Lords Sitting of 10 February 1994

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

Azerbaijan: Arms Allegations
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can confirm, as reported in the Independent on 24th January 1994, that British mercenaries are fighting for Azerbaijan against the Armenians and that British firms are supplying Azerbaijan with weapons despite a British arms embargo.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, officials are continuing to investigate the allegations published in the Independent. We have no evidence that British mercenaries are fighting for Azerbaijan or that British arms have been supplied to that country. We continue to support the CSCE arms embargo and in no way condone the supply of arms or mercenaries to either side.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. It is encouraging that the investigation is continuing because there is still anxiety about allegations of British involvement in that tragic conflict. Is my noble friend aware that this is a particularly sensitive issue as many Armenians believe that Britain has been favouring Azerbaijan, having, for example, an embassy in Baku but not in Yerevan? Is she also aware of the distress caused to the Armenians by the appalling effects of five-year long blockades imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey and a recent escalation of military offences by Azerbaijan against the Armenians of Karabakh, involving many Mujahedin mercenaries? Can my noble friend therefore reassure the House that Britain is doing everything it can, and may even step up its initiatives through the CSCE and other channels, to prevail upon Azerbaijan that it should desist from its long-standing violation of human rights against the Armenian people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend, as I sought to do in our debate on 28th October last, that the United Kingdom adopts a totally even-handed approach to the terrible conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. We are aware of the problems caused by the effective blockade of economic routes via some neighbouring countries. Humanitarian aid is getting through, and a British NGO—MERLIN—has been active in support of my noble friend's efforts through Christian Solidarity International. A resolution of the dispute is urgent; otherwise we cannot ease the problems of the blockade. Little progress has been made in the CSCE talks, the next round of which has still to be scheduled. I understand that diplomatic efforts are continuing behind the scenes and that the new Swedish
1690
negotiator, Jan Eliasson, hopes to be able to start work very quickly. We hope that there will then be a peace plan to which everyone can sign up.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do the directors of a United Kingdom company have a duty to ensure that overseas subsidiaries of that company observe the embargo? Do British people or organisations have a duty to refrain from assisting in the supply of mercenaries or arms by a foreign organisation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that it depends upon the law of the land in which the subsidiary operates. I believe that there is a moral duty on a British company. We sincerely hope that no one will supply either arms or mercenaries to either side of this conflict, or to any other.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I right or wrong in thinking that the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 would render the conduct of these mercenaries, if any, an offence? If so, should not the fact be widely known?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we hope that all persons who may have been tempted to involve themselves in such activities will desist from doing so. I am not certain of the legal point which my noble and learned friend raises, but if there is any evidence of illegal activity, which I believe this to be, it should be passed to the police authorities for further investigation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that some of us on both sides of this House belong to the British-Armenian Parliamentary Group and to a larger outside group and that we meet people from Armenia often, and bearing in mind also that there are many Armenian people in London, will the Government do everything they can—I am sure they will—to prevent further affliction being imposed on the people of Armenia? The Government have a good record on these issues and I hope that they will maintain it. I shall be happy if the noble Baroness can tell the House that the Government will do anything they can to help the Armenian people.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have been discussing these very matters this week with President Ter-Petrossian who is visiting this country as a guest of the Government. The President has held meetings with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He has had an audience with Her Majesty the Queen, and I gave him dinner on Tuesday when we had a long and fruitful discussion about further Armenian support.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not the case that both Iran and Turkey have refused requests for military help from Azerbaijan? Does that not speak well of the CSCE embargo, and should it not be made much more widely known?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it should be made much more widely known. I hope that he is right in what he says about both Turkey and Iran.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, did the discussions this week to which my noble friend referred include the question of British representation in Armenia? Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government inclined to try to persuade the Russians to put forward a similar peace plan to the CSCE because, as I understand it, the fact that two such peace plans are in circulation is an excuse for postponing a settlement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to answer my noble friend's second question first, I believe that the Russian Government can play a positive role in mediating a solution. However, all efforts must be in close liaison with CSCE efforts. In that way there will not be competing peace plans which might ditch both of them. In answer to my noble friend's question about representation, the President of Armenia did not raise the matter with me. I cannot answer for my colleagues. However, I know that our ambassador in Moscow, who is accredited to Armenia and Georgia, undertakes regular trips to the region. Great appreciation of his efforts was expressed to me on Tuesday.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that, rightly or wrongly, the question mark relates to the Government's impartiality since there is United Kingdom representation in Azerbaijan? What is the distinction between that situation and the situation in Armenia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, when the decision was taken it was thought that the connection between Moscow and Yerevan would be a good deal easier to manage than that with Baku. I understand the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord. It may seem a one-sided matter, but I can assure him that that is certainly not intended. I know that the matter is being kept under review.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend on the even-handed approach which the Government attempt to take in a tragic conflict, does she agree that Armenia's principal mistake in this terrible story is that it has not discovered oil?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the situation in the Transcaucasus might be even more vexed if more oil were found. However, since oil represents wealth to these nations which so badly need to build up their economies, we have to hope that they will find oil one day.

Development Board for Rural Wales
3.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken regarding allegations of improper conduct by the Development Board for Rural Wales concerning their house allocation procedures and other matters.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Public Accounts Committee, at a hearing on 24th January, examined the
1692
Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Office and the Chief Executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales about matters raised in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the board's 1992–93 annual accounts. The Public Accounts Committee will be reporting in due course on the results of their inquiry. We would not wish to anticipate or pre-empt that report.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he agree that at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to which he has referred, the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Office stated that the behaviour of that organisation had been wholly unsatisfactory and wholly indefensible? In the light of that statement, in the light of the impropriety that it indicates so far as concerns the work of the Welsh Development Agency, and the fact that police inquiries are now taking place into Health Promotion Wales, what action is the Secretary of State for Wales taking to deal with this constant flow of evidence that there has been impropriety in quangos in Wales?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is preparing a compliance review which has been commissioned from consultants, and an efficiency scrutiny by the Welsh Office, which are currently being reported on. Those reports are expected to make recommendations to ensure that adequate monitoring systems and effective controls exist over the board's procedures, management, administration and financial control.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, during the past couple of years we have had a series of critical reports about that quango and the Welsh Development Agency. In the reports the deficiencies strongly suggest that the quango and the Welsh Development Agency have been operating as though they were above the law. Does the Welsh Office accept that there has been any failure on its part to ensure that those quangos are accountable to the Welsh Office and to the public; or is the Welsh Office above criticism?
Turning to the future, being a small territorial department, does the Welsh Office lack the necessary expertise to devise ways and means to ensure that the quangos are properly accountable to it and the Welsh public?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is to ensure such accountability that my right honourable friend has commissioned the two reports to which I have already referred. While I am sure that we all deplore fraud and the misuse of public funds, we should also remember the great benefit that has been brought to the Principality by the two boards.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on a purely technical point, will the noble Viscount be kind enough to explain to the House what the appointment of outside consultants has to do with the Question on the Order Paper? That relates to improper conduct.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I stated that my right honourable friend

1693
the Secretary of State for Wales has appointed a firm of consultants to report on those matters in order to ensure that such malpractice does not occur again.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that what is involved is the position of the accounting officers of the organisations? Is it not wholly unsatisfactory that with regard to those quangos it has been established in one case after another that there has been total impropriety in the running of the organisations?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that such things do not occur. I am quite sure that once the compliance review has been reported on and the efficiency scrutiny acted upon, these matters can be brought to an end.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is this not a matter of efficiency but of decency?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, before making any further comments, I believe that we should await the PAC report.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the noble Viscount answer my second supplementary question? Does the Welsh Office have the necessary expertise to ensure ways and means of securing accountability of the quangos both to itself and to the members of the Welsh public? Otherwise, there will be no confidence in the regime of the quangos.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Welsh Office has that ability.

Sheep Dip Disposal: Report
3.15 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to publish the report by the National Rivers Authority entitled Disposal of Sheep Dip Waste: Effects on Water Quality; and, if so, when.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, this report was commissioned by the National Rivers Authority and the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research. I understand that this report will be published on 8th March.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. It is refreshing to hear a date given instead of the usual "soon". I am also pleased that most of the recommendations of the National Rivers Authority have been taken on board by the Ministry of Agriculture.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister how it will police the correct disposal of sheep dips. While many farmers understand that they must not pour spent sheep dip into rivers, streams and ponds, they do not understand the implications of residues in groundwaters. Although the
1694
Government recommend that it be disposed of in slurry, many farmers and contractors are still just tipping it on the ground.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Countess is a well known and respected sheep farmer in the North. She well knows that ample advice is always at hand to the farmer in the form of codes of good agricultural practice and guidance leaflets. Furthermore, I am sure that the noble Countess knows that the water regulatory authorities have a programme of farm visits the purpose of which is to advise the farmer on how to avoid causing pollution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 17th June 1993, at col. 1661 of the Official Report, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, reported that the Government had received a letter from the European Commission following a complaint that it had received about the application in the United Kingdom of Directive 80/68 on the protection of groundwater against pollution from spent sheep dip. He stated:
"The Government are carefully considering the Commission's letter and will be sending a full reply in due course".
Has that full reply been sent, and what does it contain?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Commission has agreed to revisit that directive on the spreading on to land of sheep dip. We hope to be able to say something along those lines shortly.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply to my supplementary question. He stated that the National Rivers Authority has advisers who go to farms. However, I gather that they are few and far between. In 10 years we have not seen one on our farm. Are there any other authorities, for example the Health and Safety Executive, which have powers over the farmers to ensure that they dispose of their sheep dip properly?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again, as the noble Countess will know, perhaps one of the most important advisers and authorities on the issue is ADAS.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl help me a little further? What does "revisiting a directive" mean? It is not an expression with which I am familiar. Does it mean that a new version of the directive is being considered? If that is the case, does the present directive remain in force? If so, is there a letter replying to the application under the present directive?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, "revisiting" simply means that the Government are having a look again at the specific directive to see that the contents of that directive are sensible and can apply equally to other member states as well as to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the ADAS advice to which the noble Earl referred available free to farmers or do they have to pay for it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall correct myself in writing if I am wrong; but I believe that in some cases it is free advice; in others, it is paid for.

