Lords Sitting of 13 October 1993

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

Lord Dean of Harptree
The Right Honourable Sir Arthur Paul Dean, Knight, having been created Baron Dean of Harptree, of Wedmore in the County of Somerset, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Murton of Lindisfarne and the Lord Weatherill.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton
Mrs. Joyce Brenda Gould, having been created Baroness Gould of Potternewton, of Leeds in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Lockwood and the Lord Merlyn-Rees, and made the solemn Affirmation.
The Marquess of Bath—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

M.25: Public Inquiry
3 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who will conduct the public inquiry into the proposal to widen the M.25 between junctions 12 and 15, and what are his, or her, qualifications.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, an inspector has not yet been appointed.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that Answer, which was not entirely unexpected. In view of the unprecedented nature, immense scale and cost of this 14-lane proposal, is there not much to be said exceptionally for having the inquiry conducted by someone independent of government and not by an officer of the department? Will it be open to the person holding the inquiry, if so persuaded by the evidence, to report that the whole project is misconceived, notwithstanding the fact that the department appears to be acting as though the issue is cut and dried and is happily engaged in discussing compensation terms with some of those affected?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a nomination for an inspector is made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor from a panel of suitably qualified independent inspectors. The appointment is then made jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment. With regard to the remit of the inspector, he will look at a variety of evidence that is put before him. I know that
192
the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will agree that something must be done about this highly congested sector of the M.25.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does the Question not raise a further issue: that transport in this country should be looked at in greater depth and detail? Does my noble friend agree that we appear to stagger from pillar to post, thus generating the necessity to add to a motorway of a certain width because no one has thought through the transport requirements? I suspect that I shall be told that my question goes wider than the original Question but, nonetheless, perhaps my noble friend will bear it in mind.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend was right to say that his question was considerably wider than that on the Order Paper. When this section of the M.25 was designed the best assessment was made of the traffic forecast. It is now the most heavily congested motorway in Europe.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen? He sought information about the authority on which the department is discussing compensation terms before the new road has been agreed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as I am aware, nothing that the department is doing at the moment is outside its remit and outside the law.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his attitude and replies give the impression that the whole issue is cut and dried? The scheme is important and will have far-reaching effects on a wide area, not only in regard to the landscape and the way in which people are affected but in regard to the additional traffic which will be attracted into a sensitive area. This House and the country wish to be assured that the person who conducts the inquiry will take all those issues into account and will take a truly independent view of the situation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the situation is far from cut and dried in the sense mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. There has been a consultation period; it is hoped that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be laying draft statutory orders later this year; there will be a public inquiry next year; an inspector will be appointed at that time; there will be a full environmental statement; and the inspector will take into account a range of issues. However, what is in no doubt is that that part of the M.25 is highly congested. About 200,000 cars use that section of the motorway and 60 per cent. of them travel for only two junctions. That is about 120,000 cars, which is the equivalent of the number using the M.2.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, accepting that the inspectors are independent and leaving aside the merits to which my noble friend the Minister referred, will these independent inspectors have the remit to reject the scheme on any ground?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the inspector will consider all relevant issues arising from the published draft orders. They have not yet been published.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of the increasing evidence of an association between motor vehicle pollution and asthma, will the Minister tell the House whether local environmental health officers working around that section of the M.25 have been consulted about the proposal? I ask now because I recently asked in a Written Question but received no Answer.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been a wide consultation exercise. If any environmental health officer in the area wished to make representations he or she was perfectly free and able to do so. As a result of that consultation exercise and the draft statutory orders which my honourable friend the Secretary of State will be laying in due course, there will be a public inquiry with an independent inspector.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it right, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested—and the Minister has not replied—that compensation terms are being discussed by his department? If so, is that not taking the situation a little for granted? Are not the Government making a habit of taking things for granted, as they did in the House only yesterday?
As regards the widening of the motorway, is it right that 83 per cent. of road users represent private motor cars? Is there not therefore a need to deter such widespread car usage? Furthermore, is there not overwhelming evidence, which should be available to the department, that widening proposals of this character will not solve congestion and that that can be mitigated only by a sensible transport strategy affecting the south-east of the country as a whole and the development of alternative rail schemes such as CrossRail and Thameslink 2000?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has raised a number of interesting questions, none of which is related to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I was amazed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, threatening to return to mummying the whole country and saying how many cars should be allowed on the road. Is Britain not falling behind the ability of other EC countries to build roads where it is thought necessary for the efficiency of industry and the enjoyment of the population? Noble Lords may remember that in 1970 I answered Questions about the Winchester bypass and even now protests are still being made about that. Is this the way to efficiency?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are considerable concerns by those who wish to see industry prosper, by allowing it to move goods as quickly as possible from one port of manufacture or arrival to another, and who also wish to allow people to move freely. However, we have to go through certain processes, one of which is being carried out at present. We have had a consultation period which will be followed by the draft statutory orders.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister show the frankness that he normally bestows upon the House? The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked whether it was a fact that compensation was being discussed by departmental officials. Is that true? If it is true, why are things being taken for granted in this way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, things are not being taken for granted because the draft statutory orders have still to be laid, and that will be followed in due course by a public inquiry with an independent inspector. There is nothing of which I am aware that the department is doing at the moment that is outside the law.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister please answer the question? Is compensation being discussed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, whatever discussions are taking place at the moment in the department, I am told that they are within the law.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, whether or not they are within the law, will the Minister reply to the question which has now been asked four or five times? Are the Government doing that or not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I confirm to the noble Lord that, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing that the department is doing at the moment as regards this proposal that is outside the law.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I must appeal to the Leader of the House to use his influence to make sure that a simple question is answered from the Dispatch Box.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe that we have pursued this as far as possible. The Minister has given an answer. There are other ways to pursue the matter if the noble Lord wishes to do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a fact, however—
Noble Lords: Oh, oh!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this is a matter about which the Minister is not being straight with the House. It is rather like a Minister giving evidence to the Scott Inquiry. Surely the Minister is capable of answering a simple question.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend was asked a question by the noble Lord. My noble friend gave an answer. The noble Lord did not like that answer. I believe that it is better to leave the matter there.

Stonehenge and the A.303
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
What archaeological experts were consulted by the Department of Transport before the recommendation of the grey and yellow routes for the Stonehenge section of the A.303 Amesbury to Berwick Down improvement was made.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we carried out our usual informal consultation with representatives of interested bodies and organisations in the development of possible routes for public consultation. We also sought data from English Heritage, the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments of England, the Department of National Heritage, the International Commission on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the Wiltshire County Archaeologist, the Society of Antiquaries and the Prehistoric Society, and we employed a consultant archaeologist.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very full reply. I believe that he mentioned the National Trust and many other important bodies. Although the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is not able to be in the House today, I have his authority to say that there is great anxiety that the existing yellow routes will he adopted without the construction of a much longer tunnel. If a long tunnel is not possible, it will be important—indeed, imperative—that the route should be taken to the north, if necessary through MoD territory. My noble friend will accept that Stonehenge is a world heritage site, the only one in the United Kingdom. The 1,500 acres around it are of enormous archaeological importance. Will my noble friend accept that to run a road through them would be folly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we all accept that Stonehenge is a world heritage site, but the existing road is also within that site. That is where there is a problem. There is a huge amount of congestion and there have been a substantial number of accidents in the area. Everyone recognises that there is a problem. The difficulty is how to solve the problem with everybody's agreement; and that is extremely tricky.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are the Minister's officials considering and discussing the question of compensation? Having regard to the Government's determination to preserve their own neolithic image, what are they doing in relation to the preservation of the neolithic and bronze age sites in the area which are of great historic importance to this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. There are a vast number of tumuli and monuments in that part of the world. Wherever one tries to alleviate a problem by building a better road in the area there will undoubtedly be some damage. That is why we are taking the matter extremely seriously and a grew deal of consultation is taking place.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that wherever a road is built in the Stonehenge area it will cause archaeological problems? Therefore, does he agree that it is better to look at where damage has already been done on existing road lines; rather than using another route?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There are about 400 listed monuments in the area. It is now a question of trying to find the best route to solve the problem which everybody agrees exists.
Viscount Head: My Lords, the noble Earl is no doubt aware of the report from the Landscape Advisory Committee which, as I understand it, expressed unanimously the view that the proposed grey route would be extremely detrimental to the landscape and should be abandoned as a result. Yet that report has not been made public. Will Her Majesty's Government publish the report in view of the crucial evidence that it contains and have a copy of it placed in the Library of the House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our normal practice is not to release the report given by the Landscape Advisory Committee at this stage. It is held in confidence lest anyone with an interest in any particular route should seek to exert pressure on individual voluntary members of the committee. The report will be made available when the preferred route is announced.

NHS: Future
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will host a conference with UNISON, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Visitors Association to discuss concerns about the future of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there is no need for the Government to host such a conference. Both Ministers and officials have regular meetings and contact with representatives of these bodies to discuss issues of mutual concern and future developments.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is rather shattering to have to accept what she says when all the professions say that there are hints that doctors and nurses regret entering our National Health Service. The cause seems mainly to be NHS reforms, overwork and long hours. I should have thought that a conference involving all the organisations mentioned in my Question might at least clarify the situation to the benefit of the department and the nation.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, we have regular meetings with all the people who represent workers in the National Health Service. In addition, Ministers act like

197
gypsies—constantly going round the country visiting hospitals and looking at communities to see what is happening.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at those meetings, how detailed are the discussions about the National Health Service and its future? Are UNISON and others allowed to comment on financing and the use of money within the National Health Service? Are they allowed to comment on the closure of beds and the failure to treat patients? How far does that consultation go?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is very full indeed. We want to hear from the people who work in the National Health Service how their working practices are developing, and we wish to see the results of our reforms. At this stage, we are convinced that the National Health Service has never been better.
Lord Howell: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the fact that in recent days in the West Midlands women have died from cancer through wrong treatment with no explanation or responsibility accepted; a consultant was suspended this week for actively wishing to treat patients suffering from leukaemia; the general manager of the Heartlands Hospital paid himself last week £91,000 in salary, doubling his existing salary, while on this very day sacking three of his managers in order to pay for it? No chairman of any trust has uttered one word about any of those matters. Can the Minister tell us who is responsible for the health service these days—the chairmen of appointed members or just paid functionaries?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the accountability for what goes on in hospital trusts rests with the trust board. Ultimately, it is the Secretary of State who is accountable for all that goes on in the National Health Service because it is a public body using public funds. However, I make the point that we treat millions of patients every year. It is inevitable that things will go wrong in some instances. It is important that when mistakes are made and things go wrong there is an inquiry and we learn any lessons. We have a proud record in the number of inquiries that we have held and that will continue.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House to what extent voluntary organisations, organisations representing patients, are involved at all in the consultations to which she referred?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the consultations are with the TUC Health Services Committee which is due to meet the Minister again on 26th October, having met him on 13th July. The BMA and the RCN are not affiliated to the TUC but they have similar opportunities. We have regular contact with voluntary organisations which work in the field and which have recently set up a carers and users group to inform Ministers on the progress of the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if the National Health Service is in such a good state, as the noble Baroness seems to think, why is it that at Bart's about 16 patients are having to sleep in the corridors because there are not enough beds for them? One of the senior nurses has opened a ward, against orders, which had been closed. She said that she was not prepared to see patients being treated in such a manner.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to Ealing where it was in fact the general manager who took the decision. It was not carried out against orders; she was using her judgment. The situation arose because the local authority was so slow in assessing patients for entry to nursing homes. The health authority and the local authority are in negotiation. We expect the situation to be resolved very quickly.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the professional organisations take the view that there is a danger of private medicine challenging the National Health Service? It does not look like Mrs. Thatcher's declaration that the NHS is safe in the hands of the party opposite; indeed, we all know that it never was. Is the Minister further aware of the views of two eminent organisations? First, UNISON, which covers hospital catering staff, ambulance drivers and nurses, has found disgruntlement among staff which ought not to be there. Secondly, the Health Visitors Association, which has more or less carried the NHS to the home, is alarmed at the decrease in its membership. Should not such matters be the subject of the conference to which I referred for the benefit of the department and of the country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am really not responsible for the HVA membership. If people choose to join another organisation like the RCN, that must be left to individual members. As regards private medicine, we on this side of the House have always taken the view that private medicine has a part to play in the total care of the country and that people who choose to use private medicine should be free to do so. Indeed, there are more and more schemes being jointly run by the NHS and private companies. I believe that that enriches the care that we are able to give.

