to oppose an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I rise now with great reluctance because I have great admiration for him as well as pride in having been a member of the same circuit.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will know even better, that I was engaged many years ago in many cases in Wales where most of the evidence was given in Welsh. I often found when prosecuting in a sheep stealing case in Wales, which I frequently did in North Wales, that most of the evidence would be in Welsh. I never experienced any difficulty at all in those trials. The defendants were given the very best opportunity to defend and justice was obtained in most of the cases that I can think of. I cannot think of a case where there was any degree of injustice.
It was all done through interpreters. In my experience all the courts looked at the 1942 Act quite liberally; nobody was ever prevented from giving his evidence in Welsh. Frequently people benefited from that because, while their evidence was being translated by the interpreter, they had a little more time to think of the best answer. That is how the situation mostly obtains in Wales today: when there is a case with Welsh-speaking witnesses or a Welsh-speaking defendant, the evidence is given in Welsh and one uses interpreters.
The amendment concerns a case that is entirely conducted in Welsh, and that is what is suggested—that there should be Welsh jurors who can speak and understand Welsh and therefore it would be an all-Welsh court. That is ideal and I should certainly like to see that happen in many cases.
However, the noble Lord referred to Section 10 of the Juries Act 1974. I do not have the Act before me but he read it out. The Committee should recognise that that section concerns the discharging of jurors, who have been summoned to attend, in the case of doubt as to their capacity to act effectively as a juror. That is really the point of Section 10.

399
The appropriate officer, who is an officer of the court, is supposed to test a juror to see whether he or she is able to act effectively. It is for cases where there may be a disability such as deafness, illness or indeed if the person is unable effectively to understand English. Of course, most cases are conducted in English and that is why it is part of the Act. When that happens a juror is brought before the judge and it is the judge who discharges that juror—it is quite a ceremony.
The situation envisaged by the amendment assumes that somebody has committed some form of crime in, say, Newport and has chosen to be tried in Welsh. Great arrangements would need to be made in Newport in order to arrange for a case to be heard in Welsh, unless the case was transferred elsewhere. But arrangements would be made. Then one comes to the panel of jurors. It is extremely doubtful in Newport, Monmouthshire, that one would find 12 people to form a panel of jurors who were able to understand a trial in Welsh and who, to use the words of the amendment, were able to "act effectively" in Welsh.
When I was Secretary of State the Lord Chancellor asked Lord Edmund-Davies to investigate the matter of all-Welsh trials. There was one point about which he was absolutely certain: that the random selection of jurors should be maintained. Therefore the situation would not arise of having a case in, say, Newport—where only a few people can speak Welsh—where one would have to keep adding to the panel of jurors until eventually there were 12 Welsh-speaking people. That would be totally contrary to the random selection of jurors which has been with us for centuries and must, in my view, be maintained. Should one change that situation, one would be entering an area of considerable difficulty.
Lord Edmund-Davies said that there had to be simultaneous translation. When one has an all-Welsh court one has simultaneous translation, which means that, even though one cannot understand Welsh, one can receive a simultaneous translation of the evidence and the argument. Therefore an English-speaking juror who was considered to be effective as a juror, would still be able to follow the proceedings and have the capacity to act effectively. The amendment seeks to break down the policy of the random selection of jurors and therefore I wholly oppose it.
Lord Geraint: Amendment No. 45 concerns the main theme of the principle of the use of the Welsh language. Following the excellent speeches on the amendment, I do not feel that it is necessary to add much more to the debate today. However, I should like to endorse what has been said in favour of the new clause, especially by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
We, in Wales, have always had a high regard for justice and fair play. Indeed, we can look back as far as the 10th century to the time of Hywel Dda, the Welsh prince who set out to establish a legal framework that enshrined many human rights unheard of at that time in other parts of Europe. His laws of course were written in Welsh and Latin. Today, this clause asks for an ordinary, basic human right that has already been given to the native English
400
speaker in the Juries Act of 1974. As a Welsh-speaking Welshman I simply ask for that same basic human right; namely, that juries in a Welsh language trial should have an understanding of Welsh just as in an English trial they are required to have an understanding of English.
I cannot see an argument against that. It seems to me to make the law more fair and more just. It gives the Welsh speaker the same rights as an English or non-Welsh speaker in similar circumstances. Can the noble Earl say where is the difficulty in implementing the new clause? The majority of cases heard in Welsh will be in those areas where there are plenty of Welsh speakers to draw from. I am sure that all practical problems can be resolved given the will to do so.
Finally, any Bill that is to gain the support and confidence of the people of Wales must recognise the right of all people of Wales to use Welsh, and place a duty on governmental and other bodies, including the courts, to respect that right.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Again I rise to support what has been said by the lawyers so far in the debate and I follow my noble friend Lord Geraint. In dealing with this section of the Bill we move on from the framework of principle and specific implementation, with which we dealt earlier in the case of the Welsh Language Board, to an area of the Bill where we already have existing language legislation. I do not think it is a matter of insignificance that it was the Welsh Courts Act 1942 that began, as it were, the modern return of Welsh on to the statute book of the Houses of Parliament. This is why the whole issue of the way in which the administration of justice takes place in Wales in relation to the two languages is still an important issue.
This clause, one hopes, affects only a small minority of the population. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, that is not an argument for not ensuring that justice is patently seen to be done for both individuals and for the language group concerned. I appreciate the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, advanced about the random selection of jurors, but I believe that in practice the numbers of cases where this would apply would be limited.
However, we are dealing here with an area of legislation where individual rights are appropriate. I say that because in earlier clauses of the Bill I made it clear that it was not my view that the development of policy in the public services should be based on individual rights, but when we come to the area of the administration of justice and the position of persons who are defendants before a court of law, it is surely there, even in our tradition in the United Kingdom, that we should place an emphasis on the rights of individual defendants.
I am not arguing here—and we shall come to this in my next amendment—about the quality of interpretation. I am not arguing about whether an individual is or is not able to follow precisely what is being said directly. I am arguing about the position and choice of an individual defendant, and that, where a trial is to be