DoE Appointments: Members' Spouses
3.19 p.m.
The Lord Bonham-Carter The Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why information about how many spouses of Members of both Houses of Parliament have been appointed to public positions by the Secretary of State for the Environment is not available.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, although the background of potential appointees is looked into before an appointment is made, details of spouses are not requested by the Department of the Environment because this is irrelevant to a candidate's suitability. With over 900 current members of DoE boards appointed by the Secretary of State, even an exhaustive search of individual appointment records could not reliably provide information on members' marital status. We consider that such a search would be disproportionately expensive.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his risible reply. May I ask him why it is possible for the Department of Health to supply those answers and not the Department of the Environment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, I do not think it is at all a risible reply. It is absolutely genuine in this context. To suggest otherwise is not becoming or worthy of the noble Lord. As regards the point on the Department of Health, I make it perfectly clear that the Department of the Environment keeps no central record of the personal details of public appointees. Appointment details are held in offices throughout the country in headquarters and regions. But even an exhaustive search of the files may not provide details of spouses. As I have already said, that information is not requested of the candidates. I understand that the Department of Health had already carried out a search of its records last year so that most of the information was ready to hand. In the Department of the Environment's case a search would be disproportionately expensive.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, assuming that the Minister was able, given notice, to obtain the information, which would no doubt be of interest, does he agree that the assumption behind the Question is at best quaintly old-fashioned and at worst offensively sexist?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to that by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is quite an expert on NDPBs. He and many other noble Lords in the House know that he served with great distinction as chairman of the Race Relations Board and chairman of the Community Relations Commission from 1971 to 1977. He was chosen because of his suitability for the job.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not one of the difficulties that the Question is intrinsically obscure? It does not say whether it means those who were spouses at the date of appointment, those who became spouses of Members of Parliament
1696
after the date of appointment or those who have ceased to be spouses. It is impossible to answer; it is a non-Question.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot hold myself accountable for the defectiveness of any Question in your Lordships' House.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, served in those two positions, and also served with distinction as vice-chairman of the BBC, he was on all three occasions appointed by Ministers not of his own party; and that is a practice which has now almost completely disappeared under a government who have done more political jobbery than any other government for at least 142 years, since the Trevelyan-Northcote reforms?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, frankly, that is unworthy also of the noble Lord. I would expect a little better of him. If he is trying to say that these appointments are made through political bias, he is very wrong indeed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if it is the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues do not know the identity of the spouses of those who are put forward for public appointment in their department, how is it that when my wife was interviewed by head hunters for appointments by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and was, I believe, recommended for those appointments, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knew enough to accost me in the Chamber and refer to the fact that she had been so interviewed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot account for that episode. As the noble Lord probably knows very well, neither political affiliation nor marital status is required on the DoE form.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when spouses of Members of either House happen to be appointed to a public position, it enables the Members concerned to become even better informed about public affairs than most of them already are?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great sense and wisdom. I have not yet said this afternoon to your Lordships that those who serve on public bodies deserve our gratitude. They give up a lot of their time, and family time, in order to serve with skill and quite often very little pay.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the absence of more definite information in reply to the Question, the impression may well be that the Department of the Environment has followed the pattern favoured by the Minister for Health, where the overwhelming mass of appointments are from Members of the party opposite or their spouses?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case. The noble Lord ought to think of

1697
colleagues on his own side. I single out the noble Lords, Lord Cocks and Lord Dormand, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Earl cannot answer the Question on the Order Paper, or does not wish to, can he at least tell us how many of the positions are paid and how many are not paid?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, I can answer the Question on the Order Paper, and have already done so. I should like to make that perfectly clear. Secondly, my understanding is that about 90 per cent. receive some remuneration, however great or small.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, for a Government who are becoming increasingly famous for sleaze—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We see it every day in the newspapers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: That means that it is true, of course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not be as well if the Government were now to ensure that they keep such a record? It is a matter of public importance when wives, husbands or other relatives of Members of Parliament and Peers are appointed to remunerative posts. Does the noble Earl agree that it is much more important that the public know about such matters than who they slept with the previous night?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that the sleaziness is in the eye of the beholder.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not wish to continue this indefinitely. But did I hear the noble Earl say that those people were paid very little? If so, is he aware that the part-time chairman of the Totalisator Board is paid £92,000 a year? Is that very little money?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in that particular case, no, it is not very little money, but he does an extremely good job. I ask the noble Lord to look at those who perform equal service for very much less money.

Royal Assent
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Social Security (Contributions) Act;
Statutory Sick Pay Act.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the North Atlantic Council decision on Sarajevo.
Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The local government areas]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. I:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should say that the Government have taken note of the comments of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee regarding the power accorded to the Secretary of State under Clause 1(1) to change by order the name by which a preserved county is known. The Government have therefore brought forward this amendment which makes that particular power subject to the negative resolution procedure of Parliament. In fact the Government do not envisage the need for a name change arising very often. The most likely event would be if one of the principal councils in the area of a preserved county were to change the name of its area so that it was the same as, or similar to, that of the preserved county. Whatever the circumstances, the Secretary of State would wish to consult locally before putting forward any proposal to change the name of a preserved county. For those reasons we feel that the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a member of the committee making that recommendation I should like to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord for the amendment, which is entirely appropriate. As there is no amendment tabled by the Minister to Clause 52, if he is able, without notice, to address the question of why that should be so, I would be most grateful. Perhaps he will bring it in at a later stage. That was also the subject of a recommendation in paragraph 13 of the report.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that there will be an opportunity at a later stage in connection with one of the amendments which is down on the Marshalled List to come to that point. I shall address the matter at that stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule I [The New Principal Areas]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 48, line 12, column 2, after ("Meirionnydd") insert ("together with (from the District of Aberconwy) the

1699
communities of Betws y Coed, Bro Garmon, Bro Machno, Capel Carig, Dolgarrog, Dolwyddelan, Llanrwst, Trefriw and Ysbyty Ifan.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. One amendment gives and, as noble Lords will see, the other takes away. The purpose of the amendments is to move the nine community councils mentioned in the amendment from the county borough of Aberconwy and Colwyn to the principal area of Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire.
My reasons are as follows. First, these community councils have expressed a wish to remain in Caernarfonshire, and indeed have voted to do so. Secondly, historically and culturally they have been tied with Caernarfonshire. Thirdly, the communities are rural and would prefer to remain with a rural council rather than a county borough, which, as I understand it, is supposed to be urban. Fourthly, the switch to Caernarfonshire would not materially affect the numbers in Aberconwy and Colwyn. The total population in the community in Aberconwy and Colwyn is 106,236, whereas in the nine communities to which I have referred it numbers only 7,241. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in these amendments. I happen to know the areas fairly well. Their affinity is certainly with Caernarfonshire and not with the proposed change to the county borough.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the decision to merge the existing districts of Aberconwy and Colwyn to form a single unitary authority has, I believe, been well received in the areas concerned. I give as an example to my noble friend Lord Stanley the fact, that as I understand it, the two existing district councils are already working together closely to prepare the way for the establishment of the new authority.
The proposed new authority brings together areas which have similar social, economic and cultural characteristics. The effect of the amendment would be to remove from Aberconwy and Colwyn and to place in Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire an area which, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, is relatively small in population, though it is large in area. It does that by drawing a line just north of Llanrwst which would split in two what is in fact a discernible community along the length of the Vale of Conwy.
The Government have not received any representations which suggest that boundary revisions along the lines proposed by the amendment would have widespread support in the areas concerned. But that said, I shall bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State what has been said in the House today, and he may wish to consider the matter further in that light.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for that statement. I must say that my local information is contrary to what he has heard; it is that the nine communities have expressed a very strong desire to go
1700
back to Caernarfonshire. I have to admit that two of them were in Denbighshire before, but that area is more or less like Caernarfonshire. I thank my noble and learned friend for his statement, and I shall leave the matter at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 48, line 17, column 2, at end insert ("and (from the community of Taffs Well) the wards of Taffs Well and Ty Rhiw with (from the district of the Vale of Glamorgan) the communities of Barry, Dinas Powys, Llancarfan, Llandough, Michaelston, Penarth, Pendoylan, Peterson Super Ely, St. Nicholas and Bonvilston, Sully and Wenvoe.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and in Committee stage about extending the boundaries of Cardiff. I make no apologies for raising the issue once again. After all, we are concerned about the future of the capital city of Wales.
The proposal in the Bill, effectively to return Cardiff to its situation before the 1974 reorganisation, would be a tragic mistake. It would also be a lost opportunity with serious repercussions for the whole of Wales. I am not alone in taking that view. It was heartening to receive such eloquent support at Committee stage from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Hooson and Lord Aberdare, and my noble friends Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, all of whom have an intimate knowledge of the city and its history. There was widespread recognition from all sides that this is indeed a matter of national importance, not simply confined to the narrow interests of the views of the Cardiff and Vale district councils. Indeed, only the Government remained to be convinced.
I trust that the Government will today respond to the real needs of Wales and the ever growing consensus which clearly now exists in favour of the proposal which I put forward. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did his best to explain the Government's reasons for opposing my amendment. He made three points. The first two were wrong, and the third gave only a misleading part of the story.
The noble and learned Lord began by claiming that Cardiff had arrived at its present status as a great capital city within its present boundaries. The truth is that in order for Cardiff to establish itself as the undisputed capital city of Wales, governments of all persuasions have found it necessary to extend the city limits. Cardiff city's boundaries have been expanded six times since the end of the last century.
The noble and learned Lord's point was equally invalid if referring to developments in recent years. The major progress made by Cardiff over the past 20 years is recognised by many people. But that progress has been achieved, not by an authority working within restricted boundaries, but by an authority which has been able to take a wider perspective and form links and partnerships with the private sector and other agencies to benefit Cardiff and its hinterland. Wales needs a capital city which has not only responsibility for local government functions but also the capacity to continue the exciting developments which are getting under way.
In response to the widely held view that Cardiff needs room to grow, the noble and learned Lord said that the Government believe that there is enough land available for the expansion of Cardiff for the foreseeable future within its existing boundaries. I have access to the most recent assessments by the Land Authority for Wales and I can say that the Cardiff unitary authority proposed in the Bill has enough land for only the next five years and it will run out of land for industrial and commercial development within the next 10 years. The noble and learned Lord has written to me on that point. All I can say is that I disagree with his interpretation of the facts.
It will interest the House to know that the existing Cardiff City Council itself acknowledges the major problem of shortage of land for both housing and industrial development. A report to the city council in 1991 by its head of development noted:
"There was still currently a high demand for land from a range of market sectors both for indigenous business growth and inward investment purposes, but there was little land available for any such purposes. Remaining land largely consisted of small infill sites on existing estates; its availability for inward investment purposes was in particularly short supply and compared poorly with other nearby areas".
Similarly, a report by Cardiff City Council's director of land and valuation in 1993 said:
"South East Cardiff is the only area of the city that can cater for industrial and business expansion during the next decade or so";
and this site is earmarked as a site of special scientific interest, with the problems of dealing with a major investment in sea wall defences.
In fact, that was acknowledged by the chairman of the city council's land committee in a letter dated 24th January 1994 to members of his party's group in which he states that Tai Cymru (Housing for Wales) is concerned that insufficient land is available to it to meet the housing needs of the 11,000 people on the housing waiting list in South Glamorgan. He goes on to state that the city's main land bank is in South East Cardiff and extends to only 30 acres, which includes industrial and residential land.
He also refers to the sea defences that are required and which have not yet been put in place, resulting in the main land bank, in his view, being blighted and making it impossible for the council to achieve its policy objectives —for example, to build social housing and to bring forward land for industrial development. Industrial development land is desperately needed to secure employment opportunities for the 21,000 unemployed people in Cardiff and the Vale and for the 61,000 other people seeking work on the city's doorstep.
The noble and learned Lord concluded by claiming that my proposal would be bitterly resented by the population of the Vale of Glamorgan and that it was not desired by either the Cardiff City Council or the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council. Self-preservation is always a regressive instinct. Understandably, they have consistently striven for one thing: their own survival.
But what evidence is there for claiming that the local population rejects my proposal? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord is relying on dubious opinion polls conducted by the two district councils three years ago.
1702
The Cardiff City poll took place during July to September 1991. The Vale of Glamorgan poll was done in the same year. Both are three years out of date and neither sought the views of the people about my proposals.
The noble and learned Lord may have been influenced by the view of a small number of community councils in the area. Only half of them supported an independent Vale of Glamorgan. Those 12 community councils represent only 18 per cent. of the population of that district. It is notable that none of the town councils in the Vale supported the case for two authorities serving Cardiff and the Vale. Indeed, Llantwit Major Town Council, on the western boundary of the Vale district, and Penarth Town Council, on the edge of the Cardiff Bay development, supported the case for a single unitary authority. Community councils representing 82 per cent. of the people in the Vale did not submit responses in support of the White Paper's proposals. The most recent survey conducted by the South Wales Echo is the most extensive ever carried out in Wales seeking the views of the people living and working in Cardiff and the Vale.
My proposal was put to the people of Cardiff and the Vale as recently as last month in the form of a detailed questionnaire. It formed part of a comprehensive consultation campaign about the actions needed to develop Cardiff as a leading European capital. So far, the returns from about 1,000 local people show an overwhelming 90 per cent. in favour of a future Cardiff which my proposal aims to put into effect.
My proposal also has the support of the business community in Wales, not just the leading companies in Cardiff but also the major commercial organisations throughout Wales. They are realistic people who know that a strong and successful capital is essential if Wales is to be a major player in the European economy. Noble Lords will know from their own postbags that I have the support of voluntary organisations, academic institutions, the trade unions, the business community and the local press. The adjoining county of Mid-Glamorgan is also in full agreement with my amendment.
I have explained the reasons for my amendment on two previous occasions in this House. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I briefly summarise the case again. As it stands under the current proposals, Cardiff simply does not have the room to grow into the major European capital that its economy demands and its public deserves. The House must question the Government's proposals which create a capital city which is half the size of the neighbouring towns of Bridgend and Newport and two-and-a-half times smaller than Swansea.
More significantly, Cardiff—a capital city—will be half the size of Edinburgh and a quarter of the size of Brussels and Stuttgart. It will have a population of only 280,000 which will not allow it to compete with other regional capitals. The capital is simply running out of land, which will result in Cardiff either developing on and destroying its current open spaces or developing on land bordering the green belt surrounding the city. The importance of international links to the city cannot be over emphasised. The current proposals take Cardiff