Belize: British Military Presence
3.23 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the removal of British forces from Belize.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development announced on 13th May, the British and Belize Governments have agreed that the British military presence in Belize should change. We have now agreed with the Belizean Government that from 1st January 1994 the Belize defence force will

199
assume responsibility for the defence of Belize. The British military presence will be progressively reduced and after October 1994 will take the form of a training operation, with troops deploying from the United Kingdom to Belize to undertake jungle training.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that whenever the people of Belize (who we have protected for 350 years) see British troops in the streets they beg them not to desert the country? They have heard the Guatemalan leader, as I did on the BBC World Service, saying that, whatever arrangements the Foreign Office and the British Government think they have made with Guatemala, once our troops have left they will march into Belize and take it over. They have a population 50-times the size of the poor little Belizeans. Is it not pitiful that, for the sake of saving £3 million a year or thereabouts, the British Government are reduced to handing over these people for permanent suppression? They cannot even afford to spend that amount.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I was much moved by the article that the noble Lord wrote in a most reputable newspaper on 5th September on the subject. I do not wish to bore the House, but I noticed on further investigation a number of uncharacteristic and inaccurate assertions in the article, some of which the noble Lord has just repeated. One was that we were leaving Belize, or reducing our presence there, for financial reasons. That is not so. It is because of—I now turn to the second inaccuracy which I would like to draw to the attention of the House—the greatly improved relations with Guatemala. They enable us to make such reductions. If the noble Lord doubts me, I would draw his attention to the fact that the new government of Guatemala have echoed their predecessor by recognising the right of Belize to exist as an independent nation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that clarification. However, can he assure us that any arrangement with Guatemala on the security of Belize will be permanent and will not change along with the frequently changing governments of that country? Further, can he assure the House that there is no threat from Mexico, which has an historic claim to the north of Belize and, indeed, to the north Petén province in Guatemala? Are we satisfied that our troops can withdraw reasonably without any threat from that quarter?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most flattered that the noble Lord feels that I have such extraordinary omniscience that I can give the guarantee that he requests. Such issues must always be a matter of judgment. We shall keep our position under continuous review. It is true that there is still an outstanding territorial claim which is unsettled with the Guatemalan Government. But we are sufficiently satisfied about the intentions not only of the previous government but also of their successor. That should at least give some degree of satisfaction to the noble Lord as to their intentions. I should also tell him that, after our reductions of existing numbers in the garrison have taken place, the Belizean defence force will be greatly strengthened by the use of
200
loan-service personnel and the existence of training opportunities which will continue throughout the overwhelming majority of the year in Belize for British forces.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the noble Viscount will be aware that it was the Government in which I was privileged to serve which, very unusually, gave the guarantee to Belize that we would keep troops there following its independence. Considering the state of relations with Guatemala at the time, there is no doubt that that brought much reassurance to Belize. In view of the history of Guatemala, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is right to raise doubts about the situation. Can the noble Viscount say whether the United States, which has expressed views about the situation in the past, has expressed any view now? Have there been any consultations between HMG and the US as to whether they would be willing to give some sort of general cover to Belize in its very sensitive state and to support Belize if any attempt were made by Guatemala on its independence?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wholly accept what the noble Lord says about the reassurance that the positioning of the garrison gave during the term of his responsibility for such matters. If I may say so, it is a great tribute to his judgment and to the effectiveness of the British Armed Forces that that happened. So far as concerns the second part of the noble Lord's question, we are in continuous discussion with our allies in the United States, who understand our position. We have undertaken jointly to ensure that the situation should be kept under continuous review. If necessary action has to be taken, we shall both take it.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's response that the decision was taken not on cost but on foreign policy considerations, is he really telling the House that, if the defence budget had not been under such pressure from the Treasury, the same decision would still have been taken?
Viscount Cranborne: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Annan: My Lords, surely it is not wholly a question of finance; it is the fact that our Armed Forces are desperately overstretched today with the commitments that they have in Northern Ireland, to the United Nations and elsewhere. Should we not be grateful if we can possibly in some place reduce our commitments so that the Army has some time to conduct training?
Viscount Cranborne: Yes, my Lords; that of course is true. I re-emphasise what I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Had we felt that we needed to continue to provide the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was able to give at the time, we would have done so.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is not the noble Viscount aware that the British forces very much value Belize as a training ground for various aspects of their activities, so that cost should not come into it at all? If

201
cost does not come into the consideration, why on earth are we deserting Belize when all the people there long for us to stay?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been listening to what I have been saying. There will be a continuing training presence in Belize. We value the jungle training facility, which will persist and which we shall continue to maintain.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, it may be helpful if I mention briefly the four matters which the Procedure Committee considered at its meeting in July and which are dealt with in the report.
First, the Committee welcomed a proposal by the Leader of the House to set up a group to consider practices and procedures which affect the sittings of the House. As your Lordships will recall, a Select Committee in another place on sittings of that House reported in 1992, but formal action has not yet been taken on its recommendations. The Procedure Committee felt that we should not continue to await developments in another place, but should undertake our own enquiry into possible improvements in practices and procedures in this House. I understand that the noble Lord the Leader of the House plans to begin consultations through the usual channels on the composition of the proposed group once the House has approved the idea in principle by agreeing to this report today.
Secondly, the Committee noted that there appears to be an increasing disregard of the practice of the House regarding the reading of speeches, in particular through the use of texts provided by outside organisations. The Committee has invited the House to confirm the existing guidance that the reading of speeches is alien to the custom of the House and injurious to its debates.
Thirdly, the Committee recommended that, for an experimental period, the fourth Starred Question each Thursday should be chosen by lot from questions tabled on the previous Tuesday, before the sitting of the House. The intention is to introduce greater scope for the asking of topical Starred Questions. The report proposes that the experimental period should begin this month. This recommendation was made in the expectation that the report would be agreed to in July. In the circumstances I propose that, if the House agrees to this report, the arrangement should begin at the beginning of the new Session.
The Procedure Committee will keep under review the operation of this experiment, and will in due course report again to the House. Finally, the Committee has looked again at the practice whereby some Questions for Written Answer are answered by reference to a letter from an agency chief executive. The Committee
202
recommends that, in accordance with past practice, any criticism of the Answer in the House should be directed at the Minister and not the chief executive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the fourth report of the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 105).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
1. The Leader of the House presented to the Committee a proposal to set up a group to consider practices and procedures which affect the sittings of the House. The Committee welcomed and agreed to this proposal. The Committee considered it appropriate that such a group should be served by the Clerks.
READING OF SPEECHES
2. The practice of reading speeches, including extensive use of notes prepared by outside organisations, appears to be increasing. The Committee invites the House to confirm the guidance in the Companion to Standing Orders, that the reading of speeches is alien to the custom of this House and injurious to its debates, though notes may be used; and that Lords speak for themselves and not on behalf of outside interests.
TOPICAL QUESTIONS
3. The Committee recommends that, for an experimental period beginning in October, the fourth Starred Question each Thursday should be a Topical Question. The Topical Question should be chosen by lot from questions tabled with the Clerk Assistant before the sitting of the House on the previous Tuesday. A Lord should not be permitted to enter the ballot if he already has two Starred Questions on the Order Paper, or if he has tabled a Starred Question for the day in question; and no Lord should ask more than two Topical Questions in one session.
WRITTEN ANSWERS FROM EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
4. The new practice whereby some Questions for Written Answer are answered by reference to a letter from the Chief Executive of a Government Agency raises the question, whether the Chief Executive may properly be criticised in the House. The Committee understands that, where Government functions are delegated to an Agency, accountability to Parliament remains through Ministers. The Committee therefore recommends that criticism of the answer in the House should be directed at the Minister, not at the Chief Executive.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on paragraph 3 of the report, which concerns topical Questions. This proposal would be a considerable departure from the present system for tabling Starred Questions but an innovation which I personally welcome for the experimental period suggested. At present about two weeks or more elapse between the tabling of a Question and the date for reply. It is difficult to foresee whether the subject will still be of interest when it is reached on the day, or will have been answered by events in the interval. I venture to comment on the proposal because noble Lords may have noticed that I have been in the habit of using my quota of Questions. Usually the subjects have been of public interest, consumer affairs or the environment. I hope those subjects are of interest to the House.
Recently my Questions have extended from piracy in the seas of South East Asia to the legality of private wheel-clamping nearer home. However, when I have to prepare such Questions three weeks or so before the date they are due to be heard, I have wished that I had the gift of second sight. This experiment could be useful and I particularly applaud the fact that the Government have, as I understand it, accepted it, as it will mean that Ministers may suffer considerable inconvenience by having to be here at short notice on a Thursday afternoon.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on this matter and concur with the noble Lord that the proposal seems to be a good idea. However, I hope we can consider two aspects of it. If it is a case of a topical Question, undoubtedly it will be popular and many noble Lords will wish to ask questions on it. Therefore it is essential in the first place that we reach the Question on time. That matter needs to be given some attention. While that matter is being given some attention, I hope we can perhaps go a little further and, on Thursdays, allow a few minutes extra for Question Time. I am not suggesting we spend a great deal longer on Questions—perhaps only five minutes longer.
I believe these points are important, as a topical Question will be popular. I hope the Committee will in due course consider the two points.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am glad that the Procedure Committee has made the recommendation in the second item of its report relating to the reading of speeches. I fully share the Procedure Committee's view that the practice of reading speeches has been substantial and has tended to grow. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is harmful to the standard of debate in this House if speeches are read because, if a speech which has been written out beforehand is then read to the House, it generally has no relevance whatever, or bearing on what has taken place in the debate up to the moment that speech is read. It is the very negation of debate if, as it were, essays written before the debate are read. I am glad that the Procedure Committee has noticed this.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Leader of the House can go a little further and indicate that, when speeches are quite plainly read in this way, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, or whoever is leading the House at that time, will intervene and will invoke the perfectly clear rules in the Companion to Standing Orders against such speeches and will secure that the reading of that speech is stopped. I hope we may have a firm lead from the noble Lord the Leader of the House because it seems to me, with respect, of enormous importance to the functioning of this House that the reading of speeches be stopped and that your Lordships should debate issues and not read essays about them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, speaks with authority on the question of speeches being read, as I have never seen him read a speech and therefore he is quite entitled to make the point that he did. However, I wonder whether the matter is riot a little broader than he has stated. One of the things that I believe spoils debates in this House, if I may respectfully say so, is that though, perfectly understandably, Ministers read their briefs when opening a debate, several Ministers, not so understandably, read their speeches at the end of a debate. Right at the end of reading out the brief they deal somewhat summarily with the often pertinent questions that have been raised in the debate. I wonder therefore—I repeat the word "respectfully"—whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House will consider admonishing not only
204
ordinary Members like myself in the recommendations he brings forward but also his noble friends on the Front Bench.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I suggest this is not merely a matter of reading speeches, as there are some noble Lords who are more readily able to make impromptu speeches and speeches without notes than others who are not so fortunate and who may have to refer to their notes rather more frequently. Is it not really the point that a number of speeches are made in your Lordships' House nowadays that are clearly written by someone else? I believe that is the sadness. It is not just a matter of our debate being inhibited by this kind of activity but rather that we are clearly hearing the words of someone else and we are probably hearing words that have appeared in mail that has come through our letter-boxes that morning and which has been sent by someone representing a particular lobby. I ask whether that is not really the issue rather than that some people read while others are able to deliver impromptu speeches.
Perhaps I may also ask a question for clarification on the matter of a topical question for the fourth Starred Question on a Thursday. What will be the procedure for choosing the question and the questioner?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while the reading of a speech prevents a debate being a debate in the true meaning of that word, should we not beware of any possible danger to our parliamentary procedure which may flow from the proposal? If people read a speech, who is to say that they are wrong? My noble friend suggested that the Leader of the House would invoke whatever powers he has to persuade. I should not like to feel that we are going to move from our present strength, which is based on self-discipline, with no one, speakers or Chairmen, having the power to prevent anybody from making a contribution as he or she thinks fit. If we can preserve that self-discipline, we shall be preserving something which makes this House so much superior to another place and to alternatives.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I venture to agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble friend Lord Mishcon, concerning the winding-up speeches of members of the Government. By convention, Ministers are permitted to read their speeches, but nevertheless it is often discouraging when substantial points have been made from all quarters of the House which are then not addressed directly by the Minister who is replying. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House can use his influence in this matter, because at the same time he is also leader of his own party, to see whether the practice can be ameliorated to some extent.
I am just a little worried about the matters raised in paragraph 3 because sometimes ideas of what is topical and what is not may vary considerably. If what is topical is determined by the less reputable sections of the tabloid press, judgment as to what is topical will be a little difficult. In addition, it may well be that topicality and urgency will overlap. If a topical question is also urgent there is a difficulty. There might be different

205
rulings as between this House and the other place as to urgent questions which are also topical. Close liaison between the officials of this House and the Speaker's Department in another place would obviously be necessary if such confusion might conceivably arise. Otherwise I have no objection to the experiment itself.
My principal concern is with paragraph 1 in which it is stated that the noble Lord the Leader of the House presented to the committee proposals for the setting up of a group. Oh, my Lords! We have Committees, sub-committees and occasional working parties, but now we are to have a group. I am not sure what purpose it is to serve. As a Back-Bencher, I always regard any changes in procedure and practices as being possibly initiated more for the convenience of the usual channels than being concerned with the conventions and rights of the Back-Benches. I therefore regard the proposal with some suspicion. I should be glad to know from the noble Lord whether it is intended to confine membership of the group to Back-Benchers, because I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the House if the group consisted of members of the usual channels, whose one desire, of course, is to get debates over as quickly as they can. That may not always be in the interests of the House as a whole.
In general, in relation to reports on the procedure of the House and from committees associated with them, I recall some matters which relate to my own profession. For many years I have been a management consultant. One of the axioms, which I regret to say is still not practised by firms of management consultants, is: if something is working leave it alone, do not always think that existing procedures can be improved. I hope that the House will accept that that axiom ought possibly to apply in current circumstances.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to endorse very warmly what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, with his usual eloquence, about the second recommendation. I would add only two points. First, could not some consideration be given to those noble Lords who feel that they have no alternative but to read their speeches so that they could instead deposit them where those who have the time and inclination could easily browse through them for an hour or so?
In making my second point I cannot quite emulate the delicacy with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, approached the matter of ministerial speeches. Ministerial speeches of great length replying to a debate, but prepared long before the debate, somehow lack conviction and charm. When they are read at such a speed that no one with ordinary intellectual powers—and I certainly number myself among them—can possibly grasp the meaning of what has been said the practice needs some correction. I very much hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will give the matter his urgent attention. I am sure that he would earn the gratitude of us all.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for his explanation of the first paragraph, because on inspection
206
I could not quite understand what it meant. I know that the noble Lord the Leader of the House would never produce anything for this House which was not entirely structured, but it seemed to me that a committee was being set up within a committee to do the same job. However, from the explanation, its purpose is clearly to consider what is known as the Jopling Report which was produced by another place. I hope, with due deference to the other place, that the Jopling Report will be scrutinised very carefully if we begin to consider how we should react to it because I am extremely cynical about the motives which led to its production.
Having said that (and this is not germane to what we are talking about now), perhaps in his capacity as chairman of the Offices Committee the noble Lord might consider setting up a group whereby your Lordships could have some input into the schedule of work done in this place during Recesses. It seems to those of us who come here during the Recess that there is not only appalling disruption but also often substantial waste of public money.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that the Leader of the House should intervene if there is reading of speeches. In fact the policing of these matters has to be undertaken by the Members of your Lordships' House themselves. On 4th November 1987 the House considered the report of the group on the working of the House. One of its recommendations, which was accepted, was that the practice of speaker after speaker congratulating maiden speakers was not necessary and that it was sufficient for the following speaker to go through the normal tributes and commendations. That has been totally ignored.
When the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees mentioned the question of outside business interests having long screeds read out, a murmur of assent went round the House. If that is to be dealt with, then it is up to every Member of this House to deal with it and not rely on somebody from the Front Bench on either side of the House. We all have to take responsibility for policing these matters.
I shall not delay the House further except to say that today we had seven minutes on the fourth Question. The whole question of a topical subject being raised is very difficult. However, an experiment is an experiment. Let us see how it goes and then make a judgment.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I fully understand that my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Peyton—they are extremely capable extempore speakers—express the views that they do. I remember that 45 years ago my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was a member of the ABBs—the Active Back Benchers—whose job it was late at night in the House of Commons to speak extemporarily and so exhaust the energies of the party opposite that eventually it should be driven from power, as in 1951 it was. However, for many Members of this House, who do not have experience of the House of Commons, speaking in this House is an ordeal. For my noble friends, it is easier. They are extremely good at it and obviously enjoy it.
We should remember that this is not the House of Commons. Fundamentally we are not an adversarial