401
held in Welsh as set out in these amendments, the opportunity should exist for it to take place entirely in Welsh.
These are exceptional cases. Often the trouble with language legislation is that exceptional cases become celebrated cases, and injustices are seen to be done even perhaps where injustice is not intended. This is an area where there has been concern, and expressions have clearly been made on the issue that there should be this right. Expressions have come from distinguished members of the Welsh legal profession here this evening and others outside the Committee. The Government have an opportunity now to reconsider the matter. I hope that the Minister will undertake to do so.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, talked about the creation of confidence and the right to speak and use Welsh. We are of course talking in this Bill about the right to speak and use Welsh or English, whichever is one's language, in Wales. One is talking about an equality of rights. We have had two examples given to us. We had the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, talking about a situation in a largely Welsh-speaking area where some offence is committed and where practically everybody speaks Welsh and it is easy enough to get a jury composed entirely of Welsh-speaking people. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir has spoken of another example in a largely English-speaking part of Wales where it may be more difficult to recruit such a jury.
The example that springs to my mind is of neither extreme. I was thinking of the constituency I once had the honour to represent where the languages have been happily mixed for centuries; where we had Welsh-speaking people and English-speaking people. I was thinking of the words used by so many in this debate and by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about the importance of justice being seen to be done and about individual rights. But surely what we are talking about is individual rights to both English-speaking and Welsh-speaking Welsh people. There is the treasured right of people to serve on a jury irrespective of their language.
I am not talking of the great principle of random selection. Nor have I the legal experience of my noble friend or others. I am talking in practical terms about a mixed community. There is considerable merit in a situation where those called to serve on a jury can represent both languages. There is a real hazard, a real danger, that far from building confidence one will weaken confidence in a mixed community. Not on the basis that there is any doubt about the ability of the Welsh-speaking people and not on the grounds cited by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, which seem to have been the curious view of some people in the 19th century, not on any such ground, but simply that if you have an entirely mixed community in which a jury is seen to be selected from one group in that community but not from the other, you will have a cause for divide rather than for unity. You have a destruction rather than a building of confidence.
Simply for that reason, and bearing in mind the extraordinary quality nowadays of simultaneous
402
translation and the effectiveness of the way it has been introduced into the courts in Wales, I would prefer to see the random selection of juries from people who live in the area, people who live in Wales, taken regardless of the language they speak, because that is as important a principle and as important an objective as any other that has been raised in the course of the debate.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I would never claim normally to know better than the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gwydir and Lord Elis-Thomas, my noble friends Lord Cledwyn, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and Lord Prys-Davies, nor the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, but on one matter I claim to know better than they do, and that is the difficulty of following and working with simultaneous translation from Welsh to English or from English to Welsh over a long period. All the noble Lords whose names I have just given have the inestimable advantage of being fluent in both languages. They do not have to depend upon the crutch of simultaneous translation.
If I were called as a juror in a case to be conducted for the most part in Welsh, I would not feel myself sufficiently confident in the language to do without simultaneous translation, especially if any technical matters were being considered. Simultaneous translation has many drawbacks. It is extremely difficult for someone over a long period—and even 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour is a long period in this case—to keep up the concentration necessary to move from one language to another and to retain accuracy. It requires a high degree of skill. Those people who are competent to do it are very much underpaid.
It is also unfortunately less than perfect. Even the greatest of simultaneous translators are capable of producing less than perfection from time to time. The necessity to use simultaneous translation removes from a juror the ability to hear not only what is said but how it is said. In court proceedings, that surely is often an important part of a case. We should try to do better than simultaneous translation in cases of the kind we have been discussing. We can do better, we should do better, and for that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness White: Can my noble friend explain to me what the position would be in a court where some of the witnesses are not bilingual? You can have your main business conducted in Welsh, but if some of your witnesses are monolingual, or at any rate not Welsh speaking, surely you would have to have some kind of simultaneous translation?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My noble friend is right. In cases of that sort where witnesses are unable to understand, simultaneous translation must take place. My point is that jurors are different from witnesses, and jurors are required to make a judgment on the facts. They must be given the highest priority, and simultaneous translation is not as much use for them as it would be for witnesses who are simply required to listen and understand.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has criticised the amendment partly on the