1703
(Wales) Airport outside the boundaries of the local authority serving Cardiff, thereby destroying the vital link to potential investors and visitors.
The motto of the City of Cardiff is Deffro maen dyth —Awake, it is day. I believe that the day has arrived to take Cardiff into the 21st century. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I rise to support briefly the spirit of the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Brooks. My purpose is to ask the Government how they have come to their conclusions about the boundaries of that part of South East Wales. I could also ask the same question about other parts of Wales. On what basis have the boundaries been drawn?
When I was first in the other place, the government of the day created the Greater London Council. It was supposed to be the answer to the problems of Greater London. That council has gone. Later, in the early 1970s, the government of the day created the metropolitan counties. I lived in one in West Yorkshire. They were to be the answer to the problems of local government. They have all gone. One could mention other changes to boundaries that have been made in the past 20 years which have certainly not stood the test of time as have those which were made 100 years ago for the county boroughs and the urban and rural districts.
So when I study and read again the proposals that are now made for Wales, and indeed for other parts of the United Kingdom, to put it mildly I am sceptical. I do not know the basis on which decisions have been taken. In South Wales, where I was born and to which I have returned to live after nearly half a century, it is said, behind hands, that some of the changes in South Wales in 1974 were made for political reasons. When we hear some of the problems in regard to quangos about which we were told today, one perhaps can believe that.
Now that I have returned to Wales, I find it a changed Wales —it would be surprising if it were not. It is a more self-confident Wales with great changes having taken place industrially—most for the better but some, sadly, for the worse. Nevertheless, there is a great confidence and Cardiff is seen as it was not seen in my day—as the capital city of a Principality of an emerging part of the United Kingdom that will play a fuller part in the economy of the United Kingdom, and indeed of Europe.
I was surprised at the changes that had taken place. The point I wish to emphasise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is that my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa raised, in a brief manner, the views of a group of businessmen from the Cardiff area who are in favour of extending and making Cardiff larger. I presume they sent the same document to the Government, who no doubt studied it. I know some of those businessmen and they are certainly not all supporters of my party; in fact, that is true of practically all of them. And if they stick their necks out to put this view, it is for some other reason than for political advantage. They say:
1704
"We are of the view that there is an overwhelming case in favour of a single unitary authority for Cardiff based entirely or largely on the existing County area".
On what basis do the Government say nay to that? What is their reasoning behind it? Is there a political reason? Is there a need to look after the parliamentary boundaries on the eastern side plus of the city? I do not suggest that there is. But those businessmen say that there is an overwhelming case. This is a government who listen to businessmen and the businessmen think in that way. They continue,
"We believe it is self-evident that this would be administratively less costly and more efficient than two unitary authorities".
Surely the Government are concerned to provide something that is less costly and more efficient. They continue,
"And it is our considered judgement that it would also ensure that the Cardiff (and Wales) success story of the past 15 years continues, to the benefit of all the people of Cardiff, the Vale and indeed the whole of Wales".
I have not lived in Wales for 50 years, and on my return I found, unlike the days of 20, 30 or 40 years ago when people worked in their localities, large numbers came down from the valleys to work in Cardiff. It is becoming the light industrial hub of the valleys. It is an important place; it is a flourishing place. Should we not give it a national status, a size, a financial base which would be to the advantage of Wales? I ask the Government: what is wrong with the analysis of those businessmen? On what basis is the smaller Cardiff being put forward to this House? It would assist us all in deciding how to vote if we knew what the Government's thinking was on the matter. That is why I support the spirit of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.
Baroness White: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House because an excellent presentation of the case for this group of amendments has already been made by my two noble friends. But I should like to sustain the argument which started on the Second Reading of the Bill. Anybody who has any close knowledge of the area must be of the opinion that it is incomprehensible why the Government should wish to keep the total areas covered by Amendment No. 3 in separation one from the other.
I too am less familiar with the area than I was a few years ago, when I had close relationships with Cardiff. I still have good relationships there and know a number of the people who signed the businessmen's letter, which probably also reached other Members of this House. I am delighted to see that for once the CBI and the Transport and General Workers' Union are as one. They say that if we are going to have the kind of prosperity which we seek, we cannot do it with this detached pattern of local government.
We should pay no attention to the strong arguments which have already been put forward. Some people may have reservations, though I know it is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa holds strong views in the opposite direction. I am not sure because I do not know enough about whether the area should extend so far as the airport. Nobody knows quite what the airport will turn into under this administration.

1705
At the moment it is the concern of three major local authorities. I do not want to bemuse the House by going into that specific area of difficulty. But there is no doubt that one does not want a city of Cardiff which does not have, even now, the full range of services. It does not look after its social services, education and so forth. That may be altered under the other provisions of the Bill and I am not sure what the future will be in that regard.
To separate South Glamorgan, Cardiff and what used to be the flourishing areas on the Bristol Channel does not seem right. As a young person, I grew up in Barry and we looked out over the Bristol Channel, which was a busy place with a busy port. However, the coal and steel vanished. If we are to have the kind of industrial and social prosperity that we need, we must have a large area in which to operate. I say no more because, to those of us who know, the problem is self-evident. Something along the lines of the amendment of my noble friend is the only intelligent way of dealing with the prosperity in South Wales with which some of us are closely concerned.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, being from North Wales, I hesitate to speak on the amendment. But as an elected member of a borough council, I am acutely aware of the problems that agreeing to the amendment would bring.
The City of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan are culturally two totally different regions and should be kept that way rather than being amalgamated into a massive authority which is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people in the area. It is being suggested on the grounds that there is a need for a super city, and that need transcends the fundamental principle of the Bill, which is to bring local government to the people. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, reminded us in Committee that they were always telling this Government to listen to the people, and then he went on to say that this was an exception.
Much was made at Committee stage of the suggestion that the boundary between Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan would form an artificial barrier which would strangle Cardiff's expansionist aspirations. But it is only an administrative boundary across which hundreds of thousands of citizens travel daily without knowledge of its existence. The City of Cardiff is just the hub of the economic region of South Wales. In one way or another its influence extends to every citizen of Wales. But that does not qualify it as a sole unitary authority for Wales.
There can be no doubt that if the amendment were to be agreed to, the balance of power and the authority created thereby would rest firmly with Cardiff and the needs of the Vale of Glamorgan would suffer. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I listened with care to the way in which my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa developed his case, but the amendment raises a deep issue; namely, whether there is a need to establish a greater Cardiff authority which would give our capital city the same growth opportunities as other
1706
major United Kingdom and European cities. My noble friend, as one would expect, presented his case with conviction. We have been reminded that the case is supported by the South Glamorgan County Council, by the Mid-Glamorgan County Council and by many business organisations and individuals. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I too have seen the memorandum by the group of nine businessmen supportive of the amendment, which would, as they say, provide Cardiff with the space for controlled expansion. I have also received a letter from the Transport and General Workers Union supporting the amendment.
Despite the strong plea of my noble friend, we on this Front Bench believe that the House cannot ignore the fact that Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan District Council are strongly opposed to the amendment. So therein lies one major difficulty. Those two councils are, of course, the two district councils whose interests and fortunes are directly affected by the amendment. Indeed, the amendment challenges the very existence of a Vale of Glamorgan principal council. In fairness to my noble friend, that was touched upon by him.
I mentioned in Committee that the leaders of both district councils had informed me of their misgivings and anxieties. Since the Committee stage I have received from them a joint letter and literature. They have studied the speech of my noble friend in Committee and the case presented by the South Glamorgan County Council, but their anxieties are as yet undiminished. I have also received a number of letters from individuals—men and women who live in the community and are worried about the amendment and all that it implies for them. I have also to tell the House that I have seen copy correspondence between the two district councils and business organisations which are opposed to the amendment. So to the Front Bench on this side of the House it appears that there are many difficult questions which have yet to be resolved and possibly questions which have yet to be posed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa touched on some of the questions.
As I have said, there is no broad agreement between the South Glamorgan County Council, on the one hand, and Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan District Council, on the other, about the merits of the proposal. In the short time that has been available our members—members of the Labour Party—and active supporters of the Labour Party in local government have not been able to come to a view about the best way forward for Wales' capital city. For us that is another major consideration.
I have therefore to say on behalf this Front Bench that we are not this afternoon in a position to support or to oppose my noble friend's amendment. If my noble friend is not satisfied with the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and decides to test the opinion of the House, this Front Bench will in those circumstances abstain.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, before I respond to the points made on this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, it may be helpful if at