207
House. We are invited and instructed by Her Majesty the Queen to come to the House to give our views. Although there may be controversy at the Committee stage, when debate should properly take place, on the more general debates we are present to give the advice that we consider we should give to government and, through government, to Her Majesty the Queen on great issues of state.
Many Members would not be able to give their views unless they were able to do so from a written script. We have imported into this House too many of the practices and too much of the atmosphere of the House of Commons. That should not be encouraged. We should allow Members of this House who have never had experience of speaking in another place to read their speeches if they so wish.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the first item. I shall not speak about the membership of the group until I have seen who will be serving on it. I wrote to the Chairman of Committees before the Recess to complain about the sittings of the House during the time of the Education Bill. We sat long hours and this House could not undertake its revising work properly. I am therefore glad that something is being done. When will the group report?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise to say a brief word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I do not read my speeches. However, I take his point, which I believe is a fair one.
As to sanctions, I agree wholeheartedly across the Floor of the House with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. We are the masters of our own procedure and our own order. We are assisted by the Leader of the House. By convention his intervention is inevitably accepted. If he is not present, we are assisted by one of the Whips. It is the purpose of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, although I may have misunderstood him, to import sanctions into our procedure in order to stop such a practice. It would be for the House to stop it; there is no other proper way.
The reading of speeches in reply by Ministers is within the province of government. It is unacceptable to a degree, certainly to some of us on these Benches, to hear some speeches made by Ministers which simply do not deal with the issues. How can the House discipline the practice? How can one intervene in the middle of a Minister's speech if one is practical about the matter? How can the Leader of the House rise to say, "This is a rotten speech. You are not dealing with any of the questions"? He cannot do so. With respect to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it is not for the Leader of the House to say, "This is a rotten speech, and you cannot do that". It is for the Leader of the House quietly to persuade, albeit behind the scenes, that this practice should cease.
I have not attended this House for long but all Leaders of the House have served it magnificently. We have always accepted their interventions in good heart. Can we not leave it at that?
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, on behalf of those who do not have an impromptu gift of speech, perhaps I may
208
remind noble Lords that one of the greatest readers of speeches was Winston Churchill. So too was Sir Stafford Cripps. The issue depends not so much on whether or not a speech is read but whether it is composed as a speech and not as a memorandum. It also depends upon the way in which it is delivered. Some people are capable of writing speeches and delivering them from a script.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in relation to the method of choosing topical Questions, I observe that they are to be "chosen by lot". Would it not be livelier if occasionally they were chosen by Lot's wife?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for what he said. I am a very new Member of the House. In a debate in which I have only five minutes to speak on an important subject, I have a strong wish to be able to say something solid and worthwhile. I still find it easier to write out such a speech than to deliver it impromptu. I wish that I could be like my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter; but I am not. I hope that the House will be indulgent with those of us who do our best but who read, not from lobbying material but from what we have written based on our own knowledge.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, as regards the reading of speeches other than by speakers on the Front Bench, while I warmly support remarks made by noble Lords today we have to be careful about the recommendation. I intervene briefly to ask a series of questions. How is the House to know whether a speech is being read verbatim? Are they extremely succinct notes? Are they rather full notes? Is it a full text which is being elaborated upon? There are many grey areas on the subject.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend the Chairman of Committees will respond to the points made but a number were directed at me. It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly.
As often happens in this House, as the debate proceeded common sense took over and I was happy with most of the contributions. It seems to me that the rules have to be interpreted with reason and common sense at all times. One hopes to avoid a situation where someone is clearly reading a speech, boring everyone and not getting the issue over well. However, I am not sure that the right way to deal with the issue is to intervene at that moment. There are other ways in which we can deal with the matter.
The generality of views expressed in the debate is right. And the Procedure Committee was right to draw our attention to a practice which perhaps had gone a little the wrong way.
Perhaps I may say a word about Front Bench speeches. I agree that Ministers should always answer debates. When I am in the Chamber I always consider that they do so well, if I may say so. However, the House has to recognise that it is important that Ministers stick closely to their briefs. They have obviously to answer the debate but they have also to make sure that the views of Her Majesty's Government are properly expressed in this House. From that point of view I do not

209
know that their position has been made easier by a recent judicial decision of this House in Pepper v. Hart. There were perfectly sensible reasons for coming to that decision, but it makes it necessary for Ministers to be particularly careful what they say from the Front Bench. I have listened to what Members have said. We shall certainly try to do our best from this Dispatch Box.
I refer to the sittings of the House, and the group that I intend to set up. I have deliberately not started to consult with anyone until discovering whether the House wished us to set that group up. I have an open mind as to how best to set about it. I should be interested to hear the views of any noble Lord on the best way of doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has given an indication. Even from this Front Bench I am as conservative as he is on the way in which changes should take place. But nevertheless there are times when they should occur.
I was intrigued at my noble friend Lord Peyton saying that those who wanted to write their speeches out should deposit them somewhere. He did not say quite where they should be deposited.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords—15 in number—who have taken part in this brief debate. I shall try my best to reply to it and obviously I shall not be reading my speech. Perhaps I may work backwards through the report in that the fourth item was not referred to at all. I therefore take it that the House is content with it.
On "Topical Questions", there seems to be a general welcome for the fact that there should be an experimental period and we shall see how it works. I take the point that there may be a similarity between a Private Notice Question—in other words, a matter of great urgency—and what is topical. However, I think that one must leave it to the good sense of the House, and I am sure that that will prevail. I do not believe that they are necessarily the same. There are plenty of subjects which are topical and plenty which may be regarded as urgent, but it does not happen too frequently that the House or the Leader of the House is invited to allow a Private Notice Question. This proposal is well worth while and I hope that it will be a success. But if it is not, the matter can immediately be reviewed.
On the subject of reading, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has already commented. The situation is immensely difficult. Many of us have never been in politics in our lives before and make very bad speeches off the cuff. It could be said that they are pretty bad when we read them.
I think what was incensing the House in July was that immense tomes seemed to be being read which had patently come from a source which was not the inspiration of the noble Lord reading them. That is something to which we must give considerable thought. It is not an easy matter. Some can do it. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is a hero to us all in his ability, as well as others such as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who is not in her place. Some of us cannot. But to lay down rules beyond those in the Companion seems to me
210
to be extraordinarily difficult. Perhaps it is a matter which can be looked at by the group which is to be set up.
Therefore, I turn, if I may, to the group. It was agreed in early July, and the House will recollect that we had other things to do during that month. The Leader of the House wished to await the opportunity afforded by the Motion now before the House before he embarked upon the discussions necessary before the group can be set up. He will have heard all that has been said today. I hope it will be a group which can look at everything with a totally open mind and imagination to see whether there are ways to make our procedures work better. Whether or not it is successful remains to be seen, but I do not think there is any need to be alarmed by this because its report will go to the Procedure Committee.
It was suggested by one noble Lord that the Procedure Committee itself might be the appropriate body, but I believe that it is too big a group to be able to do such a thing quietly, calmly and inventively. A little invention would not be a bad thing. The proposals would then, of course, come to the House and if the House does not care for them, it will reject them. I am glad that on the whole there has been a general welcome for the report and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
4.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Increase in number of representatives to the European Parliament]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("71") insert:
(" '(ba) in paragraph (b) (Scotland) for "8" there shall be substituted "9";").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps the Minister could advise us. It might be suitable for the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together since they are virtually the same and are tied together. I am grateful to him for indicating assent and for his help.
We have been talking about the Commons and speakers there, but I am not sure that we should follow them too closely. When this amendment or group of amendments was discussed in the Commons, I believe that it took three-and-a-half or four hours. I shall try to be a little more brief. I am sure that the Committee will reach a decision in less time and, who knows, the Government may have had time to reflect on the case for Scotland getting one of the six new seats which will come to the United Kingdom, as agreed at the Edinburgh Summit last December.
The effect of this amendment would be to increase the Scottish representation to Europe by one seat and give Scotland nine seats. With Amendment No. 2, England would get four more seats, raising its representation to 70 instead of the present 66. Wales, as written in the Bill, would have five seats instead of its present four. When the Council of the European Communities made its decision of 1st February 1993 to increase the United Kingdom representation by six seats, there was an assumption in Scotland that our representation would be increased. We did not think that it would be by more than one but we assumed that of the six new seats Scotland would get one. After all, the Secretary of State for Scotland himself commented clearly in his introduction to Taking Stock (a document promised by the Prime Minister during the last election when he was campaigning in Scotland). The Secretary of State said in the foreword that the Government would:
"take steps to complement and add to Scotland's strong representation in Europe".
To me "to complement and add" means that we would receive more representation at the parliamentary level.
There have been interesting exercises in semantics by the Scottish Office suggesting that the Secretary of State was really referring to the Committee of the Regions. Believe me, few people in Scotland took it that way. The mass of people were not even aware of the Committee of the Regions. They were aware of the European Members of Parliament and they assumed that they would get something from the increase. Few people in Scotland, therefore, believed that version. Certainly the Scottish press assumed that Scotland would receive increased representation. I understand that most of the civil servants at St. Andrew's House were of the same opinion. There have been no protests from St. Andrew's House about the rumours coming from there, from responsible civil servants, who assumed that Wales would receive one, England four and Scotland one. It was as simple as that.
The most likely explanation for the Secretary of State either not fighting for an extra Scottish seat or perhaps losing the argument for a special seat is that, when he tried to convince his colleagues in government of the justice of an extra seat, it was pointed out to him that his party had none of the present Euro seats. He then realised that it would he most unlikely that, if another Euro seat were given, his party would get it either. Possibly that was what made the Secretary of State "go canny" on the matter, as we would say in Scotland.
I do not want to dwell too much on the geographical and population arguments, but they have a fair amount of merit. The average size of a European seat in Scotland is about 3,000 square miles. In England it is about 700 square miles. In Scotland something like 171 people live per square mile, whereas in England the number is 955. That is for average European seats. The Highlands and Islands constituency has about the same land area as Belgium but is spread over a length of 350 miles from north to south.
I cite these statistics only to illustrate another point; namely, by having these great areas and having them on the outer fringe of the Community, the sheer quantity of
212
area plus the inevitable low electoral density leads to a whole qualitative change in the nature of the work of a Euro-MP. Noble Lords living 400 or 500 miles from Westminster who return home every weekend will begin to appreciate this point. We are not going home each weekend to meet constituents and to carry out constituency work. We usually go home for a rest or for recreation of some sort. It was suggested in Committee in another place that modern travel and communications have greatly eased the problems. But life becomes more difficult for MPs the bigger the constituency and the sparser the population.
I have absolutely no objection to the additional seat for Wales. I welcome it. Like Scotland, it is an individual nation within the United Kingdom and also within Europe.
I understand that the Government's allocation of the extra seats reduces Scotland's share of the seats in the European Parliament (in terms of British seats) from 9.9 to 9.2 per cent. That is perhaps a very small percentage, but it is certainly felt in Scotland.
It is not possible to base representation wholly on either population alone or land area alone. But it has frequently been pointed out that Denmark and other countries are in the same position. Denmark and Scotland are roughly the same size in population terms. Denmark is far smaller, but Denmark has 16 seats.
I do not for one moment suggest that Scottish men and women spend sleepless nights worrying about the extra Euro-seat. But the Government should be in no doubt that never far from the surface of the Scottish psyche is the consciousness that once again this particular Government have let them down.
I shall be as charitable as I can. I have read the remarks of the Member for Lewes, a member of the Conservative Party, who spoke in the debate in another place—and I give the Government credit in the matter. He said that the Government may have made the incorrect political judgment in not allocating an additional seat to Scotland. Incidentally, that Member of the other place, Mr. Tim Rathbone, voted with the Opposition against the Government, so strongly did he feel about the issue, although he did not put it down to any sleight of practice. He merely said that he thought there had perhaps been a political error of judgment.
We hope that the noble Earl the Minister agrees with that observation and that he has the political clout in government to be able to announce that the Government will rectify the misjudgment and give Scotland the extra seat. We feel that out of six, it is not a bad ratio that England gets four, Wales gets four and Scotland gets four. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I support the amendment. The Bill departs from the principle that we in this country have accepted for a considerable number of years—that the size of a territory and the difficulty of representing it should be taken into account. I represented Caithness and Sutherland with an electorate of 30,000. The area extended 120 miles from one corner to another and the roads were bad. Obviously, it was infinitely more difficult to represent than a tightly knit urban constituency. That has been accepted by our