403
grounds that it is a breach of the principle of random selection. But if there is such a principle then surely that was breached by the Juries Act 1974. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was rather critical of the amendment on the basis that it would deprive people of the right to serve on a jury. I had always understood that it was a duty to serve as a juror, and that we did not have the right to serve as a juror.
We are seeking to relate the principle implied in Section 10 of the Juries Act to the situation in Wales where the defendant's evidence is to be given in Welsh. The principle is fair and sensible in the English context. Why then do we not also relate the principle to the situation in Wales where the defendant wants to give his evidence in Welsh? Or does the Minister invite the Committee to say that there is to be one rule for the English-speaking defendant and another for the Welsh-speaking defendant in Wales? Without this amendment, that will continue to be the position.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that this amendment is of great significance. It is a very important amendment. I can quite see why those people who have spoken in favour of it have done so because the Welsh language is very dear to their hearts which I understand.
I find it difficult to accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that it is all the fault of the Home Office. He can take that view if he likes. I know that there is a kind of flavour of thought which he has on that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked: where is the difficulty? There is a difficulty which is that the amendment would be unacceptable because it would interfere with the random selection of juries.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said serving on a jury is not a right but a duty. If the amendment were accepted, the duty would refer only to a certain section of the population, and it would be removed from the rest. We have to be very careful about doing anything which is going to interfere with the random selection of juries.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said that it was a basic human right that jurors should speak in Welsh. It is also a basic system of British justice that jurors should be drawn from the community in which a person is tried. To reduce the area of selection to only those who can speak a certain language would be a great mistake and a change from the principle. There is nothing against the concept of juries being composed of Welsh speakers. What is important is that juries should be compiled, as a result of a random selection, of all those who are qualified to serve. If the jurors for a particular kind of trial are to be selected from a more limited pool, then that must influence the nature of the justice which the courts can administer.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us of the Welsh-speaking judge in the middle of the 19th century of whom it was said that he was incapable of passing a reasonable judgment because he could speak only Welsh. I believe that we all found that an amazing thing. But that was 100 years ago. It also prompted the noble Lord to say that we have some of the best judges in Wales, and I agree. One of the best
404
judges of recent times was the late Lord Edmund-Davies to whom my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir referred. As my noble friend said, that judge made a report to the Lord Chancellor of the day 20 years ago. It remains one of the most comprehensive investigations of the matter. I remind the Committee of the conclusions of his report because it is important. He said that the use of simultaneous translation equipment was the best means to cater for the interests of Welsh speakers in court cases, and that it was not interfering with the random selection of juries. That would not be the best solution.
There is a duty on all courts to provide simultaneous translation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that it is not as good as if one were totally bilingual and free. The alternatives which one has are either of saying that only those who can speak Welsh are to be jurors—in which case one cuts down the pool from which one can draw—or one says that the pool from which one can draw is as wide as it is in every other condition. It is drawn from all those who are eligible. If some of those are unable to speak Welsh, then they must be supplied with simultaneous translation.
It would be wrong to cut down the pool from which one can draw just to those who can speak Welsh. It is in the interests of British justice that we should retain the pool to be from a wide selection of those who are eligible.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos said that it is all the fault of the Home Office. Most things normally are. But I am not a subscriber to that theory on this occasion. Even the past few minutes have demonstrated with superabundance what a chasm there is between us. It is a great pit of complete non-understanding. I regret that very much. We have done our best to give this Bill every assistance. There is a fund of goodwill towards it. I regret to say that if the Government continue on this tack, they will dissipate the goodwill faster than the dew on a sunny morning.
Perhaps I may attend to all the arguments which have been put forward. The first in sequence was that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. He has had a distinguished career at the Bar on the same circuit as mine. He said that he had conducted trials in Welsh, and that is right. So have I. He said that he found no difficulty and I am sure that he did not. He was not a Welsh-speaking defendant. We heard of our ancient friend random selection. Perhaps we should remind ourselves about the centuries-old tradition of random selection. There was not any. One had to be a householder. One could not serve on a jury if one was a woman. The description of the classic English jury by Lord Devlin was: middle class, middle aged, white and middle minded. It seems to me that that is not very random.
So the centuries-old tradition of random selection does not exist any more than that women could vote before the early part of this century or that one could be on a jury, until relatively recently, simply by being