1707
this stage I say just a very few words in general terms about the boundary issues in the Bill. Your Lordships will recall that in responding to the point made in Committee I undertook to report your Lordships' views to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I take this opportunity to say that I have done that. The position remains as I indicated in Committee. My right honourable friend has reflected and will reflect on the issues in the light of your Lordships' views, but before he reaches any conclusions on these matters he will also want to hear the views of the elected Members in another place.
I turn to the particular issues relating to Cardiff. As I pointed out in Committee, the Government have seen little evidence of widespread public opposition to the proposals for separate Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan unitary authorities. On the contrary, we are aware of a great deal of public feeling in the Vale that is aroused in favour of the existence of a Vale of Glamorgan authority and is very much opposed to any idea of a greater Cardiff. As many of your Lordships will be aware, an organisation known as the Vale Defence Committee, which represents the views of all but one of the community councils in the Vale, mounted a very vigorous and well supported campaign for a Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority. That also was supported by many representations from private individuals, from businessmen and from other organisations.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I too have received in the time since the Committee stage literature and representations from private individuals as well. Indeed, nothing that has happened since the publication of the Bill suggests in any way that the passionately held views of those in the Vale of Glamorgan have changed. I am aware that there are members of the business community in Cardiff who are in favour of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, but there is little to suggest widespread concern in Cardiff that the interests of the city or of its residents would be better served by establishing an authority for greater Cardiff.
On the particular matters raised, the Government feel that there are indeed sufficient sites within the city boundaries, in particular in the Cardiff Bay area and in a range of other areas, both larger and smaller, on the periphery of the city as it exists, which are capable of meeting the city's housing and employment requirements over the longer term and which will come on stream as and when the need arises. I wrote to the noble Lord about that matter. The Cardiff City Council is on record as being of the view that the availability of land within its boundaries is sufficient to meet its needs and is not a constraint affecting the future economic welfare of Cardiff as a capital or in any way a constraint on it having appropriate status within Europe. The Government remain convinced therefore that the development of Cardiff will not be restricted in the way suggested on account simply of the fact that it will not have within its boundaries a population of some 400,000, which would have the effect of making it by far the largest of the authorities proposed for Wales.
Some of the suggestions made seem to ignore the
1708
facts of everyday life; for example, the idea—my noble friend Lord Kenyon mentioned it—that when these boundaries are drawn on the map they will somehow or other prevent people crossing them in the course of their business. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks, suggested that the proposal was destroying the vital link to the airport. Nothing will happen which will prevent people travelling from Cardiff to the airport and using it in a proper way. There is nothing in these proposals which should put a restraint on the development potential of the area. What one wants to see of course is economic prosperity in the area and further development, but that will not be restrained by these proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the views of the leaders of Cardiff City Council and of the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council. Since the Committee stage I, like the noble Lord, have received a joint letter which reaffirms their support for the proposals in the Bill. I say to your Lordships that when we are considering this matter we really must bear in mind the very strongly held views of those leaders of the two elected councils for that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked: what are the kinds of principles which the Government have had in mind in putting forward the proposals for local government for Wales? These general principles have been set out in the White Paper at paragraph 3.1. The first principle is said to be,
"local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties; and"
the second principle—
"local public services should be of high quality, and delivered efficiently, economically and effectively".
Those are the principles which have been invoked in looking at the reorganisation and which have been borne in mind in connection with the proposal for Cardiff. We believe that we are indeed responding to the sense of community both in Cardiff and in the Vale of Glamorgan. We also believe that the authorities proposed would be of an appropriate size and so on, to be able to develop and deliver services of a high quality. The Government remain satisfied that the proposals in the Bill are the best for both the communities and in those circumstances I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I note that during the various stages of the progress of this Bill the Government have been able to find only one Member of your Lordships' House to support it. Under those circumstances I must test the opinion of the House.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L. [Teller.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Chapple, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Cudlipp, L.

1709

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kilbracken,

Diamond, L.

Lawrence, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkender, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Molloy, L.

Harrowby, E.

Mulley, L.

Healey, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Howell, L.

Stallard, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon,

Hunt, L.

L. Strabolgi, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aldington, L.

Harlech, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hayter, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Henley, L.

Alport, L.

Hooper, B.

Annaly, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kenyon, L.

Astor, V.

Killearn, L.

Bauer, L.

Knollys, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birdwood, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Brigstocke, B.

Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burnham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Morris, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Norfolk, D.

Courtown, E.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Cranworth, L.

Orkney, E.

Croham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darnley, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pike, B.

Downshire, M.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selborne, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Goold, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

1710

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Stewartby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Strathclyde, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Westbury, L.

[Teller.]

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Swansea, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Sarajevo
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Sarajevo.
"In the senseless atrocities last week some 70 civilians were killed. These deaths showed again how urgent it is to end this war.
"It will not end by military victory. A lasting settlement cannot be imposed. It can only be achieved by agreement between the parties. The Government repeat their full support for the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg. We welcome recent indications that the United States wants to take a more forward part in the peace process.
"Meanwhile, every sane person wants to see an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. As honourable Members will be aware, the UN Secretary-General wrote to his NATO counterpart on 6th February asking the North Atlantic Council to authorise its military command to launch air strikes on request from the UN. Mr. Boutros Ghali recalled NATO's readiness, following its decisions last August and reaffirmed at the NATO Summit in January, to carry out air strikes to protect UNPROFOR and to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo.
"NATO Ambassadors met yesterday in the North Atlantic Council. They reaffirmed NATO's support for a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Bosnia, agreed by all parties. They commended the UN negotiating efforts towards securing the demilitarisa-tion of Sarajevo. In support of these efforts, they agreed on three main points: first, with immediate effect, they accepted the UN Secretary-General's request to be prepared to launch air strikes, at UN initiative and in co-ordination with UNPROFOR, against artillery or mortar positions which UNPROFOR determines are responsible for attacks against civilian targets in Sarajevo; secondly, the North Atlantic Council called on the parties to respect a ceasefire around Sarajevo. The Bosnian Serbs were called on to withdraw all heavy weapons from within 20 kilometres of the city, excluding an area within two kilometres of the centre of the Bosnian Serb capital of Pale, or to place their heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. The Bosnian Government were called on to place their heavy weapons in the same area under UN control and to

1711
refrain from attacks within the city; thirdly, they decided that all heavy weapons, along with their direct and essential military support, found within 20 kilometres of Sarajevo and not under UN control after 10 days from 2400 GMT today, 10th February, would be subject to NATO air strikes. These air strikes would be conducted in close co-ordination with the UN Secretary-General.
"HMG fully support these decisions. We helped to ensure that they were discussed and taken in NATO rather than any other forum, in the light of professional military advice. The NATO Council will be kept fully informed of all developments, day by day, and will review yesterday's decision at the latest on 2nd March.
"We were clear that any strategy for the use of force should be forward looking.
"There was no support in the North Atlantic Council for action which was simply punitive.
"We have since last August been prepared to see air power used, if necessary and practicable, to back the UN in carrying out its mandate. The UN, with NATO support, is taking an increasingly firm position: pressing ahead with the rotation of troops in Srebrenica; pressing for Tuzla Airport to reopen; confronting obstacles to road convoys; and warning off the Croatian regular army from entering the war on the side of the Bosnian Croats.
"The North Atlantic Council decision forms part of this pattern, specifically aimed at improving the situation in Sarajevo, helping the UN to fulfil its mandate and contributing to pressure on the parties to end the war.
"We look to the parties, particularly the Bosnian Serbs, to respond. Their aims cannot be achieved on the battlefield, nor by killing and mutilating civilians. They should end the siege of Sarajevo and hand it over to the UN administration. Such an agreement would mark a real step towards peaceful settlement.
"If the Bosnia Serbs do not so respond, they are now in no doubt of the action which NATO and the UN will take.
"No-one would pretend that this was an easy decision. The risks are clear; so are the advantages if it succeeds. It is the job of governments to test and retest options of this kind, and decide where the British interest lies. There is a strong British interest in maintaining the strength and solidarity of NATO. In Bosnia our interest lies in preventing the war from spreading, in helping forward the work for a peace settlement, and in relieving the suffering of the Bosnian people. We judge that these interests are best sustained by supporting the NATO decision and working for its success."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which we welcome. We believe that the right decision was reached in the NATO Council yesterday in response to the UN Secretary-General's request to issue an
1712
ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs, backed by the intention to use air power if they fail to observe it. It had become vital for the international community to take action to end the wanton and cowardly slaughter of unarmed civilians in Sarajevo, including elderly people and children. People all over the world were deeply shocked by the events in Sarajevo last weekend. It is estimated that there have been some 10,000 deaths in Sarajevo alone since the war began.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the Labour Party called for an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs, backed by the threat of air strikes, as long ago as April of last year. I have to add that action earlier might have saved some of those lives. I was also a little surprised to hear in the Statement that the Government had been prepared to use air power since last August. I was not aware of that. We also welcome yesterday's decision because we have always supported UN Resolution 424, which was passed to create safe areas and to enable the United Nations to deliver humanitarian aid. To that end, it is vital to reopen Tuzla Airport. I wonder if the Minister can tell the House what, if any, decisions were taken about that at the NATO Council yesterday other than, as is stated in the Statement, to press for its reopening.
We also welcome the cease-fire which has, I understand, been negotiated by the UN commander on the ground, Lieutenant-General Rose, and hope that that cease-fire, along with the ultimatum, will be the basis for the beginning of more successful negotiations for a peaceful end to the war than we have seen so far.
Yesterday's ultimatum should also help to restore the credibility of the United Nations and NATO, which had been undermined for some time by the failure to implement their resolutions so that threats became little more than empty gestures. Will the Minister tell the House what steps will be taken to ensure a more permanent demilitarisation of Sarajevo should the Bosnian Serbs accept the ultimatum and withdraw within the 10 days allowed? Will she also comment on reports that NATO is ready to unleash air strikes on heavy weapons, shelling civilians in Sarajevo, even before the 10-day deadline for the withdrawal beyond the 20 kilometre zone?
We support the decision to allow a period of 10 days before the deadline is reached because it gives the Bosnian Serbs ample time to withdraw. There can be no excuses. It also allows time for our own troops on the ground to be reorganised and redeployed in the event of a Serb refusal to observe the ultimatum—at least, I believe that to be the case. Will the Minister reassure the House on that point?
We strongly agree with what was said by the Minister at the end of the Statement. Of course, these decisions are not easy. On the contrary, they are very difficult and we are all well aware of the risks. But the suffering of the Bosnian people has been both terrible in its intensity and protracted in its length. I reiterate that we must hope that the ultimatum will lead eventually to a lasting negotiated peace.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right