213
various governments in this country for a long time. It appears to me very logical that we should apply that principle to the European constituencies in exactly the same way. One knows the vast areas that have to be covered, especially as an MEP. That makes the case absolutely watertight for an extra seat in Scotland as a matter of justice and in accord with the tradition of this country.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, wishing to see an extra seat for his own country. He made a very persuasive argument for it. However, the noble Lord refrained, I gather, from saying what he would prefer to have said in more glorious and robust terms. The noble Lord was very courteous in the way he put the case.
The noble Lord referred to the speech of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He said that everyone in Scotland took it from that speech that Scotland was to get an extra seat. What my right honourable friend actually said was:
"Representation within Europe of all parts of Europe must keep pace with developments elsewhere. This is particularly important for Scotland. We are already strongly represented through the United Kingdom. We must have every opportunity to develop our representation within Europe if our voice is to be heard loud and clear, as it must"
Some noble Lords, and indeed some people in Scotland, took that as an indication that my right honourable friend thought or was suggesting that one of the seats should go to Scotland. As noble Lords will be aware, the distribution of the six extra seats was done purely on the basis of arithmetical fairness. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place:
"The strength of the Union depends on all its parts being treated fairly".
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that he did not wish to dwell too much upon the numbers argument. I am not surprised. It would not suit his case too well. At the moment, the scales of the arithmetic are weighted in favour of Scotland as there are on average fewer electors for a European parliamentary seat in Scotland than there are in England. For some curious reason—it may be due to the more copious breeding habits of the English compared with the Scots, or merely to the inclination of the Scots, for an equally curious reason, to wish to leave their country—the fact is that the relative imbalance is getting worse. The population of England is growing while that of Scotland is in decline, albeit only slight decline. I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, saying that he thinks it would be a good idea if Scotland had the extra seat.
If Scotland were to be granted an extra seat, that country's present unfair advantage, namely, that it has on average 10 per cent. fewer electors per seat than have the English, would be such that it would have in future 16 per cent. fewer electors. In other words, England's electorate per seat would be on average 16 per cent. higher than Scotland's should Scotland get the extra seat. That would clearly place England at a disadvantage.
214
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to Denmark. He said that Denmark has a population similar to that of Scotland. Yet it has 16 seats compared with Scotland's eight. That is perfectly true. But it is the United Kingdom as a whole which is a member of the European Community; the individual component parts of the United Kingdom are not. That does not mean that England, or indeed any other part of the United Kingdom, should be seen to dominate. But it does seem that, for the purposes of elections, the principle of one person one vote should be adhered to as closely as possible. Each person's vote should be worth as near as possible the same as that of every other person. I understand that Scotland is big and some of the European constituencies' boundaries are vast. But it is quite likely that, were Scotland to be granted an extra seat, the massive constituencies in the north would remain largely unchanged because an extra seat there would mean that the electorate per seat would then become even lower. If the northern seats remained unchanged, the extra seat in Scotland would be likely to be fitted into the central and southern belt. That would do nothing to redress the difficulties imposed by the sparsely populated areas of Scotland, which I recognise are difficult for those who are Members of the European Parliament.
We have considered very carefully how best the additional seats should be distributed. Having looked at all the possible alternatives for allocating the six extra seats, we have concluded that a split in the ratio of 5:1:0 as per England, Wales and Scotland, is the fairest one that could be chosen.
I simply say to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, that, from the point of view of numbers—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, does not wish to dwell too much on numbers—there are at present in round figures per seat 551,000 electors in England, 555,000 electors in Wales and 491,000 electors in Scotland. After the readjustments suggested, there will be 512,000 electors in England, 444,000 in Wales and 491,000 in Scotland. So Scotland will still have fewer members per constituency than will England. That is the reason why the suggestion has been put forward that the seats should be allocated in that way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister is ignoring another argument which I thought that he would have taken into account; namely, that, when there is a concentration of power anywhere, people are drawn towards it and the periphery always suffers. That is why the small nations which are on the outside of the Union, such as Denmark, have a proportionately larger representation than the big nations. The same is true of the periphery. That is an argument, and the falling population shows it in Scotland, for a better representation in the parliament. The Minister has built purely on numbers.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has a point. If there are large areas which are basically unpopulated, it is inevitable that the people there will suffer from the point of view of influence and so forth more than those in the congested areas. That is a fact of life. But to say that

215
therefore they should have more representatives per 100 of the population than people in the more congested areas does not stand up to diagnosis or reasonable argument.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I, and I am sure most of the people in Scotland who are concerned about this matter, are disappointed in his reply.
Perhaps I may take up one point that the Minister picked up from my speech. I said that I did not want to go into the issue of numbers. That was not because there were not lots of numbers to go into. I thought that they would bore people and that the Minister himself would be aware of many of the ratios and distances involved. Comparing Edinburgh with Luxembourg, although Edinburgh has a bigger population than Luxembourg, it does not have its own MEP. It has to take in a fair part of the Lothians as well. The point could be discussed for a long time.
I cannot agree with the Minister when he says that any additional seat would probably be absorbed in the central area. Perhaps we could have cut off the islands and given them less than the whole of the islands. We could have looked at the lines of communication, as in fact was done during the arguments on the Wheatley Report. Areas like Fort William seemed a long way from Glasgow but, according to all the surveys that were carried out, Fort William was closer to Glasgow in terms of communication and connecting routes than to Inverness, which theoretically is the capital of the Highlands. A lot of other ways could have been found to get the spread. I do not believe that anyone in the central belt can be sufficiently greedy to feel that any new seats should come into the central belt.
I thank the Minister for his reply. It was important for it to have been read out fully, although he did leave it for part of the time. It is a reply which almost certainly will be quoted, not to his detriment but as part of the argument that will go on for a long time in Scotland about this issue. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Initial drawing up of the new constituencies]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("(7) The Committees shall have regard to paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act before determining their final report to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not self-explanatory unless one looks up the 1978 European Assembly Elections Act. Amendment No. 4 is concerned with public inquiries.
Let me start by recognising that the way in which the amendment has had to be drafted, because the Bill is drafted in that way, does not force public inquiries on the committees which will be investigating the parliamentary boundaries. Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2
216
is concerned with optional provision for public inquiries, with mandatory provision when 500 or more electors demand one and with the possibility of further public inquiries following local inquiries. In this amendment—we cannot do any more, given the terms of the Bill—we are drawing the attention of the Government and the committees to the paramount need for public inquiries if democratic control of the representation of the people is to be obtained. This point was covered at some length in Second Reading and I shall try not to be too repetitive. But the issue is so important that it deserves to be aired again.
As the Committee will know, the decision about the extra six seats was taken on 14th December last. Immediately, my honourable friend Tony Blair wrote to the Home Secretary asking what timetable he proposed for implementing the decision which gave the United Kingdom the extra seats. He received no reply for well over a month and the replies that he received at that time were evasive and inconclusive. Indeed, as is well known, the Government took until June this year to come forward with even this little Bill of three clauses and one schedule.
My point is that, if it is claimed that the timetable for implementation of the change in the constituencies precludes setting up public inquiries, the fault for past delays lies entirely in the hands of the Government. They could perfectly well have brought forward this Bill four, five or even six months earlier than they have done. If that had been the case there would not have been the ghost of an argument against democratic public inquiries on Boundary Commission reports.
The second point to be made is the historical one, because Ministers in another place have claimed that there is an adequate precedent in 1978, when no public inquiries were set up. They seem to neglect the fact that the decision about how many seats should be allocated to the United Kingdom was made very much later than it was on this occasion and that indeed there was dispute right up to the last minute as to whether there should be direct elections at all to the European Parliament. Therefore the analogy with 1978 is a very poor one.
The other precedent which has to be drawn to the attention of the Committee is that of 1984, when there was a relatively short period of time but, with elections in June, public inquiries were held as late as March.
It cannot be claimed by any Minister that it would not be possible, given Royal Assent to the Bill within the next few weeks, to secure that the committees reach their conclusions in time for public inquiries to be held well before March 1994. That date was thoroughly inconvenient for the political parties. But perhaps inconvenience for political parties is not the most important consideration. I suggest that the much more important aspect is the democratic right of local people to be consulted on the constituencies of which they will form a part and on how they will be represented. Looking at the debate on the matter in Committee in another place, we find that the difference between the Opposition and the Government on the timetable was as little as seven weeks. That is riot a significant difference and is certainly not an adequate reason for the denial of the right for public inquiries.
Having said that the fault for past sins of omission lies entirely in the hands of the Government, I say now that the remedy also lies within the hands of the Government. It is still possible for them to instruct the committees to have regard to the need for public inquiries. It is still possible for public inquiries to be held. After all, since 1978 and 1984 there have been vast strides in the ability of a committee or of a boundary commission to reach rapid conclusions or recommendations on the alternatives before them.
European parliamentary constituencies are made up of building blocks of Westminster parliamentary constituencies. There are no decisions to be made in regard to moving wards from one place to another. None of those issues occurs. As I said at Second Reading, advances in computer graphics make it relatively easy to run through the options for boundaries which will produce as equal as possible electorate sizes. That could be done in a matter of days if the software available were actually used by the committees. I have no idea whether or not they are using such software; they certainly should be.
We must bear in mind that the Government have already brought the committees into existence without parliamentary approval. The names of the members of the committees were announced in the summer and I understand that they are already at work even though Parliament has not agreed the basis on which they should work. From the point of view of past errors of judgment in the timing of the Bill, past incompetence on the part of the Government in not bringing the Bill forward earlier and in terms of what is possible with goodwill now, there is a chance to hold public inquiries. Democracy requires that there should be public inquiries. The least the Government can do is to accept the amendment and ensure that the committees have regard to the need for public inquiries. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The Government will acknowledge that this is not the ideal way to determine boundaries. The absence of inquiries is a serious matter and an undesirable precedent. The simple question I should like to ask the noble Earl is, whether or not the Government intend to accept the amendment, will they accept that it is not a desirable way to proceed and say that they will avoid that route in the future?
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving me the opportunity to explain the problem. I see the matter as a problem and I understand that the noble Lord would have preferred, as would the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, there to have been an opportunity for what can loosely be described as "public consultation".
The committees which will look at the boundaries of the European constituencies are following as closely as possible the procedures used by the boundary commissions. The short timescale which is available for committees means that there will not be sufficient time
218
for public inquiries to be held as part of the consultation process. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that that is all the Government's fault and that if we had brought in the Bill earlier, that would have been possible. The noble Lord has a point. If the Bill had been brought in earlier, obviously there would have been greater time. But he will be the first to recognise that the parliamentary timetable has been highly congested and that is the reason the Bill was not brought in earlier.
That being so, we must address the position as it stands. There will be a full opportunity for individuals, political parties and local authorities to make their views known to the committees. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that my right honourable friend's reply was late and unclear. However, the committees have now published their initial reports and invited comments upon them. The closing dates for receiving those comments are today for Wales and 22nd October for England. The comments received will be placed on public deposit in town halls for public inspection by 1st November for Wales and 8th November for England. Anyone can comment upon those comments. The closing date for those comments to be submitted will be 19th November for Wales and 24th November for England.
The committees will then consider both the original comments and the comments upon the comments before making their reports, which they will place before my right honourable friend the Home Secretary before the end of the year. My right honourable friend will then lay the report and an order giving effect to the recommendations before Parliament for both Houses to discuss. There is therefore plenty of opportunity for public discussion, public comment, anxieties to be aired and for all those to be taken into account.
The Committee will be aware that my right honourable friend was able to appoint all three of the Welsh boundary commissioners to serve on the committee for Wales and two of the three English commissioners to serve on the committee for England. That ensures that the reviews will be carried out in as similar a way as possible to those of the boundary commissions.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests that there should be an opportunity to hold further inquiries should the commissions wish to do so. I do not believe that it is the intention of the noble Lord to invoke the possibility of two inquiries. It is important that the Committee is aware of the difficulties involved with the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Government can instruct the committees to hold public consultations. In fact there is no time for public inquiries to be organised and held if the six extra seats are to be available in good time for next year's European parliamentary elections in June. Bearing in mind that public inquiries could not be held until after the closing date for representations—today for Wales and 22nd October for England—it is likely that at least nine weeks would be required for public inquiries to be organised and held. Even with the best of good fortune one does

219
not always get that. It would mean that the reports from the inquiries would not be available until well into the new year.
Once the inquiry reports had been submitted to the committees there would have to follow a period of at least five weeks to allow the committee members to absorb fully the contents of the reports and to make their final recommendations. That would take us up to the end of February. The timetable which I have outlined makes no allowances for unexpected illness of committee members, inquiries being prolonged as a result of a deluge of oral representations, or other unforeseen circumstances.
I do not believe that it would be possible for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to lay draft Orders in Council before Parliament until the middle of March. Allowing two weeks for the orders to be debated would take us up to April. The European parliamentary elections are scheduled for 9th June 1994.
If public inquiries were to be held, political parties and electoral authorities simply would not have sufficient time to prepare themselves for the election. Were any unforeseen circumstances to arise, it is possible that we would not have the new seats available in time for the election at all.
There is an additional problem in that regard because all member states must have in place arrangements for their additional seats for them to become operative throughout the European Community. If one member state does not have these arrangements in place, then none of them can have any additional seats at all. If we are not able to meet the timescale, then not one of our European partners would be able to take advantage of these additional seats.
That is the reasoning behind the fact that there will not be public inquiries as such. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked whether I agreed that that was unsatisfactory and whether it would happen in future. I agree that, in a perfect world, it would have been better to hold public inquiries if it had been possible. We shall try to avoid this situation in future, but obviously I cannot give any guarantee. One does not know what the future holds.
I re-emphasise both to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there is in fact plenty of opportunity for public comment, for comments on those comments, for public consideration to be put to the members of the committees and for their views to be taken into account.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we can put out of the way the issues on which we are agreed. We have never complained about the membership of the committees. We have always welcomed the fact that five out of six were boundary commissioners and we are very happy with the appointment of the sixth—the third member for England. That has not been an issue for dispute between us. Let us be agreed on that.
I take comfort from the last words of the Minister when he said—as he did not say at the beginning—that he shared the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and I have expressed about the unsatisfactory procedure which omitted the public inquiry part of the
220
formulation of the parliamentary constituencies. We are glad to have his assurance that he would have wished to have had public inquiries and that, although he could not give a guarantee, he hoped that that would always be the case in future. That is certainly a step forward.
The fact still remains that the failure to have public inquiries is entirely the responsibility of the Government. I also believe that it would be possible for the Government to ensure that public inquiries took place if they really had the will to do so. The procedure and the dates which the Minister has outlined allow for an iterative process of consultation for comments to be made and seen and for comments on comments to be seen. I suggest to the Minister that it would still be preferable to get rid of the second stage of comments being seen and commented on and to replace that by a public inquiry procedure. That would still allow plenty of time for the public inquiries to be completed and for decisions to be taken well before the election.
Although my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton is not in her place, as a former national agent of the Labour Party she would probably disagree with me. My view is that the convenience of the party apparatus is a good deal less important than the principle of real and open public consultation on the parliamentary constituencies. I remind the Minister of what his honourable friend Sir Teddy Taylor said when this matter was debated in another place. What is being proposed, even with the two stages of consultation, is comparable to saying that Parliament itself could be dispensed with. If we do what is proposed here and make written representations, they will be considered by people appointed by Ministers. Ministers would then make their decisions according to their own reasons. As far as Parliament is concerned we could all go home.
That in fact is what is being proposed. It is a secretive process, although written representations are being sought. It is nothing like the cut and thrust of a public inquiry at which there is the opportunity to cross-question those who put their views before it. It is a most unsatisfactory situation. The Government are entirely responsible for it. They are still being obdurate about the possibility of putting the matter right. This is not an amendment on which I could seek to divide the Committee because it is not an amendment which forces anything on the Government. I beg leave to withdraw it but with the greatest reluctance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Short title, consequential amendment and commencement]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: In opposing the Question that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill, it gives me the opportunity to raise the question of the electoral system by which the European elections will be conducted in this country. The noble Earl will not be surprised to find a speaker from these Benches wanting to address the basis of the European electoral system