405
on the electoral register. It is very recently that the random selection of jurors has included persons of the age of 18.
All of us who have practised over the past 25 years have noticed that now jurors are much more representative because they tend to include about half the population; namely, women. This is not an attempt to usurp the random selection of the jury panel. There will be no interference with that. The jury panel will be culled in exactly the same way; namely, at random from those who have filled out their eligibility on the electoral register. It simply means that in a few cases in which the criminal litigation will be conducted substantially in Welsh, the jurors who, as my noble friend Lord Morris has pointed out, are the people who matter in coming to conclusions of this importance, will be able to understand the language of the defendant and the witnesses. I regard that as no more than a simple human right.
It is said that something less will do. It will not—and this is the reason for the bitterness and the disillusion which will grow and grow. This facility and right will be required in rather less than a handful of cases in any given year. If it is a right to be tried for theft by the magistrates in Welsh, why is it not also a right to be tried by the jury on the same issues in Welsh, possibly even in the same town?
Arguments about Newport will not do. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, knows as well as I do that trials are frequently transferred from one area to another. If I have read the paper correctly, a trial deriving from Liverpool is being tried in Mold at the moment. It is commonplace that trials are moved for various reasons.
Some of us who have heard arguments of varying quality put against this have come to the unhappy conclusion that the true reason (never expressed) for not having Welsh-speaking jurors is the fear among some that Welsh-speaking jurors will be more ready to acquit in politically-tinged cases. I wish that those who felt that had the courage of their ignoble convictions.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He has made quite the most unjustifiable attack upon anyone who happens to take a contrary view. I went particularly out of my way to say that there is a dilemma here between, on the one hand, taking those who are unable to speak Welsh and having a wider pool and, on the other hand, taking those who can speak only Welsh and drawing from a smaller pool. To suggest that anyone says, "Let us keep the original system because if it is all in Welsh those who ought to be convicted will be acquitted", is to make a most disreputable suggestion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not ascribe that to the noble Earl and I was careful not to do so. I said that I would deal with every argument that has been put and that I was turning—I said this specifically—to what a number of us who have discussed these matters know and believe to be the facts. I did not ascribe this to the noble Earl. If I had wished to do so—if there had been any justification for it—I should have said it
406
plainly because I prefer to speak plainly. I am not ascribing it to the noble Earl. I am saying that there is a distinct feeling that this is part of the motivation in some people's minds. Even if it is unjustified, that feeling adds to the bitterness that people feel about this matter. There is no doubt about that.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again and will not do so any more. He rightly said that he did not ascribe that feeling to me—and I did not suggest that he did ascribe it to me. However, he did say that he was going through the various arguments and he will agree that that argument was never mentioned.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely agree. I made that quite plain which is why my preamble was, "I now turn to things which are never expressed". I repeat that I am not ascribing that to the noble Earl who, although we have known each other for only a relatively short time, has always treated me with every civility and courtesy, and I hope that I have reciprocated.
I am saying that the feeling that I have mentioned is a cause of distress and bitterness. I do not believe that there is anyone who has anything to do with the prosecution of offences in Wales who has not heard that expressed. It may be right; it may be wrong; but that is the belief of many people. What is being said here is that it is acceptable to discharge potential jurors because they are not familiar with English, but that it is not acceptable to discharge potential jurors because they are not familiar with Welsh.
I beg the Government at least to think again on this matter. We do not agree on everything. There is no perfect symmetry between us, but we do agree that this is an opportunity to do good work. We want to do that. I hope that all of our approaches have been constructive, but the Government will throw all that away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Provision of interpreters]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert ("on an annual basis").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the argument for the substance of the amendment, if not its wording, has already been made in that the Government have clearly indicated that at least at this stage they are not prepared to reconsider the basic principle of the ability of jurors to be fluent in Welsh in a small number of cases. I very much regret the way in which that matter was approached. It means that in taking that approach the Government are relying absolutely on the technical quality and competence of the interpretation that takes place in the courts in Wales.
As we have already heard—I do not need to rehearse the history of this—the late Lord Edmund-Davies produced a report which brought about the beginnings of effective simultaneous translation. I am old enough to remember the days when ministers of religion would undertake part-time translation in the courts, but those days are long long past. We now