1713
honourable friend in another place. I congratulate the Government on taking action at last. I also congratulate General Sir Michael Rose on successfully —or so it would seem—negotiating a ceasefire, which equally was achieved by taking a tough posture in the whole business. It would have been better if the decision had been taken much earlier; if we had taken the advice of the French, which we have taken at last, and the advice of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrats 18 months or more ago. It will now be much harder and the risks will be much greater.
I have three questions to which I should like answers. First, is the equipment for detecting artillery and mortar fire available to our troops in sufficient quantities? In the circumstances, that is a matter of some importance. Secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the comment about Tuzla is weaker than others in the Statement. It merely states:
"pressing for Tuzla Airport to reopen".
That is an absolutely crucial step in helping the Bosnian Government, which is what it is, and I wish to know what steps are being taken to open the airport and when they will be taken.
Thirdly, I take it that care is being taken to protect the aid convoys in the new situation. I am grateful that we shall be able to discuss all these issues more fully on Monday when there will be more time. In my view, the debate is long overdue.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her positive initial response. I do not believe that any Member of this House or another place would have wanted us to take precipitate action. It would have been foolish had the action not been taken unanimously.
Many of us who have been deeply concerned with the detail of what has been happening in Bosnia for almost two years have been aware that we would support air power provided that it would support and not undermine the aid effort and the peace process. It is a matter of difficulty in deciding that.
Together with our NATO allies, we decided that this shelling of Sarajevo demands the strongest support. The decision passes the test that it will do more good than harm. I say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that United Kingdom support for our air power is not new. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister suggested it to President Clinton last May. The concept became part of UNHCR 836 on safe areas. NATO close air support for UNPROFOR has been available since June last year. The UK fully supported NATO's decisions on air strikes which were made last August. The Prime Minister's initiative, with Prime Minister Balladur of France, led to the NATO summit decision in January on the readiness to use air power in Srebrenica and Tuzla. We have always said that air power is not an end in itself and on that the NATO allies agree. But air power can be part of the strategy to improve the situation and the prospects for peace. We believe and hope that that will happen.
I was asked about the work undertaken by General Rose. We warmly welcome the agreement that he
1714
achieved to establish a ceasefire in Sarajevo from today to be followed by a withdrawal of heavy weapons and placing them under UN command. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked whether there could be air strikes before the 10-day deadline. If artillery is judged by UNPROFOR to be responsible for the shelling of civilian targets, it could be used. However, we hope that the ceasefire will be successful because no one wants to start opening up unless it is really necessary. We wait to see the progress that is so badly needed for the people of Sarajevo. I believe that the attempts made by General Rose to secure the demilitarisation of Sarajevo and the agreement to place the city under UN administration, as envisaged in the European Union action plan, are a major step forward. That will be the beginning of the more permanent demilitarisation, which the noble Baroness asked about, and on which we shall work with all speed.
I fully agree with her about the suffering of the people. We sincerely hope that we shall be able to continue to relieve that suffering. The noble Baroness spoke of some 10,000 deaths in the Sarajevo area. I must put that figure against the many hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved as a result of the aid that has gone in there, in particular during the winter periods.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me about the safety of those in the forces and of aid workers. We have plans for their protection and reinforcement if necessary. They are our paramount concern. Last year the Defence Secretary announced that other capabilities would be made available as a contingency to draw on should that be necessary. That of course includes the already available NATO close air support. I am sure that the House will understand that I cannot give further details.
The noble Lord also asked me about the detection equipment being available in sufficient quantities. Last year the Defence Secretary announced that that would be so. However, I shall not engage in further detail on that matter, which I hope the noble Lord will understand.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about Tuzla Airport. That is an issue for which I have been trying to obtain support for a long time. Pressure is being exerted at this very moment. The United Nations and the NATO military commanders in theatre are co-ordinating the plans, including the use of air power, if the Serbs will not co-operate. We intend to see not only that Tuzla Airport is opened but that it is kept open. In line with the other remarks that I have made, I am sure that the House will understand that I do not wish to reveal the detail of that. Although this is a very serious matter, we can view the examples that are being set by General Rose and the whole command structure as extremely hopeful for the future. We all hope that it will bring peace to the people of Bosnia and Sarajevo.
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that many people will be relieved about what appears to be the political target of the operation; namely, the demilitarisation of Sarajevo? But is my noble friend aware that, even if the Serbs withdraw their

1715
heavy weapons to 20 kilometres, the demilitarisation of Sarajevo will be extremely difficult to accomplish and secure? The demilitarisation of other places may need to follow. All that will involve the deployment of more, I dare to call them, first-class quality troops, without naming names. Is my noble friend aware further that we are not dealing with a civil war which has only three parties but one which has about 20 sub-plots all over the place? It will be a lot easier to get in than to get out. However, I am sure that my noble friend will accept that many of us are greatly relieved by the tone of her Statement, while crossing our fingers very tightly and hoping for success.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the demilitarisation of Sarajevo will be difficult to secure, but it will be for the UNPROFOR commanders on the ground to decide the dispositions. That is a substantial task and there may be scope for redeploying existing UNPROFOR forces. At present we have no plans to provide additional UK forces, but we shall continue to support the aid effort through the winter and we shall wish to consult closely with our fellow troop contributors in taking future decisions. My noble friend reiterates something that I have said many times; that this civil war is full of sub-plots, apart from the three warring parties. That is why it has been so difficult to bring about a peace.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we add our congratulations to those expressed by the Minister on the professional and resolute bearing of General Rose and the troops associated with him. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness two short questions. In view of the likelihood that the convoys may be put at risk by the action that Western governments have now decided to take, and which we very much welcome, can the Minister give any indication of the state of current negotiations about Tuzla airport, because were that airport open, supplies could come in by air rather than overland?
Secondly, will the Minister comment on the resistance shown by the Bosnian Government—and it is to the point that one of the so-called warring parties is an independent internationally recognised government and not a guerilla force—and say whether one of their most fundamental problems can be solved; that is, access to safe and secure sea ports for their territories so that they would be viable if there were to be a peace settlement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Nobody is more aware than I of the risks that our convoy drivers, mechanics, electricians and mining engineers are taking all the time. I assure her that we have taken action to ensure that the best possible care is taken of the ODA civilians and the military who are involved in delivery.
We shall be able to open Tuzla airport only when it has been secured sufficiently from Serb artillery. Various preparations must be made before that can happen. They are taking place at this time.
1716
The noble Baroness spoke also about resistance by the Bosnian Government which would be lessened by access to the sea. That has always been part of the negotiating effort of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg. That will continue because peace efforts must continue in parallel with all the other measures that are being taken to try to stop the fighting.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think it was a Frenchman who said, "Gouverner, c'est choisir". This particular operation has produced more options for choice than it is possible to forbear. We must give Her Majesty's Government our maximum support and recognise the immense difficulties which they face.
My noble friend says that one of the reasons for the operation was to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo. By its very nature, that is an action on behalf of the legitimate Government of Bosnia. According to John Simpson in this week's Spectator, the French Foreign Legion are patrolling the airport to make sure that people do not go into or out of Sarajevo. In effect, that is the United Nations helping the Serbs in their siege of Sarajevo.
Furthermore, large quantities of fuel and rations are reaching the Serbs because of attacks on the convoys which are going in. It seems to me that the Government have now come down on the side of the Bosnian Government. What happens if air strikes are called for and the Serbs hide their guns and go on fighting? Having taken into account all those factors, knowing how difficult it is to choose and knowing the horrendous problems which Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations are facing, what will be the next step in the event of the Serbs not responding to the ultimatum? I am trying to be helpful and not difficult.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his initial words of support. I should make it absolutely clear to your Lordships that the British Government, NATO and the UN are not taking sides. We are trying to bring to an end the fighting in the region. We are trying to make sure that it is not extended.
I believe that in General Rose we have a commander who has moved decisively in the very early days as regards Sarajevo. I for one would not wish to second-guess him in connection with some of the points which my noble friend has made. It is perfectly true, as it has been in every conflict in the Balkans, that there are hidden guns and weaponry. But the heavy artillery has done the most damage. If attempts can succeed to still that heavy artillery and have it withdrawn beyond the 20-kilometre range, it will be easier to deal with other hidden weaponry. That is exactly what the UNPROFOR troops will be asked to do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are grave misgivings across the political spectrum about the wisdom of this course and the risks that accompany it? There are serious anxieties about what will happen if the Serbs do not respond to the ultimatum. When you enter a situation, it is always as well to know exactly how you can get out