221
because we have done so before. I have had the honour of sparring with him on this question several times in the past two years.
As the Committee will be aware, Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome prescribes the uniform electoral procedure. In March this year the European Court of Justice ruled that the treaty should be upheld by the Council of Ministers. Therefore, sooner or later, there will be a situation in which the Government will find themselves on the spot on this issue, not least since our partners throughout the European Community do not like the British system, which is their privilege. They do not like the effect that it has on the balance of the European Parliament.
I believe that the Government could have used the European elections to move towards the system recommended by the de Gucht Committee of the European Parliament, which is that of regional lists. There has been some argument in your Lordships' House about whether regional lists are a system for proportional representation. They are such a system. There are some who believe, as my own party does, that if one has a regional list system, within that one should allow for preferential voting within the regional constituencies. But whether one does or not, regional lists are of course a form of PR. The de Gucht recommendations to the European Parliament were deliberately very modestly and broadly couched to make it possible for all European Community countries to adopt broadly comparable systems.
But the Government have chosen not to follow the committee. Instead they have introduced a rather curious procedure which is outlined in the Bill. I do not want to repeat the debate on the last amendment, but it is undoubtedly true that the Government have been laggardly—it did not start early enough. They have bypassed the normal procedures of inquiries which we have just been discussing. That has led to the proposals being fundamentally undemocratic which is probably rather serious when there are elections concerned. There is a feeling—I believe it came through when we discussed the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, concerning Scotland—that the proposals have been rather spatchcocked together. Therefore, I do not believe that the proposals for the European Parliament elections and the extra seats which we are considering, reflect very much credit on the Government.
I wonder why they did not take this opportunity to move, as this House has more than once resolved, towards a common proportional representation system. Those of us who want a more genuinely democratic Europe must want a European Parliament which is more representative and one where every vote cast counts towards the result. I believe there is a great deal of agreement that there is too much of a gap between the people of Europe and the institutions which we are trying to build.
Clearly, the Government do not share that aim because, if they did, through their dogmatic opposition to electoral reform, they would not have been led into these strange contortions which we are discussing this
222
afternoon. I ask the noble Earl this question: do the Government positively want to distort the whole balance of the European Parliament? That will be the consequence of using the British first-past-the-post system in these elections. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out on 23rd March 1990 in the debate on the European Parliament Electoral Reform Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, the effect of our own British first-past-the-post system was, at the last European election, to give a majority to the socialist parties in the Parliament.
Do this Conservative Government want once again to distort Britain's representation in the next European elections which will be held in June next year? I wonder whether the Government are so distrustful of the excessive Euro-enthusiasm of their own MEPs that they want to reduce them in number, because that will be the effect of using the British first-past-the-post system in June next year. Now that they are not very popular in the country, the Government would do well to remember that the first-past-the-post system is a knife which cuts both ways; and a government who, next June, might get only 25 to 30 per cent. of the votes for their candidates at the European election—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If they are lucky.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I hear the noble Lord saying, "If they are lucky". Such a government may find that they will lose many seats to the Labour Party, to the Liberal Democrats and possibly to other parties in Scotland and Wales. I raise that point because the Government often accuse these Benches of raising purely self-interested party matters, so I am simply pointing out that the party implications of the first-past-the-post system cut both ways.
In the end, this is not a party matter. It is a matter of the public interest, as are all electoral systems. It is a matter of trying to define what would produce the democratic representation that would increase people's sense of ownership of the European Parliament.
An argument that the Government often use in the context of electoral reform for Westminster is that a particular choice of electoral system will have an effect on the way in which governments are formed. I am sure that the noble Earl will acknowledge that that question does not arise here. There is no question of a government being formed as a result of the European elections, so the argument that this is the thin end of the wedge does not apply.
I welcome the fact that since the Labour Party conference two weeks ago—and due in no small measure to the sterling efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield—the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party are now agreed that the European elections would best be conducted by a proportional representation regional list system. In fact, I go further. Everybody and all parties in Britain, save the Government, now agree that the current system is not the best system. Any government who find themselves as isolated on issues as this Government have a duty to explain in terms other than those of narrow party interest why they are resisting a reform that would bring us sensibly into line with the rest of Europe.

223
Before the discussion goes any further, I should point out that I do not intend to press the matter this afternoon. But the Government should be warned that this issue will not go away. It is an argument about fairness and justice. It is an argument about the sort of representation that the European Parliament wants and deserves. When the noble Earl responds, I hope that it will be in a manner that is worthy of the seriousness of the subject and that he will not simply make a knee-jerk reflex defence of our existing system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I regret that it has been necessary to deal with the important matter of the electoral system of the European Parliament in the form of a clause stand part debate. Noble Lords who have frequented the Printed Paper Office will know that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, sought to table one amendment and that I sought to table another. His would have given preference to proportional representation of a form unspecified while mine would have specified a regional list. However, the Clerks pointed out—correctly, I am sure—that the scope of the Bill did not make it possible for those amendments to stand for consideration by the Committee. Therefore, we are dealing with what is in effect a stalking horse of a Motion. I rise to speak to it very much as an amateur and I look forward to the contribution of the expert, my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield, who knows far more about these matters than I do.
I should, however, like to speak from a personal point of view and say why I am so enthusiastic about the regional list procedure for the European parliamentary elections. When I said on Second Reading that that was a possibility, the Minister thought that he was taunting me when he said that the Labour Party could not make up its mind until it had taken a decision at conference. He described that as a failure of leadership. I do not accept that it is a failure of leadership. I do not think that this is a matter on which the leadership should dictate to a political party. The Labour Party did exactly the right thing in considering and discussing the matter at conference and corning to a democratic conclusion there. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Plant on the way in which the mailer was considered by the party and the party reached its conclusion.
As I have said, I want to explain why I, who am an unashamed supporter of the first-past-the-post system at Westminster, feel it possible to support a regional list system for the European Parliament. I believe that arguments of principle make Westminster different from the European Parliament. However, I recognise the force of the argument which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington made on Second Reading when he argued that any list system puts excessive power into the hands of the party hierarchy. That is certainly an argument which deserves to be put into the balance.
The first reason why the regional list system seems to me to overpower that objection is, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, that it is the recommended procedure. Lists (either national or regional) are almost universal in other European countries, except for Ireland, and are referred to in the Maastricht Treaty which has now been ratified by all 12
224
countries and which will come into force, I understand, on 1st November. Therefore, if we were to change to a regional list procedure we would be adhering to the spirit as well as the letter of Maastricht.
Secondly, one argument that has always been made for the first-past-the-post system at Westminster is that single-member constituencies of a recognisable size enable the Member of Parliament to represent individuals in the constituency more effectively than could any multi-member or regional system of constituencies. That is true for Westminster, but I argue that it is very much less true for the European Parliament where constituencies are, frankly, far too large to enable the MEPs, however hardworking and however willing, actually to represent many of their constituents individually. Indeed, the whole nature of the European Parliament is that the representation of individuals is a matter for national parliaments and that it is the national parliaments which will make the voices of individuals known to the European Parliament.
The third argument for the first-past-the-post system at Westminster—and the most important of all—is the desirability of having a majority party that is able to form a government. Our representatives in the European Parliament are not able to form a government. They are not required to form a government; they are required to join the representatives of other European countries in providing a legislative function.
For all those reasons, I believe that the regional list system which the Labour Party supports for the European Parliament is rational and the right system, and it is fully consistent with the continuation of a first-past-the-post system at Westminster.
5 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: I have put my name to this Motion because I regard the Bill and the political judgments which lie behind it as a missed opportunity to rethink the electoral system for the European Parliament and to develop and reform it in an incremental way.
This is the Committee stage of the Bill and is not the place for full-blown speeches about the merits and demerits of particular electoral systems. However, it seems to me that there is a strong case for the reform of Britain's electoral system for the European Parliament. The extra seats gained at the Edinburgh Summit would have allowed a reasonably painless start to have been made in that process if they had been used to create a top-up to produce a distribution of seats which would more accurately reflect the pattern of the votes cast in the election.
The case for a reformed electoral system for the European Parliament rests upon a number of factors, none of which is decisive in itself, but which, when taken together, provide a strong case for reform. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, there is the treaty obligation. Under the Treaty of Rome an obligation is laid upon the European Parliament to bring forward proposals for a uniform electoral procedure. Such proposals have now been developed by the institutional committee of the Parliament and they are

225
embedded in the so-called de Gucht Report. The proposals were approved by the Parliament earlier this year.
The report allows for some diversity of procedure, but all the procedures endorsed in the proposals embody the principle of proportionality. So there is some pressure within the European Parliament, and those proposals will be coming to the Council of Ministers. Therefore the issue cannot be evaded. There is also the court case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
Secondly, if the European Parliament is to act as one of the range of checks on the Commission so that the Commission can be made more and more accountable to a wide range of bodies within the Community, including the Parliament, then it is important that the Parliament is seen to act with legitimacy. But the legitimacy of the Parliament itself is not enhanced by the fact that it is elected by procedures which embody different principles—proportionality in the case of all other members of the EC, and relative plurality in the case of the United Kingdom. That difference of principle behind the notion of representation in the European Parliament can hardly add to its legitimate role within the institutions of the European Community.
It might be argued—indeed it has been argued—that the principle of subsidiarity should be applied to the electoral system for the European Parliament so that the British should decide whether to keep first-past-the-post as a system for electing Members of that Parliament. While I am strongly in favour of subsidiarity and decentralisation in general, there are good reasons of principle why subsidiarity should not apply to the electoral system. The exaggerated effects of first-past-the-post mean that the winning party receives an artificial boost under the so-called cube rule, which I do not wish to go into. That means that small swings in the vote can yield substantial differences in seats. That produces a reshaping of the power of parties in the European Parliament which is out of proportion to the role which British Members of that Parliament take.
In the context of the European Parliament, that means that first-past-the-post may have the effect of reshaping the political balance of the Parliament as a result of the domestic electoral system employed in this country. That is an argument for saying that subsidiarity should not apply here; that it is not just a matter for us to decide, irrespective of European views, what the electoral system should be, because it has a direct effect upon the political power and the form of representation in the European Parliament.
Those are the reasons that the electoral system for the European Parliament should be changed from first-past-the-post. It is argued by many supporters for first-past-the-post for the House of Commons—my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is one of those—that we want to keep that system for the House of Commons. I have now reached a contrary view, but even those who think that there should be first-past-the-post for the House of Commons believe that there are significant differences between the role of the House of
226
Commons and that of the European Parliament. Those differences have been alluded to, and I shall not take up the Committee's time rehearsing them.
First, there is the fact that the Executive emerges from the House of Commons and depends upon the support of the House of Commons. That is not the case in the context of the European Parliament. There is that radical asymmetry between the two bodies which might lead one to think that that difference in function could be represented by different electoral systems, without getting into thin-end-of-the-wedge types of argument.
Secondly, there is the size of constituencies. There is the tradition in this country, jealously guarded, of constituency representation in the House of Commons. That obviously has to be taken fully into account when thinking about the British tradition of representation. That is weakened by the size of European constituencies. Euro-MPs cannot be accountable to the electorate in the same way as can a Member of the Westminster Parliament.
Thirdly—the evidence received by the working party I chaired for the Labour Party seemed to support this—on the whole Euro-MPs seemed to relate much more to institutions within their constituencies than to individuals. Members of the House of Commons see themselves as being accountable to individuals; Members of the European Parliament seem to relate far more to institutions and groups within their constituencies. Of course it is not either/or, but the balance seems to be that way rather than to individuals. For those reasons, one can resist the idea that the electoral reform of the European Parliament is the thin end of the wedge for the House of Commons, because I believe that there are fundamental differences which, as I say, could equally be reflected in the electoral system.
In finishing, perhaps I may try to allay one or two worries about proportional representation which have emerged over the past few months and which have been based on some misunderstanding. The first of course is that somehow it is becoming unpopular in Europe: the Italian referendum and all of that. It is false to suggest that the Italians have voted to abandon proportional representation. They have voted to adopt a substantial number of constituency MPs within their Parliament, but, at the same time, one-third of the membership of the Parliament will still be elected from party lists to ensure a proportional outcome. It is misleading to suggest that the Italians have abandoned proportional representation. Secondly, it is argued that proportional representation gives access to small parties, and, perhaps, to rather undesirable parties such as fascist parties. Obviously it all depends on issues such as thresholds, which would have to be subject to discussion and negotiation.
It is worth bearing in mind that the fascist elected in the East End of London recently was elected under the first-past-the-post system. It is also worth bearing in mind that in 1987 11 parties were represented in the House of Commons. Those two arguments (that proportional representation is becoming unpopular in Europe, for which I do not believe there is any evidence, and that about small parties) are not relevant even though they are frequently wheeled out in this debate, because they are about institutions like the House of