407
have a profession of interpreters who are very effective. Clearly, if the quality of the justice administered depends on the effectiveness of the interpretation, that interpretation needs to be adequately catered for. The interpreters need to be effectively trained and properly remunerated. That is the purpose of this amendment. I hope that the Government can accept the spirit of it, if not the wording. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: Although I do not find this amendment desirable, it does give me an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the interpreters on whom the effective use of the Welsh language in the courts to a greater part depends.
I understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department has, since the passage of the 1967 Act, taken a number of measures aimed at improving the standard of simultaneous translation available. I am sure that the experience so gained will in future be valuable for a number of other branches in the public sector which we envisage making greater use of Welsh.
Having said that, I do not believe that we would gain very much by the inclusion of this amendment. I am sure that, in determining payment for these services, the Lord Chancellor has regard to suggested rates published by the Treasury. These are uprated regularly, and I am sure that the Lord Chancellor takes account of this.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said and want to follow him on one particular point; namely, the importance of the development of simultaneous translation not only in the courts, but also outwith them and, as he said, throughout the rest of public life. If the Bill is to be successful in other areas of its objectives, the effectiveness and quality of simultaneous translation generally is something to which we need to turn our attention. It is certainly something that the board will want to pursue.
Although I have not so far appeared in a Crown Court and have not therefore benefited from simultaneous translation there, while attending conferences the length and breadth of Wales in recent years, I have observed that it is now almost the accepted norm to have simultaneous translation. Its quality is often as high as one would expect to find at conferences on mainland Europe. We need to pursue that and to ensure that it remains the case. My information is that relatively recently the remuneration of translators was not what might be desired, but that it has recently been increased. In celebrated and important cases there can be interpretation both ways: from Welsh into English, and from English into Welsh. It is important that remuneration for that work should be adequate.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am reminded that there is general dissatisfaction about the remuneration of court interpreters. Unless the Minister is prepared to reflect further about the amendment, it may well be something to which we will return at a later stage. I
408
join the Minister in paying tribute to the interpreters. The quality of the translation is essential. This may well be a matter which needs further reflection.
Viscount St. Davids: As I have said, I am sure that simultaneous translation will play a much greater part in public life in Wales than it has hitherto but we should leave the payment for those services to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I shall ensure that the Committee's comments and the relevant parts of Hansard are brought to his attention.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am aware of the improved training work undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Powers to give Welsh names to statutory bodies etc
(".—(1) Where a name is conferred by an Act of Parliament on any body, office or place, the appropriate Minister may by order confer on the body, office or place an alternative name in Welsh.
(2) Where an Act of Parliament gives power, exercisable by statutory instrument, to confer a name on any body, office or place, the power shall include power to confer alternative names in English and Welsh.
(3) This section shall not apply in relation to a name conferred on any area or local authority by the Local Government Act 1972, or to any power exercisable under that Act").
The noble Earl said: It is the Government's intention that all future legislation setting up statutory bodies serving Wales should confer a name upon that body in English and in Welsh. There are however a large number of existing bodies in Wales whose names are in English only. The amendment would allow Ministers to give those existing bodies an alternative name in Welsh. Where a power to confer a name on a body has already been granted, but is to be exercised in the future by order, the amendment allows the order to specify alternative names in English and Welsh. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The amendment is more important than it may appear at first instance. The principle of the Bill is to ensure that both languages are treated on a basis of equality. The perception of that equality in the use of the Welsh language to name public bodies is an extremely important principle. If one looks at a check list of simple do-it-yourself bilingualism and how one extends a use of a language, the logo, name, design and the title of public bodies are important places to start. So I am pleased at the recent trend.
I must be careful because I have been criticised outside the House for being too supportive of the Government on the Bill. I am not being supportive of the Government; I am being supportive of what I believe to be a relatively good Welsh Office Bill. The Welsh Office, especially in recent years, has adopted Welsh titles for organisations such as Tai Cymru and CADW, and so on. Although we may disagree with