1717
of it. Have the Government and NATO considered what will happen if the Serbs defy the ultimatum and keep their guns where they are?
Secondly, what has changed since last weekend when the Foreign Secretary—and he has done it before—warned of the danger to our troops of an escalation of action, including air strikes? What has happened to his view that we must not listen to the "must do something" brigade? I hope that we are not being pressurised against our will into a dangerous situation which could put our troops at risk.
Finally, does the Minister have any news of the latest Russian reaction? Are the Russians calling for a special meeting of the United Nations? Further, what will happen if they use their veto on the decision of the United Nations to call for NATO to make air strikes? Would that not bring about a very serious situation which may lead to a widening of the conflict?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I am aware of the many different views as regards the decisions that have now been taken by the NATO Council, and of the risks involved. Indeed, no one in this House has been more closely associated with what has been going on than I have over the past few months.
However, the answer to the noble Lord's question must be that if the Serbs do not respond to the ultimatum, then the heavy weaponry will be taken out. The decision that we have taken is that if, after 10 days, heavy weapons of any of the parties are found within the 20 kilometre zone (except within 2 kilometres of Pale) and not controlled by UNPROFOR, they will be subject to NATO air strikes. Whether or not the air strikes take place is a matter for the parties; in particular, it is up to the Bosnian Serbs. NATO has issued a clear warning. If that warning is not heeded, it has authorised the use of air power in co-ordination with the UN.
The noble Lord also asked me whether I could assure him that we had not been pressurised into such action against our will. Of course we have not. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is, and has always been, a narrow balance. We believe that the decision we have now taken is right because we understand that it was the Bosnian Serbs who caused some 70 deaths at the weekend.
The noble Lord also asked me about Russian objections. I can tell him that the Security Council will discuss Bosnia tomorrow. There is no doubt that the action agreed by NATO falls within the framework already authorised by Security Council Resolutions 824, 836 and 844. There is no need for a new resolution and, therefore, there is nothing for the Russians to veto. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be discussing the matter with President Yeltsin and Mr. Kozyrev during their visit to Moscow. I believe that the foundations for those talks augur well for the decisions that will be taken. The change since the weekend is due to the action taken by General Rose which has shown the possibility of a way forward; but it needs backing up. That is exactly what the NATO decision has done.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the general tone of the Statement. However, I noted that it spoke of
1718
warning off the Croatian regular army. Is there not already evidence to suggest that units of that army are in Bosnia and may indeed be connected with the fighting in Mostar? Should not a much stronger and firmer line be taken with the Croatians?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe it is possible that the firmer line for which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, backed by many of us, has been calling for a long while will be taken in Croatia. However, the action that we are now discussing concerns Sarajevo. I have also been asked about Tuzla. We note what the noble Lord has said. His remarks will be acted upon.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say what protection can be offered to volunteer aid workers who go to Bosnia in the interests of humanitarianism but who do not in fact legitimise, so to speak, their arrival through the Foreign Office, UNHCR or, indeed, the armies that are in operation in the field?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question. I advise any volunteer aid worker who is thinking of going to Bosnia not to do so. During the past two years, there have been many incidents where people have gone there not fully prepared; or, sometimes, even when fully prepared, they have not been adequately protected. That has created difficulties for those people and has also led to the involvement of troops who are needed to protect not only the ordinary aid convoys but also other troops. It has meant that troops have been diverted from the duties that they were supposed to be carrying out. I implore volunteers to stay away. When the peace is secured, there will then be plenty for the volunteers to do: but not now.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the Minister will know my grave reservations as regards this action, which has been talked about for a long time. There is no need for me to repeat my views. However, the presence of General Rose, whose work in the SAS means that he knows a great deal about action on the ground, makes it a good deal better from my point of view.
I have one question for the Minister which arises from the answer that she gave to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The noble Baroness very confidently said that if the Bosnian Serbs take no notice, the aircraft from Germany, America, France and Britain will take out the guns and the mortars. Is it the advice of General Rose that that can be done?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not at liberty to disclose exactly how and where things will be done. However, that is the general outline of what would be done. There will be no indiscriminate bombing. The air strikes will be strictly limited to specific circumstances and targets as set out in the NATO decision. The objective is to support a ceasefire. The Secretary General must not only authorise the first use of the air strikes but, also, the strikes will only be launched in agreement with UNPROFOR—that means UNPROFOR commanders on the ground. I believe that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question which is perhaps less academic than it at first sounds. I have heard that there is to be demilitarisation of the zone as a result of an agreement negotiated by General Rose. I have also heard that there is to be a withdrawal or neutralisation of heavy weapons as a result of an ultimatum agreed by the United Nations and NATO. Is it the case that the ultimatum produced the agreement or has the ultimatum been put in place to prevent the agreement breaking down? In other words, was the agreement arrived at by negotiation and now locked in place by force, or is it something that has been arrived at reluctantly in the face of the threat of force?
I have a further question that I am not sure my noble friend will want to answer. I understand that nowadays, heavy weapons can deliver projectiles over a distance of more than 22 kilometres. What is it intended to do if the bombardment of Sarajevo continues at a greater range?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right; I shall not answer his second question at the present time. However, as regards his first question, I must tell him that the efforts to establish the ceasefire were tied in with the wish to secure a withdrawal of the heavy weapons and have them placed under UN control. Certainly, the NATO decision backs that up. I can assure my noble friend that General Rose has not been acting independently of Ministers and Governments. We are moving to try to secure a ceasefire. I sincerely hope that we shall succeed.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was somewhat surprised to hear her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on the ability of our forces to locate heavy artillery? In a news report shortly after the incident in Sarajevo, Brigadier Ritchie told the reporter that we did not have the artillery-locating equipment to locate the fire from heavy artillery pieces and large mortars. Is the equipment being supplied so that our troops can be properly protected? I ask that question because, nowadays, heavy artillery can be moved quite easily in a short space of time from one position to another. It is useless if we do not know the location of such weaponry.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that General Ritchie was referring to mortar-locating radar, the purpose of which is to engage warring factions. That device has not been used because that has not been our purpose. However, because the security of UK forces is paramount, the Secretary of State for Defence will ensure that our forces will have the equipment that they need.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
5 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 48, line 39, at end insert:
1720
("Montgomeryshire Sir Drefaldwyn The district of Montgomeryshire together with (from the district of Glyndwr) the communities of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llansilin and Llangedwyn.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was reassured when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in replying to the previous debate emphasised the importance that the Government attached to the views of the community councils in the area immediately surrounding Cardiff, in particular those of the Vale of Glamorgan. He reminded us of the principles that are set out in the White Paper whereby the Government would seek to provide a unit of local government which accorded with the traditional loyalty of the people in that area. At this time, those principles and the weighting in favour of the views of the localities should also be exercised in favour of Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnor.
The noble and learned Lord should be aware that not a single community council in Montgomeryshire is in favour of a unitary authority for Mid Wales, or Powys, as it is proposed by amendment to call it. Historically, Brecon and Radnor have no claim to be part of Powys, but I agree that as a name Powys is a more acceptable description than Mid Wales.
Noble Lords will know that I am totally convinced that the proposal for a Mid Wales unitary authority is wrong and totally unjustified. I have spoken on this subject during our debate on the Queen's Speech, at Second Reading and at Committee stage. I shall not repeat my arguments save to summarise them in this way. Historically, all the arguments are in favour of such a proposal. In terms of ancient history, Montgomeryshire was a Tudor creation and prior to that was part of the old Kingdom of Powys. The modern history of Montgomeryshire is that it had a very successful county council and it was particularly famous for its education system. From 1974 it has been a very successful district council.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the geography and communications argument. I can sum up the matter by quoting a letter that was circulated by the Director of Education for Powys, dated 19th January 1994. It was addressed to every school governor in Powys and invited them to a government training session at Newtown High School. The last paragraph, which was written entirely unsuspectingly, without knowledge that it might be quoted in this debate, reads as follows:
"This letter is being circulated to all Powys Governing Bodies although it is appreciated that the distance might be too great for some to attend".
Newtown is no further from the southernmost part of Powys in South Breconshire than Llandindrod Wells is from the most north-eastern or north-western part of Montgomery. Under the Government's proposal people will be expected to make that journey every day, or every time that they are required to attend the new Unitary Council.
The third matter concerns the attitude of and the promise that was made by the Secretary of State. In 1991 when the consultation paper was issued he was in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.