227
Commons which support executives. The European Parliament does not do that. It is much more a deliberative than a legislative body. With a deliberative body, and one which needs to increase its democratic legitimacy to act as a sphere of accountability for the Commission, and one for which we have a treaty obligation to move towards uniform electoral procedures, this was a major opportunity missed in which at least one step down the road towards ensuring a more representative system for the European Parliament could have been taken. I regret that missed opportunity.
Lord Hylton: I support the case that has been well and clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and which has been further expanded with refinements by the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield.
I should like to refer to Northern Ireland. As I understand it, the situation there—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that, since the start of direct elections to the European Parliament, Northern Ireland has been treated as one large three-Member constituency, with proportional representation applying. That has presented no problems to the Northern Ireland electorate which is capable of coping with different electoral systems for different kinds of elections. It has led to a good relationship between the elected Members of the European Parliament from Northern Ireland who, although they come from three different parties, have been known to travel together to the United States to make the case for investment in Northern Ireland as a whole. All credit to them for that.
If that kind of experience were applied to Great Britain it would be perfectly possible to group the present European Parliament constituencies in multiples of three or four—or some small number—and everyone would understand the situation, which would produce a better result at the end of the day. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, could not resist the opportunity of introducing the subject of proportional representation. I do not blame him. He takes every opportunity to do so and, so to speak, bully for him. He will not expect me necessarily to agree with him but I understand his point of view. He is entitled to put it forward and correctly so. This has been an opportunity to discuss the matter again and to hear the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who has made a study of the issue.
Whatever views we take about proportional representation, we are trying to find perfection. Of course, perfection does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that our partners in Europe do not like the British system. I do not know whether they do; they do not use it but that does not mean that we should not do so. With regard to the possibility of allocating the seats by proportional representation, the Government remain committed to the idea of elections in Britain by means of a simple majority; that is, the first-past-the-post system. The system is well understood by the electorate and it provides a well understood link between the electorate and the constituency member.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said also that the
228
first-past-the-post system can cut both ways and that the Government might be thrown out at the next general election. That is true but I do not believe that it will happen. It is possible and it does happen from time to time but we all understand it. We understand that the person who wins the most votes is elected. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested that we should try to group the systems together because we all understand them. Of course, what will happen is that no one will understand that.
It is interesting to see that the first-past-the-post system is gaining some favour in the Community. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, the Italians have not abandoned proportional representation. That may be true but they have had a list system which has resulted in them having 52 governments in 48 years. Understandably, they have become frustrated and fed-up with that position. So, what have they done? They have moved towards a system under which 75 per cent. of their members will be elected by the first-past-the-post system.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked why the Government wish to distort the representation in Europe. We do not wish to distort it; we wish to use the system which we have in this country and which people understand. I am bound to repeat to the Committee the fact that proportional representation is not a system; it is an all-embracing expression which covers a number of different systems, each one of which will produce a different result. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, cannot say, therefore, that one must have proportional representation in order to have justice; the result is different depending on which system of proportional representation is used. The noble Lord said that only the Government like the first-past-the-post system. As I have explained, Italy is moving more towards that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he liked the regional list system. He said that I tweaked him on the last occasion by saying that the Labour Party at its conference would have to make up its mind what to do. It did make up its mind—it sat firmly on the fence with one foot on one side and one foot on the other. It endorsed a call for a national referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons but also supported a Motion upholding the tried and tested system of first-past-the-post on the basis that it delivers strong, single-party government. I agree with the last part.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, said that it is in the Treaty of Rome that the European Parliament should bring forward proposals for a uniform system of election to the European Parliament. He is right; the European Parliament must produce proposals. As yet we have received no indication of when a uniform electoral procedure will be discussed by the European Council. The European Parliament has agreed on proposals which have been prepared by the Institutional Affairs Committee, of which Mr. de Gucht is the rapporteur, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said. At present we do not know when the Council will hold those discussions. Of course the Government will examine the proposals when they are brought before the Council, and we are fully prepared to participate in the

229
discussions. However, we see no reason to change our present system of elections. The Treaty of Rome requires unanimity in the Council and I can assure my noble friends that Her Majesty's Government will not be forced into adopting any system which we do not want. The possibility of proportional representation has been discussed many times in this Chamber. We believe that the system which we have is understood, is clear and is one which we have used. We do not wish to see that changed.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Hylton, that the one point about the first-past-the-post system is that people understand it. If Bloggs gets one more vote than Smith, Bloggs is elected. If one takes any proportional representation system the average person will have no idea how it works or what the result will be—
Lord Hylton: Will the noble Earl answer my point about the capacity of the Northern Ireland electorate to understand the different systems and to apply them on different occasions?
Earl Ferrers: Had the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, been kind enough to contain himself for half a moment longer I would have come to that point. It is true that the single transferable vote system is used in Northern Ireland. When direct elections to the European Parliament were first introduced in 1978 it was considered that that system should be used because otherwise it would be possible that all the representatives could be drawn from one section of the community and there only three seats were to be available. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, knows as well as anyone the problems of Northern Ireland and of the different communities there. It was considered that, whatever the result, if all three members came under one party that would be undesirable. That might have happened under the original system and that is the reason why the single transferable vote system was used in Northern Ireland.
I know that I shall not have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Holme—that would be too much to ask. However, I fancy that I might have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, which is good. I can assure your Lordships only that we believe that the first-past-the-post system is the right one.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does the Minister not understand that we are throwing him a lifeline? Does he not recall that at the county council elections in May the Conservatives were able to achieve a majority only in Buckinghamshire? Does he not recognise that the Conservative Party has become progressively more unpopular since the elections? Is it is not highly possible that if the Government persist with the first-past-the-post system for the European elections they might have only one MEP, from Buckinghamshire? On reflection, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, will withdraw his objection to Clause 3.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I understand all the possibilities which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, puts forward. However, the Government are extremely upright. We are perfectly prepared to take what the electorate says. If it wants another party, it shall have another party. Oddly enough, for the past 14 years, it has not done so.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I agree with one remark which the noble Lord made: that he has not satisfied me by his extremely courteous and full response. I fear that this is another opportunity missed. My tears for the Government, rather like those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—and he may think that they are crocodile tears—are for a much more proximate event than the next general election. They are for the next European elections. I merely make the point that the first-past-the-post system (as my own party has reason to know because it is a party which obtains 25 per cent. of the vote) can be peculiarly onerous not in seeking the loss of seats but in seeking a disproportionate loss of seats. However, that is in the lap of the gods and we shall see what happens next June.
The noble Earl made the point about systems that are well understood. One of the points of the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is that the system is well understood in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and people there have had no trouble at all in using a different electoral system. Indeed, the noble Earl and I have exchanged words in this House about the national lottery. This is a country which does the football pools. To make the patronising assumption that the people will not understand—as they are able to do in Northern Ireland and the rest of the European Community—a different electoral system, seems to be entirely unjustified.
Finally, the noble Earl says, on the one hand, that the Government will participate when this matter comes before the Council of Ministers. However, he seems to be saying that the Government will participate with a closed mind. Those of the noble Earl's noble friends who agree with him that there should be no change need not fear that the Government, as a result of hearing counter arguments, could possibly change their mind. That does not seem to me to be a definition of participation but rather a definition of going into the discussions with a closed mind.
Because the Government appear to have a closed mind, we shall continue to harry them at every opportunity and to press them on this issue. However, this afternoon I shall withdraw my objection to Clause 3 and I do not intend to press the matter to a Division.
On Question, Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
5.22 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Viscount St. Davids.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Hayter) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Works: supplementary]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("in compliance with the Special Protection Area provisions of the European Community Wild Birds Directive of 1979").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the series of amendments grouped with it can be described properly as probing amendments. They arise in these circumstances. On 2nd August the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Santona Marshes case. Obviously, that was not available to the Select Committee.
I have read an English language summary of the judgment which I received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which has studied it carefully. Members of the Committee will know that the RSPB has lodged a complaint with the Commission complaining that the Cardiff Bay barrage is in breach of the directive on the conservation of wild birds. The RSPB, having studied that judgment carefully, believes that there is a parallel between the Santona Marshes case and the Cardiff Bay and Severn Estuary.
The complaint against the Kingdom of Spain was that it had failed to designate the marshes adjoining the estuary as an SPA under the 1979 directive on the conservation of wild birds; that it had failed to protect the site from new industrial development; that it had failed to protect the site from the discharge of untreated waste water; that it had failed to protect it from changes in tidal flow patterns; and that it had failed to prevent a reduction in the area of habitat and vegetation.
The court held that Spain was in breach of the 1979 wild birds directive on two grounds: first, it had failed to classify the marshlands as an SPA; and it had omitted to take steps to avoid pollution of the waters and deterioration of the habitat.
On Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, told the House:
"I do not believe the EC directive",
and clearly we were referring to the protection of birds directive,
"poses a problem … We shall endeavour to abide by all the directives which are placed upon us".—[Official Report, 16/11/92. col. 482.]
I tabled this amendment in order to find out whether that is still the Government's view or whether, in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Santona case, they believe that the directive has a direct relevance to Cardiff Bay. I wonder whether, in the light of the judgment, there are any worries at the Welsh Office in particular and the Department of the Environment about the failure to classify Cardiff Bay as an SPA. Or again, I wonder whether they are concerned, in the light of the judgment, that the construction of the
232
barrage may be in breach of the wild birds directive and whether they consider that any changes are necessary in the barrage scheme.
If it is the Government's considered view—and I believe the RSPB has been unable, up to now, to obtain an authoritative statement from the Government—that the judgment does not apply to Cardiff Bay, would they be good enough to explain their reasons for that opinion? That would be appreciated.
I must mention to the Committee that I have only seen a summary of the judgment. It is not in the original but in an English language translation. Will the Minister tell the House whether a Welsh Office lawyer was in court when the judgment was delivered? Do the Welsh Office or the Department of the Environment have a full transcript of the judgment? If so, will a copy be placed in the Library before the Report stage? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: We believe that the group of amendments is inappropriate. The obligations which the EC Wild Birds Directive places on member states are there to be complied with. It is totally unnecessary to write into individual pieces of legislation a requirement to comply with its provisions. It would also be inappropriate to require consultation with the Environmental Directorate-General of the EC Commission. The Government and the development corporation take very seriously the provisions relating to developing and conserving flora and fauna at all stages of the works authorised by the Bill. We are content to leave it to our statutory advisers, the Countryside Council for Wales, and to the RSPB to advise on the most appropriate measures to be taken.
As for the requirement to publish a scheme of nature conservation, the development corporation has already indicated the measures it wishes to take by way of compensation for the birds. Following advice from the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB, the corporation commissioned a feasibility study which concluded that it would be possible to create an area of wetland of outstanding value for wintering and breeding water fowl and for other rare or threatened bird species. The intention is to create a wetland habitat of some 250 hectares at Redwick on the Gwent levels to the south of Llanwern steelworks and 36 hectares of saltwater lagoons at Goldcliff to the west of the site.
Both the countryside council and the RSPB remain actively involved in the development of the reserve. The Government have indicated that, provided planning permission can be obtained and the land acquired, funding of up to £5.7 million will be made available for the establishment of the reserve. That is a practical demonstration of our commitment.
If the noble Lord is suggesting in Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 that the development corporation ought to have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving the existing flora and fauna in the inland bay when operating the barrage, I must tell him that it simply cannot be done. The construction of the barrage will change the nature of the eco-system. At present it is a tidal, estuarine system. When the barrage is built it will be a freshwater lake. An inevitable consequence of the

233
construction of the barrage will be the loss of the existing flora and fauna. New flora and fauna will develop in the inland bay. The Bill, quite rightly, requires the corporation to have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving them. If that is what the noble Lord wishes to see, it can be achieved without the amendments.
It would not be appropriate to enter into a discussion of particular judgments of the European Court here. Suffice it to say that so far as can be judged at this stage the circumstances of the Cardiff Bay are very different from those of the Santona marshes. The Government would not be proceeding with the barrage proposal if we thought that it contravened an EC directive.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the Welsh Office did not have a lawyer present during the proceedings. The European Court has not prepared an English language version of the judgment and, if there is one, it will not be available for some time. However, I am arranging for an English version of the judgment to be prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In due course it will be placed in the Library and should be there before Report stage. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
Lord Prys-Davies: That was a very interesting reply from the noble Viscount. He told the Committee that the Welsh Office was looking to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for advice and that that body was one of its main advisers. However, is it not the case that the RSPB wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales on 21st September claiming that the decision of the Court of Justice was of direct relevance to the scheme? Did not the society ask the Secretary of State to cancel the construction project? Moreover, did it not go further and say in the above-mentioned letter:
"We are advising that in our view Parliament is being invited to authorise a development project which will have the effect of breaching EC law"?
Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State is rejecting that advice?
Baroness White: While the Minister is considering the answer that he is proposing to give to the noble Lord, perhaps he could also give some reassurance about the proposed new reserve in Gwent which to some extent will take the place of what will be destroyed in the Cardiff Bay? There are apprehensions in South Wales that the proposed reserve may not be fully protected from possible road developments and suchlike in the adjacent area. Can the noble Viscount say how far the Welsh Office has fully satisfied itself that it will produce a fully protected new reserve in those circumstances?
Viscount St. Davids: I understand that the RSPB wrote to my right honourable friend and that it has always opposed the project in principle. However, the society has also advised us about the mitigation measures which we have proposed. I can only repeat that we believe that we are complying with the obligations of the directive and, of course, we shall do nothing to work against it. We also understand that the proposed site would not be affected by the road proposals.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am not for one moment accusing the noble Viscount of misleading the Committee in any way. However, his reference to the RSPB would lead one to believe that it was basically in support of the advice that it has given to the House. It is known that the society has lodged a complaint with the Commissioners. Nevertheless, I am concerned with the views of the department. It seems to me that the noble Viscount is saying, without qualification, that the decision of the European Court of Justice has no direct relevance to the present case. Am I correct in my understanding? Is that the position of the Welsh Office?
Viscount St. Davids: I can confirm that it is our understanding that the case has no bearing on our proposals for Cardiff Bay.
Lord Prys-Davies: Those words will be read with a great deal of interest. If the Welsh Office is right, of course they will be reassuring. I note that a Welsh Office lawyer was not present in court when the decision was delivered. However, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for agreeing to arrange for an English language translation of the judgment to be placed in the Library. I take it that it will be placed in the Library in good time and before we reach Report stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I reserve the right to return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("() No such licence shall be granted until an exemption order for the rivers Taff and Ely shall have been obtained from the tertiary treatment requirement for discharges from inland sewage treatment works into sensitive waters as defined under the European Community Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
() No such exemption order may be granted except by a body of suitable expertise and wholly independent from the promoters of this Act").
The noble Lord said: With the above amendment and the six amendments grouped with it I am returning to a concern expressed on Second Reading on 16th November last. All the amendments arise out of the probable application of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive to the impounded lake. Last November, I requested particulars of the measures which would have to be taken if it became necessary to comply with the directive. I also asked about the cost of such measures. The noble Viscount then told me that he was not in a position to assist because it was not then known whether or not the additional treatment would be required, but he promised to write as soon as information became available. However, I have not heard further from the Minister.
I did not see a reference in the report of the Select Committee to the directive. However, since the publication of the report I understand that the National Rivers Authority has advised the Department of the Environment that the Cardiff Bay impoundment, if the barrage is built, should receive sensitive area status—that at least would be an advance on the position of 19th November last—as it complies with the criteria for designation. The designation would require the three