409
the policies of such organisations, the public perception of them as Welsh-based organisations is improved. It also encourages the private sector to follow by good example. There were times when only a organisation called Plaid Cymru used a Welsh-speaking title in Wales. It seems that now everyone is following that practice; so I warmly welcome the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: From these Benches we also warmly welcome the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful. I cannot but tell the Committee how delighted I am that I can satisfy your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Powers to prescribe Welsh forms]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("Act of Parliament").
The noble Viscount said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 57 and 58. These are basically drafting amendments. I should be happy to explain them to the Committee if it so wishes. The Committee may find that unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("Act").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: There is a question I should like to address to the Minister, but I am not sure if it should come under Amendment No 49. I was hoping that the Minister would elaborate a little so that we could study his words. If the Minister is not in a position to give me an answer this evening, I should be content if he would let me have a reply before Report and place a copy in the Library.
According to my count, about 70 prescribed forms have been produced under Section 2 of 1967 Act. A Minister cannot be required to provide a Welsh language or bilingual version of a prescribed form. More Welsh language versions have been produced over the past few years than was formerly the case. What are the criteria to which the Secretary of State has to have regard in deciding whether to issue a Welsh or bilingual version of a prescribed form? I should be grateful if the Minister could throw light on that matter.
Viscount St. Davids: I do not think that I can throw any light on it at the moment; but I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) This section shall not apply in relation to a provision which—
410