1721
Consultations took place and in 1992 he announced that he was in favour of that unitary authority. The somersault between 1992 and 1993 is still unexplained. A promise of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority was made to the Conservative meeting at Llanfechain in Montgomeryshire during the election campaign.
The fourth argument is that the national opinion poll that was taken in Montgomeryshire showed that 76 per cent. of the people were in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority—what price democracy, what price the attention paid to the views of local people?
The campaign for Montgomeryshire has all-party support. It has been totally supported by the local Conservative Association. I am informed by a very prominent Conservative who is on my committee, Mr. Lesley Morgan, that the area committee for the Conservative Party in Wales was overwhelmingly, with one dissentient, in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.
I should now like to comment on the arguments that were advanced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the previous debate when he stated that there were serious doubts about the ability of smaller authorities to manage their resources. There were no grounds for that statement. An analysis has been made from models drawn up by the Welsh district councils and it has been checked by Touche Ross. It indicated that the probable difference between two unitary authorities in Powys, one based in Montgomery and the other in Brecon and Radnor, was eight senior officers.
That exercise was relied upon greatly by the Welsh Office, which accepted it for many purposes. One ought to remember, too, that the Powys unitary authority that was then being considered preceded any proposals for the area committees that are now proposed in Clauses 26 and 27. If those area committees are to mean anything and if they are to be manned properly, the number of senior officers will have to be very much larger.
I conclude that the two-authority unitary structure without area committees will be cheaper than one unitary authority structure for the whole of Powys with area committees.
The Secretary of State and the noble and learned Lord have referred to the Mid Wales population problem. However population is only a factor in considering the right unit for a unitary authority, it is not "the" factor. It has to be balanced against other factors and in the case of Mid Wales, a more important factor is the nature of the area and communications.
A question was raised as to the ability of a smaller authority to attract staff of calibre. In Montgomeryshire experience has proved that it is possible to attract very good quality staff. They are often attracted at a young age to chief officer posts in small authorities such as Montgomeryshire. I indicated previously that three successive directors of education in Montgomeryshire have gone on to greater and larger things. They served much of their creative life in Montgomeryshire and left a great legacy behind them. People are attracted there by the quality of life which has less hassle. For ambitious people, as no doubt those three people were, it is a stepping stone, having first obtained a proven record in a smaller authority.
It has been stated that there is a need for joint arrangements and that the smaller the authority the greater the need for such arrangements. Joint arrangement is related not to the geographical size but to the problems that arise from, for example, strategic arrangements for traffic, land use, refuse disposal, economic development, transportation etc. I suspect that in areas like Cardiff, for example or Torfaen, because of their very nature it is much more important to have cross-boundary arrangements than it is in a large rural area like Montgomeryshire.
The findings of the structures group, which were relied on considerably in previous debates, did not as a whole argue against smaller authorities. Of course the county chief executives who serve on that structures group did so, but for a specific purpose. They wanted to retain many of the very large county councils. The arguments on the structures group were rejected by the Government, or the Bill would not be before us today in this form. Therefore to rely on its arguments for ammunition against Montgomeryshire is nonsense.
I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord of the recent Rowntree report on the impact of population size on local authority costs and effectiveness. That report concluded that:
"It would not be possible to conclude that there is a 'right' size of authority … for a particular service or services".
That must be right. It depends on a number of factors —the loyalties of local people, what they feel about local government and what they associate with it, as well as geographical conditions. All those factors have to be borne in mind when deciding on the right unit of local government.
There is one aspect which concerns me particularly and which I know has caused a great deal of anxiety and anguish in my part of the country. Why on earth did the Government change their mind between 1992 and 1993? They have not published any report as a basis for that change. They have not given us any proper explanation. It is time that they did so. What caused the Secretary of State for Wales to make statements in 1991, to repeat the same statements, after consultation, in 1992 and yet to change his mind in 1993 and announce that there would not be a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire?
There is a widely held suspicion, which is even shared by Conservative supporters in Wales, that it was entirely a political decision connected with what Mr. Redwood said last week when he visited Radnorshire. He said that he was very conscious of the sensitivities of Radnorshire. The local MP has said the same. I remind them that there are sensitivities in Breconshire as well as in Radnorshire, and the same applies to Montgomeryshire.
I share the view, although I recognise that it is not widely held in your Lordships' House, that even an authority as small as Radnorshire is quite capable of providing acceptable standards of local government as a unitary authority. I remind your Lordships that there are unitary authorities in Scotland with smaller populations than Radnorshire, and which cover as great an area, which have successfully acted as unitary authorities for many years.
I believe that it is necessary to look at the whole question again. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has come to the subject fresh from distant Scotland. We have been very impressed by the courtesy and care which he has shown in dealing with our queries. I feel that he understands our concerns far more than the Secretary of State. From the latter's reactions it appears that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has a deeper understanding and appreciation of our feelings on this issue than the Secretary of State himself.
The whole of an ancient county is pretty well united in the view that it should be a unitary authority. It is the only part of Mid Wales which is steadily growing in population. It has successful international businesses which were born and developed in the area. Because of its geography and history it has little connection with the former counties to its south. Why on earth then have the Government taken the view that they have? It is time that they indicated their reasons to the House and set out in detail their thought processes in reaching that conclusion. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I take it that he was speaking to Amendment No. 5 as well as to Amendment No. 4.
The Government seem to have got it into their heads that big is beautiful. I should like to express my disagreement with that view. Powys is much too large as it stands. It covers a quarter of Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, it covers an area which is as great from north to south as the distance from Bristol to London.
I wish to hark back to my remarks at Committee stage when I made that very point. Local government should be local. It depends on the councillors having an intimate knowledge of the needs of the people they represent. They should have intimate local knowledge. Montgomery can easily stand on its own as a viable unitary authority. Brecon and Radnor could also form a viable unitary authority.
I should like to draw attention to a misprint on the Marshalled List. Brycheiniog is printed as two words and should be one. Perhaps my noble and learned friend could take note of that.
I believe that Brecon and Radnor would make a much more manageable unit, and Montgomery should stand on its own feet. Small is beautiful.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the amendment which we are considering is, as I see it, no different in substance from that which we debated at Committee stage, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, and rejected by your Lordships' House. The present amendment has been moved with eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I believe that this is the fourth time that the noble Lord has put the case for a unitary authority in Montgomeryshire. I admire his determination and persistence. But I believe that what he urges us to accept is still unsatisfactory, because to meet the
1724
aspirations of Montgomeryshire it would be necessary, as I sought to explain at Committee stage, to override the wishes of the people of Radnorshire.
I have no doubt that the majority of people in Radnorshire do not want to be put together with Breconshire, which has a population that is nearly twice as large. They feel that they would be swallowed up. I was glad that when he summed up at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, said that the Government believed that a Breconshire and Radnorshire unitary authority would not meet the best interests or the wishes of residents of the areas, particularly the residents of Radnorshire. I believe that the Government are right to take account of those wishes and not to thrust them aside.
There are also practical reasons against having two or three small unitary authorities. As I sought also to explain at Committee stage, they are all too small for the services that local authorities are required today to provide for their populations. There is also the danger that if there were two or three authorities in Mid Wales they would be compelled to make joint arrangements with large authorities outside the area of Mid Wales, which would be unsatisfactory.
I am convinced that a single unitary authority in Powys would devolve local matters to local decisions by the shire committees. The same members would serve on those committees as would serve on the main council, and they would all come from Breconshire, Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire, as might be the case. I repeat my hope that if we have a single authority for Mid Wales—whatever it may be called—there should be the maximum degree of devolution to the shire committees. I believe that that is important. I am convinced that Powys would do that. I am also impressed by the degree of support among the business community and many others for retaining a single unitary authority for Mid Wales.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord's arguments on the structure of Mid Wales. I deployed some of the arguments with regard to Merioneth at Committee stage. I shall not repeat them. I believe that the arguments which I then put forward still apply with regard to Amendment No. 4 involving Montgomeryshire—or Sir Drefaldwyn, if I may treat both languages on a basis of equality.
The noble Lord referred to Powys decentralising to the constituent shires. It is not just a matter for Powys. The Welsh Office and the Secretary of State will approve all the decentralisation schemes, and similarly where a case is made out for joint working. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and I have argued previously, it is possible to make out a case for a strong regional authority serving Mid Wales as a joint authority rather than a principal council, for strategic regional purposes. That authority would interrelate with the work of the development board, tourism council and the other regional bodies which already exist for Mid Wales.
However, the decision about joint working rests finally with the Secretary of State. Similarly, the establishment of joint authorities is again a matter to be decided by the Secretary of State. With regard to

1725
Montgomeryshire, I wish to ask the question that I posed with regard to Merioneth when we debated a similar issue in Committee. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Office determine the appropriate areas and functions for all the units. Let us not pretend that we are dealing with a simple unitary authority structure in the Bill. We are dealing with what will be a complex multi-layered system of local government. We shall have area committees, joint working arrangements, joint boards, principal councils, and community councils to which we shall refer later. If we have that structure, what is the difference between the Secretary of State overseeing the functions of a unitary authority based on Montgomeryshire—as the Bill provides—and an area committee based on Montgomeryshire? It is for the Welsh Office to determine in the final instance the appropriate function to be carried out, and at what level.
When I considered at the final stage the detailed paper on the powers of area committees, I was not impressed with the amount of decentralisation that the department appears to allow. I believe that we are still right in arguing for a series of smaller unitary authorities that will be able to participate in joint working arrangements under the umbrella of the Welsh Office —at present the Secretary of State, but one day, sooner rather than later, under the umbrella of an elected Welsh assembly.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, at an earlier stage, I referred to the fact that any government which tackles local government reform takes a great risk. The Labour Party thought about tackling it and wisely did nothing. In our wisdom, between 1970 and 1974 the Government decided to come forward with a solution. Most of what we did then was right, but some of it was wrong. The aspects that were wrong related to Dyfed and North West Wales—Anglesey.
So far as concerns Mid Wales—Powys as we now call it—we were right. The past 22 years have shown that we were indeed right because that council has worked extremely well. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the way in which he defended the interests of his supporters in Montgomery. I should not like to be on the other side of a court arguing the toss with him. However, the fact remains that if a system has worked well, and if there is a measure of support for what the Government now propose, I hope that the Government will not change their minds and will continue to keep a unitary authority in Mid Wales which they will call Powys.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I feel very torn in loyalties and persuasions in the light of the discussions. On the one hand, I am one who believes that over the years Powys in its enlarged state has done a good job. I should not have been sorry if no change had been made. I also believe that in its proposed reduced state it will do, if anything, a better job. Therefore my personal inclination is to agree with the Government. I hope that the area will be called Powys and not Mid Wales.
On the other hand, I have a great feeling of respect and loyalty to my noble friend in his contention that Montgomery should have its own status as the local authority. However, if that is so—and without it having
1726
been formally moved I speak now to Amendment No. 5 —I should feel very bad indeed in supporting Montgomery, while Radnorshire and Breconshire are lumped together. I believe that that would be an unhappy and difficult liaison. In arranging that pairing, Radnorshire, with its smaller population and lesser influence, would probably lose something to Breconshire. That would be a great pity.
My experience of Radnorshire over many years is that it is now perfectly capable—it may not have been so—of assuming the status of a unitary authority. I merely express to your Lordships my state of indecision, with a mild preference for the Government's proposal for Mid Wales. I hope that that area will be called Powys. However, if my noble friend's Amendment No. 5 is moved, I shall support it. In that case I would not support the lumping together of Breconshire and Radnorshire.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, surely the same arguments apply to the unity of Breconshire and Radnorshire as those advanced by the Government in regard to the larger authority of Powys. If it is argued that Montgomeryshire can still have many of the powers delegated to an area committee, the same can be true of Radnorshire. It would not be overwhelmed by Breconshire, as my noble friend feared, because there are already provisions in the Bill for many functions to be dealt with at a lower level. Radnorshire could assume as many of those functions as it was fit to carry out.
That is the answer that I would put to the people in Radnorshire who are anxious about the proposal in my noble friend's amendment that they should be lumped in with Breconshire. The same provisions apply to them on devolution as would apply from the Government's side for devolution from the unitary authority of Powys to the three constituent counties that that would include.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out, I moved this amendment at Committee stage and I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at Report stage. When we discussed the amendment at Committee stage, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate expressed concern that the division into smaller authorities would increase the number and complexity of joint arrangements. True, it would increase the number, though I have no reason to believe that it would necessarily increase their complexity. What my noble friend failed to add was that it would reduce the number of decentralisation schemes, and those will be infinitely more complex than any joint arrangement.
The other concern that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate saw as a more important impediment to agreeing to the amendment was the proportionately greater central overheads that would be required to run two separate authorities as opposed to one larger one. Although that may be true, the debit side—which is the cost of running the decentralisation schemes, which will be unavoidable for that authority—must also be taken into account. I remain convinced that this new authority is not in the interests of the residents of the areas and