235
main sewage treatment works which are located upstream in Mid-Glamorgan—not far from where I live and therefore I have an interest—to be upgraded from secondary treatment to tertiary treatment by 1998 to remove phosphate and nitrate nutrients from the water. Will the Minister say what the cost would be of upgrading the three works? I assume that the Welsh Office or the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation has worked out the approximate cost of applying the directive and that that is known to Ministers. A figure of the order of £50 million has been mentioned to me. Is that way out? Or is it about correct?
There is provision in the directive which allows the development corporation to apply for exemption from the need for tertiary treatment at the sewage works if it can demonstrate that such treatment would have no real effect on the level of eutrophication. It occurs to me therefore that the development corporation may intend to argue that an exemption should be granted on the ground that upgrading the sewage treatment works will not materially reduce the level of eutrophication owing to the existing pollution of the Taff and Ely rivers. One of our amendments makes clear that we would require the CBDC to obtain such an exemption unless, of course, it accepts that it can comply with the directive. If the CBDC proposes to apply for an exemption, to whom will it make that application? I have seen the directive: it is not clear to me to whom it would apply.
Would it apply to the EC directorate general, as suggested in one of the amendments? Or, consistent with the principle of subsidiarity—we have heard a good deal about that principle—would it apply to the Welsh Office? It is difficult to see how that could be a disinterested party. Would it apply to the Department of the Environment? Perhaps it should apply to an outside body of experts. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on the matter.
I wish to draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 24 of the Select Committee's report which states:
"The Committee was disappointed that the timetable for cleaning up the water in the Taff and Ely upstream is so long … We hope that the programme of measures to improve the water quality in these rivers will be accelerated".
I wholeheartedly support that recommendation of the committee. Those two rivers are among the most polluted in Wales and their waters will eventually end up in the impounded lake. I understand that the National Rivers Authority has confirmed that of about 3,000 combined sewer overflows in Wales, 381 enter into the Taff and Ely and that many of them do not meet even the minimum standards which would be considered satisfactory while a significant number of combined sewer overflows into the Taff and Ely will have to be included in any priority programme of improvement.
Irrespective of what the Minister has to say in terms of replying to the principal amendment, I would be grateful if he would say how many of the 381 combined sewer overflows entering the Taff and the Ely are likely to be deemed unsatisfactory within the terms of the urban waste water treatment directive. Is it the intention that the overflows be upgraded before the impoundment
236
can commence, or can there be an application for an exemption? I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's response to these questions. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the amendments relating to the urban waste water treatment directive are unnecessary.
On the assumption that the barrage will be built the National Rivers Authority has included Cardiff Bay among its current working list of candidate sensitive areas. The authority has yet to finalise its proposals and ultimately it will be for the Government to decide, in the light of the NRA's advice, which areas to designate. No final decision has yet been made about whether the impounded lake will be a sensitive area. If it is designated, the extent to which discharges affecting the bay require additional treatment will need to be decided at that time. However, the development corporation does not currently envisage that nutrient stripping by means of tertiary treatment will be necessary. The key point is that any regulations made to implement the directive will have to be complied with. There is no need for any additional provision in the Bill to make that happen. Nothing in the Bill excludes the inland bay from the general operation of the directive, nor would we wish to do so through some kind of exemption order.
Similarly, there is no need for Amendment No. 7 in order to allow the NRA to require improved water quality in the inland bay. The existing provisions of Clause 8(3) (b) would enable the NRA to set objectives for improving water quality. Finally, the Government are committed to appropriate consultation with the city council on the use of the inland bay. Clause 16(4) requires the development corporation to consult the city council before making by-laws about the use of the inland bay, and Clause 20 specifies that the council should be represented on the Cardiff Bay Advisory Committee. The intention of Amendment No. 9 is therefore already fully met without the need for the amendment.
In the light of these measures I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I hope that my comments that we will not seek any form of exemption reassures the noble Lord. Should the National Rivers Authority seek to designate Cardiff Bay as a candidate for sensitive area status, measures will then be implemented to clean up the discharges that enter the bay.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It may have slipped the noble Viscount's mind that my noble friend asked him some specific questions about the timescale of this matter, whether one has been set, and if so whether it can be adhered to. As regards sensitive area status, we will need to know about the upgrading of the three upstream plants. The question of cost has already been addressed. Will the noble Viscount give some assurance as regards what timescale is envisaged for such an operation, should it become necessary? Will he assure us that it can be done in the time available?
Viscount St. Davids: I shall seek the answer to the question relating to timescale and write to the noble Lord before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: Is it the position that the National Rivers Authority has advised the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office that the Cardiff Bay impoundment should receive sensitive area status? Is that the advice which the departments have received, and are they considering whether to accept that advice?
Viscount St. Davids: I said earlier that no final decision has yet been made as to whether the impounded lake will be a sensitive area. Therefore no other decisions have been made.
Lord Prys-Davies: Therefore, that is still an open question. On the assumption that it is, can the Minister answer my second question, namely, how much will it cost the CBDC and the rivers authority to carry out the measures necessary in order to comply with the directive? Am I right in suggesting a figure of £50 million?
Viscount St. Davids: As yet we can put no cost on the proposals because the matter does not arise. As and when it does the project will be costed.
Lord Prys-Davies: I find that a surprising answer. I should have thought that before we were asked to legislate on this matter the department would have done its homework and been able to say that it would cost £x. However, we are asked to pass this legislation without knowing how much it will cost.
Baroness White: Does the Minister not agree that this is a serious and difficult question for all of us? How can we put any faith in the proposals contained in the Bill if the Government tell us that they do not know how much it will cost? That is absurd. Those of us who consider the state of the Taff and Ely Rivers as one of the most difficult matters if the proposed barrage proceeds find it incomprehensible that serious calculations, if not necessarily definitive ones, have not been made of the cost of clearing up the two rivers.
Viscount St. Davids: I said that the development corporation does not currently envisage that nutrient stripping or tertiary treatment will be necessary. Therefore the matters do not arise.
Lord Prys-Davies: I find the Minister's replies unsatisfactory. The decision as to whether the impounded area will be treated as a sensitive area has not been taken. The department does not appear to know how much it will cost to implement the measures that may be necessary. However, I find it reassuring that, although the sums have not been worked out, the Minister is satisfied that the development corporation will be able to comply with the directive.
I would wish to consult with others on the reply which the Minister has given, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Directions as to operation of barrage]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Operation: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Water quality]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Development and conservation of flora and fauna]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Application of harbours clauses]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("24") and insert ("23").
The noble Viscount said: This is purely a drafting amendment in relation to Clause 18 which has the effect of incorporating in the Bill certain provisions of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Subsection (2) lists those provisions which are not to be incorporated, including in particular Section 24 of the 1847 Act. However, Section 24 will be repealed by virtue of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill which is currently in your Lordship's House. The government amendment simply ensures that Clause 18(2) of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is consistent with the changes effected by the repeals Bill and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [The Cardiff Bay Advisory Committee]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert:
("(d) the amenity of residential areas affected by the provisions of Clause 21 below").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 21. However, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 20 in the light of information which I have received since I tabled the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 relate to the membership of the Cardiff Bay Advisory Committee. In paragraph 7 of the report of the Select Committee it was described as being at the centre of the consultation procedure. Therefore, it is a very important advisory committee. The purpose of the amendment is to establish in the Bill the principle that people living in properties which are likely to be directly affected by the barrage are to be given representation on the advisory committee.
I begin with the simple proposition that those whose daily lives and quality of life are most likely to be directly affected by the operation of the barrage should be directly represented in the membership of the advisory committee. The committee, and eventually through the committee the CBDC, should be fully aware of the experience, feelings and beliefs of residents about the way the barrage is affecting their quality of life. That

239
is the fundamental principle on which the amendment is based. I happen to think that it is a sound principle, because who knows better than the people living in the areas how the barrage is affecting them?
In addition to giving the representatives of the residents' associations direct representation on the advisory committee, this would also acknowledge a degree of direct accountability and responsibility on the part of the CBDC to the residents of the area. There would be a direct relationship between the barrage operator and the ordinary people living in the environment affected by it. I hope that this Committee will see that that principle is soundly based. I beg to move.
Baroness White: I have to declare an interest. I no longer live in the area but I am the owner of a freehold flat in that part of Cardiff. I believe that it is extremely important in relation to this matter and the issue of groundwater levels that there should be appropriate representation from those parts of the city which could be affected in the future. For that reason I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Amendment No. 21 advocates inserting "and adjoining residential areas". That may not seem an important point; it may seem that it should be taken far granted. I respectfully suggest that it is not taken for granted.
As my noble friend has pointed out, that special area of Cardiff is important. It has a long and dramatic history. I shall not entertain the Committee by going through the past 100 years of the history of the area surrounding what is to be the impounded lake. Suffice it to say that it is like no other area in Wales. It is like no other area in an even remotely comparable port. In the Victorian period the area known as Tiger Bay contained immensely respectable residential dwelling houses for the British Merchant Navy at the time of its greatest prosperity. It was a very respectable area. It went through a very bad period in the early 20th century when the policemen patrolled in pairs, if at all, and people frequently went in fear of their lives. The area was blasted half off the face of the earth during the Second World War. It was then resurrected as a residential area after World War II with all the advantages and disadvantages that went with the planning and architectural developments of that time, some of which still remain.
It is an extremely important area and should not be thought of simply as a residential block or two which can be treated like any other residential block. It is extremely important: that it has proper representation and that it is at the very least referred to at the end of subsection (7) (a) of Clause 20.
Viscount St. Davids: The three amendments moved by the noble Lord—.
Lord Prys-Davies: There are only two amendments.
Viscount St. Davids: The two amendments moved by the noble Lord would change the composition of the advisory committee and extend its remit.
240
Amendment No. 19 seeks to have the membership of the committee widened to those groups having an interest in the amenity of residential areas affected by the provisions of the groundwater damage protection section of the Bill.
The Bill already requires the three local authorities—South Glamorgan County Council, Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council—to be represented on the advisory committee. All those bodies obviously have a great interest in the residential area around the inland bay. The development corporation is also proposing that Cardiff Flood Action Committee, which has shown a strong interest in those matters, should be represented on the committee. I am not aware of any other relevant body which would be excluded if this amendment were not made.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to extend those issues that the committee can draw to the corporation's attention to include matters affecting the amenities of surrounding residential areas. Although I doubt whether the corporation would refuse to listen to any observations the committee make, I do not see a case for widening the remit of the committee in this way. In particular it would not be an appropriate forum for discussion about the groundwater protection scheme. There is ample provision for consultation with the local authorities about that in the provisions of Schedule 7. And there are extensive safeguards for the interests of individuals, including a complaints administrator to deal with any problems they may have in dealings with the corporation.
I have not heard any arguments which convince me that the existing provisions on the advisory committee are inadequate and I therefore urge the Committee to reject these amendments.
Baroness White: The Minister may be aware that the problem of adequate representation in the residential areas involves an area a good deal larger than Tiger Bay—which was graphically described by my noble friend. The effect on the River Taff is far more widespread than the possible difficulties involving the immediate Tiger Bay area. The River Taff clearly will be much affected if the barrage is constructed as presently envisaged. There is a strong case for ensuring that the interests of the residents in the area affected by changes in the regime of the river, as well as in the immediate vicinity of the barrage, should be taken into account.
On the basis of the representation described by the noble Viscount, one cannot be certain that that will be done. Two of the authorities to which he referred will not be interested in that specific area. One cannot be certain that Cardiff City Council will take adequate account of the matter.
Viscount St. Davids: We believe that we have the constituent members of the advisory committee correct and that that representation is adequate. We do not believe that it needs to be changed.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady White for her support of the amendment. We appreciate that under Clause 20 the three local authorities are to be represented on the Committee. That

241
is welcomed. Of course, one of them is not directly involved in the area. However, in addition, and for the reasons that I gave when speaking to the amendments, one wishes to have residents' organisations of that area taking part in the work of the committee in addition to the local authority members who will have a general interest in the area. The residents will have a specific interest in the area.
I understand from the Bill that account is well taken of others who have an interest. I refer to those who have an interest in the operation of the barrage, in the management of the inland bay, and in the navigation in the inland bay. We simply say that there should also be a residents' interest group and that it should be referred to in the Bill.
The noble Viscount made reference to the Cardiff Flood Action Committee. I note the reference in paragraph 7 of the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee had seen a draft membership of the committee but a draft can be changed. The draft included a representative of the Cardiff Flood Action Committee. I do not argue a case for that particular committee but in the 1990 Bill that organisation had been given six representatives. It is now given one. We fear that, unless an amendment on these lines is written into the Bill, the residents' association will have no representation on the advisory committee. We believe that its voice ought to be heard.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, will have discussions with colleagues at the Welsh Office to see whether justice is being done to the residents' organisation. Will he take the issue back and consider it?
Lord Finsberg: My interest is this. For many years my late father lived in this part of Cardiff. I know the area because I took him back to his boyhood area.
I listened to the debate. However, it may not be clear that the Bill permits the Secretary of State to give such a direction if sufficient representations are made and there is a proper residents' association. So it is flexible and I should have thought that it covered the important points that have been made.
Viscount St. Davids: I thank my noble friend for his observations and comments. We feel that the residents and their requirements as representatives on the advisory committee are covered through the three named local authorities. We feel that we have got the membership of the committee right, but I shall, of course, bring the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to the attention of my right honourable friend to see whether he may care to make any addition.
Lord Holderness: In addition to what my noble friend has just said in support of the Minister's view, my colleagues and I who served earlier this year on the Select Committee were particularly impressed by the assiduity with which the local government representatives put forward the views which were strongly held both by them and their constituents, people living in the Cardiff area. I feel that probably on balance my noble
242
friend has got it right and allowing that representation and also possible further representation mentioned by my noble friend is a satisfactory answer.
Viscount St. Davids: I thank my noble friend for his comments and reaffirm that we believe that we have got it right.
Lord Prys-Davies: I note that there are two views in the Committee on the issue and that the noble Viscount said that he would ask his ministerial colleagues at least to consider what has been said in favour of the amendments. I understand that there is no undertaking, but at least the noble Viscount's ministerial colleagues will give this further consideration. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Groundwater damage protection]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, line 39, at end insert ("and may not abridge or reduce entitlement to such protection").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I return to an issue which I raised in the Second Reading debate. I and many of us are still bothered by Clause 21 as the power to amend the protection which is enshrined in Schedule 7 can be exercised so as to reduce the protection available. Again, I respectfully remind the Committee of the assurances which have been given in the past by Ministers in another place. The assurances were that the power would not be exercised in a way that would reduce the protection.
By way of reference, we could turn to col. 636 of Hansard for the other place of 25th November 1991 and to col. 166 of Hansard for Standing Committee F of 7th July 1992. The noble Viscount gave an assurance in this House in line with the assurances which have been given in another place. However, the wording of the assurance which was given in another place does not appear in the Bill. In paragraph 18 of the Select Committee report we are told that the promoters had argued that it had been made clear at Second Reading in this House that the Secretary of State would exercise the power only,
"to the overall benefit of petitioners".
That is a small but possibly significant departure from the earlier assurances. But the noble Viscount made no such statement during the Second Reading debate. However, in a letter to me of 2nd December 1992 he explained that the Government could not be certain that an amendment to the protection scheme:
"would not technically reduce the protection for someone else".
This is a probing amendment and I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would indicate to the Committee in what circumstances the power in Clause 21 would be exercised so that it would technically reduce the protection for some residents.
What is the significance of the word "technically" which was used in the letter but was not used in the other place? It suggests that no one will be in a weakened position. Is that right? Am I right in drawing that conclusion? If it is right, why use the word "technically" at all? If, on the other hand, some