(a) confers, or gives power to confer, a name on any body, office or place, or

(b) requires specified words to be included in the name of any body, office or place.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. The amendments allow industrial and provident societies and credit unions to adopt the Welsh versions of their names if they so desire. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We welcome the amendment. Industrial and Provident societies in Wales have for many years been pressing for these modest amendments. The societies are popular in Wales. We have many such societies in agriculture and in the industrial valleys of South-Wales. Many of the welfare halls in South-East Wales are registered industrial and provident societies.
However, I wonder whether the reform goes far enough, unless we have an indication that the Secretary of State contemplates using the power under Clause 24 to issue a Welsh language version of the many prescribed notices which can be served under the 1965 Act. What are the Secretary of State's intentions in that respect?
There is a further point. There is no provision in the 1965 Act for registering a society whose constitution is written in Welsh. I am aware of a number of societies whose constitution is written in Welsh. We have failed to register the constitution in Welsh under the 1965 Act. Some of my comments may apply equally to credit unions, except that they are not as common in Wales as industrial and provident societies. Subject to that question, I am happy to welcome the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: It is not the Secretary of State's intention to make those organisations change their name. The purpose of the amendment is to allow them to adopt Welsh versions of their names if they so desire.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thought that we were addressing Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the response that I gave was correct. However, I shall study Hansard and I shall communicate with the noble Lord and try to put him at his ease.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Provisions supplementary to section 24]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 10, line 26, leave out from ("The") to end of line and insert ("powers to make orders under sections (Powers to give Welsh names to statutory bodies etc)(1) and 24(2)").
The noble Earl said: This and Amendment No. 53 are two further drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert:
("(4) References in sections (Powers to give Welsh names to statutory bodies etc) and 24 above to an Act of Parliament include references to Acts passed after this Act; and in those sections "the appropriate Minister" in relation to any Act means—

411

(a) in the case of provisions for the execution of which in Wales a Minister other than the Secretary of State is responsible, that Minister, and

(b) in any other case, the Secretary of State.

(5) Any question arising under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) above shall be determined by the Treasury; and in that subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Industrial and provident societies
.—(1) Section 5 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (name of society) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for the words from "the word" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the last word in the name of every society registered under this Act shall be "limited" or, if the rules of the society state that its registered office is to be in Wales, either that word or the word "cyfyngedig"".
(3) In subsection (5)—

(a) after the words "contain the word "limited"" there shall be inserted the words "or the word "cyfyngedig"",

(b) for the words "that word" there shall be substituted the words "either of those words", and

(c) after the words "that the word "limited"" there shall be inserted the words ", or in an appropriate case the word "cyfyngedig",".").

After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Credit unions
.—(1) Section 3 of the Credit Unions Act 1979 (use of name "credit union", etc) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), there shall be added at the end the words "or, if the rules of the society state that its registered office is to be in Wales, either those words or the words "undeb credyd"".
(3) In subsection (2), after the words ""credit union" or" there shall be inserted the words ""undeb credyd" or".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Repeals and consequential amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 11, line 6, leave out from ("Schedule)") to end of line 9 and insert ("—

(a) for "2(1)" there shall be substituted "24";