243
residents will lose out when the protection is amended, then the promoters' use before the Select Committee of the words "overall benefits" begins to make sense. I trust that the noble Viscount can clarify his letter and the reference in paragraph 18 of the Select Committee report. Then one can decide whether one needs to take this further. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: The issues raised by this amendment have been discussed exhaustively during the course of the Bill. I explained in my opening remarks at Second Reading that none of us wished to see any reduction in the protection contained in the Bill. But the scheme of protection in Schedule 7 is necessarily complex and we cannot guarantee that minor difficulties may not emerge when we put it into practice. That was the reason for putting the power to make regulations into the Bill.
Again, as at Second Reading, I should like to remind the Committee of the remarks of my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Wales during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place on 25th November 1991. He made it clear that he had no intention of using the power under this clause to amend the groundwater protection scheme. He said, however, that he would be prepared to use it if it emerged that the interests of individuals were not being properly protected in practice by the scheme.
Any regulation amending the schedule would be subject to affirmative resolution, thus giving your Lordships the opportunity to debate it. In addition, it would be a hybrid instrument, thus giving affected people the opportunity to petition against it to your Lordships. These arrangements will provide more effective and appropriate protection than the proposed amendment.
Following Second Reading, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on 2nd December 1992 setting out the position in detail. A copy of my letter is in the Library. Subsequently, the Select Committee of this House chaired by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara indicated that:
"we conclude that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the Secretary of State's powers will not be misused. We have not been convinced that amendment to the Bill is either necessary or desirable".
I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his response. If I may say so with respect, I do not find it all that helpful. We accept what was said in the other place. Those assurances were unqualified. But in his letter of 2nd December last year, he speaks of a possible technical reduction in the protection that would be available to others. I was inviting the noble Viscount to clarify what was meant by the phrase "technically reduce the protection for someone else". Would he like to clarify the meaning of that phrase?
Viscount St. Davids: In affording protection to one person it is technically possible to reduce the protection of another party. It is possible to create an aggrieved
244
party by giving benefit to another party. But, of course, should that happen, the aggrieved party has the protection through a petition to this House.
Lord Prys-Davies: That is helpful. As I understand it now, it will not be exercised in a way that will adversely affect the interest of a certain resident. It will be exercised in the way that will give benefit to other residents. Somebody might be aggrieved about that. I am content with that explanation. I am also gratified that it will be necessary for the amendments to be confirmed by affirmative resolution. I was in the House last evening and heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, explaining to noble Lords the significance of that guarantee. I take some comfort from the words of the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Development Corporation: transfer of functions]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 14, line 16, at end insert:
("(2) The Secretary of State shall not consent to the transfer of such functions under the said section 165 unless he is satisfied that—

(a) arrangements have been made which will ensure that adequate funds are available for the future maintenance after transfer of the works authorised by this Act and related works provided by the Urban Development Corporation in connection with the barrage, and

(b) the obligations of any Direction which he may have made in respect of the Development Corporation relating to the maintenance of groundwater levels have been transferred to the nominated successor.").

The noble Lord said: The Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, like all the development corporations, will have a limited life. But the barrage will be a part of the landscape in perpetuity and will have to be maintained in perpetuity.
Cardiff City Council has a fundamental responsibility to the citizens and residents of Cardiff. I can assure the Committee that the council has given considerable thought to the problems that can arise in the future after the dissolution of the development corporation and in the event of the barrage undertaking being transferred to a private sector body. The question that concerns Cardiff City Council is this: on whom would the responsibilities and costs of maintaining the barrage fall in the event of a private sector successor body going into liquidation?
I believe that your Lordships' Select Committee was alive to this risk. That emerges clearly in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the report. In paragraph 34 the committee came to this conclusion:
"The Committee accepts the importance of long-term certainty in a major scheme such as the Cardiff Bay Barrage. While we have not been convinced that there would be value in trying to write this into the bill itself, we do believe that by taking on the proposal as a hybrid bill, the Government and its successors have accepted a responsibility for maintaining the scheme in perpetuity. Implicit in this must be an understanding that the costs of keeping up the scheme will not fall on the Council Tax payers of Cardiff".
The discussion on this amendment, which is supported by Cardiff City Council, gives the noble

245
Viscount an opportunity to confirm that the Government, for their part, accept the Select Committee's conclusion in paragraph 34, and to indicate to the Committee how they intend to discharge that responsibility.
There are two parts to the amendment. Subsection (2) (a) contains one necessary measure in the view of the Cardiff corporation and its lawyers. It would require the Secretary of State to ensure, before he consents to the transfer of the undertaking, that adequate funds are available to meet foreseeable maintenance needs. This need would arise where the successor body, the private sector body, ran into financial difficulties. That is a possibility. Clearly, the financial arrangements which are contemplated in subsection (2) (a) of the amendment would include an adequate insurance bond, an insurance guarantee or a government guarantee.
Subsection (2) (b) of the amendment relates to the de-watering direction which the Secretary of State, as I understand it, intends to issue under Section 138 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 if the development corporation decides to proceed with the de-watering. The amendment would require the development corporation to ensure that the obligations of the direction under Section 138 would be effectively transferred to the successor body. This recommendation reflects the recommendation in paragraph 38 of the Select Committee's report when the committee said:
"In fact, we understand that the requirements of the direction would be one of the obligations of the CBDC when its life comes to an end".
I can tell the Committee that the terms of the draft direction, which was referred to in subsection (2) (b), has been much discussed between the lawyers for the city council and the Welsh Office team. I am very glad to be able to say that a draft which was produced on 23rd August by the Welsh Office meets the concerns of the Cardiff City Council. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, if the Secretary of State receives from the CBDC a de-watering proposal which is satisfactory to the Welsh Office, he will issue a direction in the terms of the draft direction of 23rd August. I emphasise the importance of the draft direction of 23rd August. That is acceptable to the Cardiff City Council provided that it has an undertaking or an understanding that it will be issued in those terms.
I should mention another point which is not directly referred to in paragraph (b) but which arises out of the same situation. I believe it is common ground between the city council lawyers and the Welsh Office that the city council would not be a party to the direction. If it is not party to the direction, it could not take any proceedings against the successor body if it were in breach of the direction.
I suggest—or the lawyers acting for Cardiff City Council suggest—that there may be two ways of overcoming that difficulty, though I accept that they are not referred to in the amendment. The first would be if the Welsh Office were to use its good offices either to ensure that the CBDC enters into a direct agreement with the city council in the terms of that direction; or if there were a tripartite agreement in the terms of the
246
direction. I accept that that is not spelt out in the amendment. If it is something that the Minister wants to take back, then he may take it back—I should be very happy for him to consult with colleagues. But irrespective of that, subsection (2) (a) and subsection (2) (b) of the amendment are, in the view of the lawyers for the Cardiff City Council, essential if the council is to protect the interests of its council tax payers in the future. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: The transfer of the development corporation's undertakings in whole or in part is governed by Sections 165 and 165A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. Clause 27 provides that all functions exercisable by the development corporation under this Bill and all related rights and liabilities, form part of its undertaking for the purposes of Section 165. Clearly, therefore, all the "works" referred to in paragraph (a) of the amendment, together with all rights and liabilities relating to them, are part of the corporation's undertaking.
Section 165 of the 1980 Act as amended by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, provides that an urban development corporation may transfer its undertakings to a local authority or other body or to a statutory undertaker. However, Section 165 also provides that undertakings can be transferred only by agreement. Such an agreement requires the approval of the Secretary of State and the concurrence of the Treasury. There is, therefore, no question of a successor body being forced to take on liabilities if it considered the associated financial provision to be inadequate.
If any liabilities cannot be transferred by means of an agreement, the development corporation cannot be dissolved unless the outstanding liability is vested in the Secretary of State.
The liabilities arising from the operation, management and repair of the barrage and associated works are no different in principle from any of the other liabilities of the development corporation. The identity of a successor body will be considered as part of the wider exercise to consider the transfer of its overall liabilities on dissolution. The provision of funding will also be considered at that time.
My right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State gave Cardiff City Council an assurance that the barrage will he funded from the central government element of his block funds and not from funds for grants to local government. This relates to both capital and revenue funding.
As for the possible transfer of the liabilities to the private sector, I do not think that there is anything to be gained by speculating about the precise arrangements which might apply in a hypothetical transfer to a private company.
The second part of the amendment deals with a direction to the development corporation by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Committee will recall from the Second Reading debate that I referred to the prospect of de-watering wells as a means of controlling groundwater levels after the

247
barrage is built. The Welsh Office and the development corporation have been considering how it might be possible to ensure that pumping would continue at the appropriate rates if a decision is taken to proceed. They have proposed a direction under Section 138 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which would require the development corporation to continue pumping at rates which would maintain the desired groundwater levels if such pumping operated to prevent damage.
I can tell the Committee that obligations arising from such a direction would form part of the development corporation's undertaking to be transferred on exactly the same basis as the transfer of any other liability. Whoever took on responsibility for de-watering would do so only by agreement. The Government were able to satisfy the Select Committee of this Chamber, chaired by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, on this point.
I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State for Wales has undertaken that, if a decision is made to proceed with the de-watering in the light of detailed design, he will make a direction on the lines I have outlined. Clearly Secretaries of State expect their directions to be complied with; I am sure that a Secretary of State would take appropriate action if a third party, such as the city council, reported that it was being breached.
In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may begin with the last part of the amendment. I followed carefully what the Minister said and I believe that his comments are reassuring so far as paragraph (b) is concerned. But—because this is subject to the Cardiff City Council having an opportunity to study his speech—it appears to me that we are probably bridging the gap and that a direction will be made in the terms that I mentioned in my remarks on the amendment.
However, I am not so sure that I followed the Minister's response to the first part of the amendment. The worry arises in the event of the undertaking being transferred to a body in the private sector. The Minister will say that I am now looking way ahead into the future and they are not prepared to address the situation which I have mentioned. But in legislation we are addressing the future and it is conceivable that a successor body would be a body in the private sector.
I accept that the Secretary of State would satisfy himself that such a body was at the time of transfer in a position to meet the financial liabilities. But subsection (2) (a) goes further than that and requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the body has produced financial undertakings—insurance policy, insurance bond or a bond supported by the Government—and in the event of its going into liquidation the local authority can look to the bond. It seems to me that that point has not been adequately covered. It is an issue to which we may well have to return after we have had an opportunity of studying carefully what the Minister said. But if he wishes to come back on the first part of
248
the amendment and can assure me that the Secretary of State has considered the position and is prepared to require a transferee or a proposed transferee to produce the guarantees which are contemplated by the amendment, that would be satisfactory.
Viscount St. Davids: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I cannot conceive of circumstances in which the Secretary of State would allow the transfer of the operation and liabilities of the development corporation to pass into hands in the public sector or the private sector which were inadequately funded. I cannot conceive that the Secretary of State would allow the development corporation to pass on all its rights and liabilities to a body which is not capable of funding them into the distant future. I cannot see that the case would arise.
Lord Prys-Davies: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It seems to me that we do not have a clear understanding that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied not merely that the transferee is in a financial position to operate the undertaking at the time of transfer. Of course he will satisfy himself as to that. But it is material to know the position if some time in the future, 10, 20, 50 years hence or longer, the transferee were to go into liquidation.
I shall not pursue the matter further this evening. It is a matter which will have to be studied carefully by the city council and its lawyers and therefore H reserve the right to return to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Groundwater damage protection]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 31, line 19, after ("to") insert:
("a garden or any appurtenance thereof")
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee long with Amendment No. 24. Its purpose is to ensure that the compensation code covers gardens and their appurtenances—greenhouses and garden sheds—whether or not the garden adjoins a building, from rising dampness.
If a barrage is built then the garden and lawn should be as usable as they are at present. Compensation should be payable if they are damaged in any way. Amendment No. 24 seeks to obtain clarification from the Minister as to what compensation may be available to the owner of a garden, whether or not it is attached to a building, in the event of a garden or a structure within it being damaged. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: The proposed amendment raises an issue that has been the subject of extensive discussion in Select Committee both in this House and in another place. The amendment as drafted would include gardens—and presumably such items as garden sheds, swings, garden slides and the like—as part of the "building". Thus it would be necessary for those items to be surveyed both before and after impoundment. The impracticality of surveying gardens and the difficulty

249
comparing pre- and post-impoundment conditions has resulted in the rejection of this approach on the previous occasions it has been considered. However, the Government have accepted the need to protect gardens and a protection scheme is included in Schedule 7, paragraph 18. This was included in the Bill at the request of the Select Committee in another place.
The issue was raised again in front of the Select Committee of this House. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara commented on the provisions in his report from the Select Committee on 16th March this year. It may be helpful if I quote the committee's view.
"The Committee endorses the desire of the Commons Committee to give proper protection to gardens and other open land. We welcome the Promoter's undertaking to amend the Code of Practice to specify that garden walls will be eligible for remedial works if groundwater damage is clearly established".
The committee then went on to say:
"We are content that gardens and other open land are now adequately protected by the Bill and the various related Agreements. The Committee was not convinced that it would be either practical or desirable to carry out the surveys of gardens".
I believe that we have heard nothing new in the debate on this issue. As the matter was considered in detail by the Select Committee both of this House and in another place, I urge the Committee to endorse the view expressed by the chairmen of those committees and to reject the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree that I said nothing that was new or original. The object of the amendment was to obtain clarification from the noble Viscount. He has given me that clarification and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 34, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert:
("(a) the whole, or substantially the whole, of it is occupied as one or more private dwellings, or
(b) it is unoccupied but either—

(i) when it was last occupied the whole, or substantially the whole, of it was so occupied, or

(ii) it is intended that the whole, or substantially the whole, of it should be so occupied.").

The noble Viscount said: During the hearings of the Select Committee of this House which examined the Bill earlier this year, a number of representations were received about the application of certain provisions of Schedule 7 to buildings in mixed residential and commercial use. The position of such buildings was clarified at Select Committee stage. However, at that time, the need to make this essentially consequential amendment was overlooked. The effect of the amendment is that full survey costs will not be charged in relation to properties the whole, or substantially the whole, of which are occupied as private dwellings, a survey of which has shown that there is no groundwater damage. An example would be a dwelling from where the owner or occupier also carries on a business. I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.