(b) for "1967" there shall be substituted "1993"; and

(c) for "enactments" there shall be substituted "Acts of Parliament".").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("enactments)") and insert ("Acts)").
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("enactments."") and insert ("Acts of Parliament."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert:
("() In section 3(2) of the Charities Act 1992 there shall be inserted after "shall be stated in English" the following words ", or in Welsh within Wales,".").
The noble Lord said: We have dealt with amendments which the Government propose to enable companies and provident societies and other
412
organisations to be on a legal basis in their use of the Welsh language. Both this amendment and Amendment No. 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, seek, in different areas, to do the same in respect of charities. My understanding is that under the Charities Act 1992 it is not legal to use a Welsh form of words. My amendment would allow them to do so and I ask the Government to consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare: As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, my amendment is grouped with his and covers the same ground but it is slightly more restrictive. The noble Lord's amendment covers any charitable organisation in Wales whereas mine is restricted to Welsh charities working wholly in the Welsh language. The kind of charities which I have in mind are those such as Merched y Wawr, which has 300 branches and 5,000 members, the equivalent of the English Women's Institute, or the best known Welsh youth movement, Urdd Gobaith Cymru, which has 12,000 branches and 45,000 members. Those charities find it odd that working in the Welsh language, they have their headed notepaper in Welsh but then have to put in "registered charity" in English. That does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. Although it is a small point I hope that my noble friends will look upon it favourably. Here are two excellent amendments to which they could choose to agree and they would send us away happy.
Earl Ferrers: It is legal for a charity's name to be in Welsh but it must also be in English. In other words, charities may use Welsh if they so desire. The reason for this provision in charity law is to ensure that people dealing with charities are aware of that fact since in certain circumstances it can affect their legal rights. Therefore, it is important that a declaration that the charity is a registered charity should be readily understood by all those coming into contact with the charity.
Neither of these amendments would provide the necessary safeguards on that score but perhaps I may consider the matter further before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am glad of that sentence because it seems absurd to have to follow elusen gofrestredig with the words "registered charity".
Lord Prys-Davies: Many Welsh organisations would find it offensive to have those words on their headed paper or on circulars seeking donations. I understand that there are about 110 charities which would come within the definition contained in Amendment No. 60. Therefore, we are talking about a considerable number of Welsh charities which operate in the Welsh language and would find it offensive to have to reproduce their designation in English. However, I fully understand the mischief which the appropriate section of the Charities Act seeks to address. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would look again at this.
Earl Ferrers: We certainly do not wish to do anything offensive and I shall look at the matter to see whether we can overcome the problem.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the inoffensive nature of the noble Earl's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (Amendment) Order 1993
7.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (Amendment) Order 1993 is made under the European Communities Act 1972 and amends that part of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which relates to the automatic recognition of scheduled qualifications in veterinary surgery obtained in other member states.
The change is procedural and is required to meet our Community obligations, as set out in Chapter 4 of Council Directive 89/594/EEC on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
By way of background, I should like to explain that Section 6 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act enables the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to regulate who should be entitled to be registered to practise veterinary surgery in this country. In 1978, the European Community introduced measures to enable the automatic recognition of prescribed qualifications in veterinary surgery and allow the free movement of veterinarians between member states. Minimum training standards were introduced at the same time.
The Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1980 implemented these measures in the UK by giving a veterinary surgeon, who was a national of a member state and held a recognised qualification in veterinary surgery, the right to be registered to practise in the UK and, accordingly, become a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
The draft order before the House makes provision for the registration of a holder of a qualification which was formerly recognised but has been replaced. It sets certain conditions and the holder must produce a certificate to the effect that the qualification is regarded by the awarding member state as equivalent to the recognised qualification; and that training has
414
been in accordance with Council Directive 78/1027/ EEC, which is known as the Training Directive. The draft order also takes account of minor changes which relate to the titles of veterinary qualifications and the awarding bodies in Greece and Spain.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other interested organisations have been consulted and are content. Indeed, the Royal College is already implementing the change administratively. Currently there are about 15 veterinarians from Greece and about 45 veterinarians from Spain registered to work in the UK.
I reiterate that these changes are procedural. They do not represent a lowering of standards and I am satisfied that the requirements safeguard fully the level of professional expertise we expect in the UK. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liverpool Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993
7.21 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the essence of the housing action trust, known as the HAT, is a good working relationship between all interested parties. Particularly important is the role of the tenants, who have to be willing to vote for the HAT to enable it to go ahead. That depends on a full process of consultation before the ballot and of participation afterwards in the work of the HAT. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that all this has been fully reflected in the Liverpool proposal.
The Liverpool HAT designation order is the third to come before the House. It is different from the first two HATs in Hull and Waltham Forest in that it deals with a type of housing spread throughout the city of Liverpool rather than a particular geographical area. That type is the tower block. In all, Liverpool City Council currently manages 71 tower blocks built between 1958 and 1971. In July and August, tenants voted on the HAT proposal on a site-by-site basis. Tenants in 67 blocks on 35 sites, comprising some 5,300 homes, voted in favour. Tenants in four blocks voted to stay with the council.
The effect of the order will be: to designate the curtilages of the 67 tower blocks on 35 sites together with an additional seven areas of council land which will be needed for rehousing purposes; and to establish the housing action trust for that designated area. The HAT may require a small number of further parcels of land in private ownership. The HAT will be consulting with the owners about these sites and, if necessary, we will return to the House with amendments to this order.
The priority for the Liverpool HAT after designation is to continue the preparation of

415
proposals for its capital programme, and to prepare for the formal transfer of properties. We expect that to be at the end of the summer.
I hope your Lordships will recognise the essential role of housing action trusts in tackling the very worst problems in the local authority stock and I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 25 minutes past seven o'clock.