1727
that a far better quality of local government will be achieved at very little extra cost by agreeing to the amendment.
Baroness White: My Lords, I suspect that I am probably the only Member of the House present who has not lived in Radnorshire but has lived in both Montgomeryshire and Breconshire. Therefore, I have personal experience. I feel that the best argument used so far is that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon. Knowing the Montgomeryshire pattern, I am strongly of the view that it is perfectly able to manage its own affairs on the basis that we have been discussing for the authorities in general. The difficulty is that Radnorshire has a small population; of course, it makes up for that in its quality, I have no doubt. My noble friend Lord Williams is a Radnorshire man. No one impugns the quality of Radnorshire, merely its rather low population.
My view is that it would, frankly, be much better to let the three units do as much as they possibly can under the provisions of the Bill, and that they should do it in local matters at least as separate units. One can see the difficulties of putting them all together. The physical difficulties of distance are quite serious, particularly with staff. It seems to me that the more one can do in each of the three separate units, the better. We shall obviously have to have joint arrangements in certain areas, but that can be managed. There are so many possibilities under this complicated Bill that I do not believe it is beyond the skill of the noble and learned Lord to find some way of sorting out the genuine problems and also the good opportunities for a Mid Wales administration. I use the words "Mid Wales" by a slip of the tongue, because I shall certainly support the name Powys rather than Mid Wales. Aberystwyth is in Mid Wales, so why should anyone suppose that "Mid Wales" would be an acceptable term? However, that will be dealt with in the next amendment.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I hope that I do not surprise colleagues by rising momentarily on this amendment. Many years ago, in 1959, together with Tom Hooson, the late cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I wrote a booklet about the Welsh economy. We still mourn his death deeply. In the book, we put forward proposals for local government at that time and proposed the establishment of the county of Powys. We visualised it then as being a two-tier structure, as it became. I can see the justification for the larger authority in that context.
I have been impressed by the arguments of my old but still friendly opponent, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in favour of his amendment and by those that have reached me from Conservatives within the county of Montgomery. I would not pretend to have close proximity to the details of the argument, but one question which has been repeated several times by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is: how come the Secretary of State changed his mind? If the original proposal was for a unitary authority of Montgomery, endorsed on more than one occasion, what has been the reason for the change of mind? I have no doubt that my noble and
1728
learned friend the Lord Advocate will have an ample flow of words with which to answer, but they will need to be convincing.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has campaigned for years for the restoration of the status and powers of the ancient county of Montgomery. It seems to me that he has at least the satisfaction of knowing that the Government have been obliged to acknowledge the strength and the merits of the case. It is widely accepted that that is the true explanation for the rigid decentralisation in Clauses 26 and 27, which would have devolved some power to the Montgomery area committee, with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Of course, having designed that theoretical solution, it seems to me that the Secretary of State thought that he could now set Montgomery on one side and concentrate his efforts on wider issues. However, the people of Montgomery have not been satisfied. The point has been made that if there is to be a Montgomery area committee, with the consent of the Secretary of State, it becomes very difficult indeed to deny that historic county the status and powers of a unitary authority. For those reasons, we support the amendment. I add that, if Powys is to be retained, we would have thought also that the name "Powys", with its historical associations, should also be retained.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in responding to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kenyon and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at Committee stage, I outlined the considerations which the Government had taken into account in looking at the proposals put forward for small unitary authorities. I do not intend going through those considerations again today because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I do not wish to weary your Lordships with repetition.
As I have said on a previous occasion, the very fact that at one stage in 1991–92 there appeared a proposal for a unitary authority of Montgomeryshire shows that the Government have not taken any a priori hostile decision against Montgomery. There was no hostility at all because that was at one time envisaged.
However, what has happened since then is that the matter has been further considered by the Government. Although I understand that noble Lords have found nothing which has been said hitherto in any way convincing, I do not believe that I can greatly elaborate upon what has been said, except that the basis was that the Government have all along had two matters in mind. I have mentioned them already today: the local community loyalties and the delivery of high quality services.
In considering the matter, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to deliver services of the quality required simply on the basis of having a unitary authority for Montgomery, perhaps leaving some other arrangements for Breconshire and Radnorshire.
The very facts that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and many others have spoken so eloquently for Montgomeryshire and that the case for

1729
Montgomeryshire was originally envisaged by the Secretary of State at that time show that the weighing-up process has been gone into carefully and that the decision was reached despite the strongly held views. Those views were not ignored. It would be very easy in one sense to say we accept those strongly held views and that is the reason to give way on this matter. But we had to consider the other aspect; namely, whether at the end of the day it would be a way to deliver the best and most efficient services.
Despite the strong emotional and historical arguments—all of which have been recognised, not ignored—the Government have come to the view that the structure that is proposed is the correct one. In taking that decision they have had regard to such matters as the increased overheads which would be involved in having a series of smaller authorities. I acknowledge that there will be some costs from the system of area committees. But for the reasons that I gave at Committee stage, the judgment of the Government is that on this occasion it is correct to have a unitary authority for the larger area which has been called Mid Wales.
In reaching that decision the Government have taken account of the fact—not exclusively but among other considerations—that the population in the case of Montgomeryshire would be about 55,000; in Breconshire about 46,000; and in Radnorshire, however high the quality, it would be only 23,000. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, meets that point head on and says that that figure would nonetheless be enough for a unitary authority. But the Government's judgment is that it would not be enough for a unitary authority. In that event one would be forced back to a situation where, if one removed Montgomeryshire, there would then be left Breconshire and Radnorshire. It seems quite clear that an authority bringing together Breconshire and Radnorshire would not be a popular authority, especially with the people of Radnorshire. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred to the sensibilities and sensitivities of those in Radnorshire. I am sure that he will take that factor into account, just as he takes into account the acknowledged sensitivities in the case of Breconshire and Montgomeryshire.
The Secretary of State has looked at this matter in such a way as to take account of those local sensitivities and of the fact that people in Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire, as in other parts of Wales, may wish to have their particular local services dealt with at a more local level. For that reason the Secretary of State has come forward with the proposals, sometimes called the Powys proposals, for decentralisa-tion. It is not a rigid formula, as was suggested; on the contrary, it is a flexible formula which can be adapted to the demands of any particular area of Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoke at one point about joint working, and said that at the end of the day all these matters were subject to the Secretary of State. In fact, the powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 29 that relate to joint working are only reserve powers. What is envisaged is that local authorities will themselves wish, of their own volition, to enter into appropriate arrangements. It is only in a situation where they have not provided, where it is necessary, the
1730
appropriate local arrangements for joint working that the Secretary of State would come into the picture in the exercise of his reserve powers under Clause 29. In no sense would it not be open to local authorities to deal with matters themselves.
I believe that the combination here of the larger authority with the possibility of using decentralisation delivers that combination, which many noble Lords have recognised, of the need for local services to be delivered locally yet within a larger picture. The Government see that as the way to go forward on this matter. For that reason the Government are not able to accept the amendment.
I repeat what I said before: the Secretary of State has considered the points that have been made. I am certain that he has considered them carefully and sensitively. As I have said, it is not and could not be because the Government are unaware of the arguments that were put forward. The Government have not swept them aside. They have been considered. Nonetheless, at the end of the day the Government are satisfied that the structure which is proposed in the Bill is the appropriate one. In the circumstances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the courtesy of his reply, which I must say again I found totally unconvincing. It seems to me that the Government have a preconceived idea now of population size and are trying to squeeze a very large area which has a particular historic background into a formula. I hope that the Government will reconsider this whole matter. I am very grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House, from the Labour Benches, the Cross-Benches and the Conservative Benches, who have spoken in favour of this amendment and to those who have spoken against it. We are all concerned about a particularly difficult area of local government.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he will go back to the Secretary of State and ask him to look afresh at this question. We have to live with this decision for many years. In 1972 in another place I raised doubts about Powys. I opposed it; and here we are 20 years later having a unitary authority for Powys thrust upon us and doing away with the district councils which were put forward then as the answer to the problem.
I return to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I acknowledge that in the old days we were frequent opponents in the courts as well as in politics. I remember his book written with my late cousin, Tom, on the economic regeneration of Wales. It may well be that because of its particular problems the Government would find that the people of Mid Wales would prefer the status quo to anything that is being proposed now; that they would prefer the county council and three district councils to a unitary authority the size of Powys and area committees. If we cannot have unitary authorities, there is a good deal to be said for going back to that situation.

1731
My own preferred solution would be that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who referred to the proposed development by the Forum for Mid Wales to set up an agency to provide some of the services. Historically Mid Wales has always included Cardiganshire. They have two universities there. Many of the specialised services could be provided on an agency basis by the universities. The Government need to look again at this whole problem. Rushing this matter through in this way will not do any good. This solution will not last.
I had dearly hoped to force a Division this evening. But I am advised that the government forces are present in strength and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot win because many of those who would vote have not heard the arguments or the debate. I am very sorry about that. However, the great thing is to make sure that we have the right solution for Mid Wales. I am quite certain that so far the Government have failed to find it. Having said that, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 49, line 2, column I, leave out
("Mid Wales
Canolbarth Cymru")
and insert—
("Powys Powys")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question that I should like to put to my noble and learned friend is why there should be this change. Why is there to be a change from "Powys", which is a short word of five letters only, to "Mid Wales", which is a much longer term and conveys nothing to many people? The boundaries of Powys are barely affected by this Bill. It is simply change for the sake of change. Whatever one may think of the concept of an enormous area such as Powys, we have lived with the name for almost 20 years. We have got used to it and are reluctant to change it. As my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt has said, it works very well. To my mind the area is still far too big, but that matter is behind us now. Let us leave the matter as it is.
I remind my noble and learned friend of the American saying: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The name serves very well as it is. We are used to it and have been living with it for nearly 20 years. There are already too many super-counties, amorphous bodies with names to match. I can cite only the gaffes of Teesside, Greater Manchester and that abomination to end all abominations, Hereford-Worcester.
The expense of changing the name to Mid Wales, as the noble and learned Lord himself said a few moments ago, will mean increased overheads in the way of increased expense to local authorities in changing all the letter headings. That applies to firms and individuals as well. It would involve them in expense which will be uncalled for and quite unwelcome to them. It increases the expenses of ratepayers, firms and individuals.
Spare us Mid Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swansea in this amendment. I am sure that my
1732
noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will be pleased to know that the amendment does not involve any movement of boundaries. It is a very simple amendment. It simply seeks to remove the eminently functional name of Mid Wales, which conveys very little to anybody. I might suggest that noble Lords would not wish to be referred to at the moment as being in South-East England.
The name of Powys has been associated with the county since 1972. If, following the failure of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, it is to exist, then I believe that the name Powys is a far better name for the area than Mid Wales.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. In fact there is a movement of boundaries, but that happened in 1972. Historically, Brecon and Radnor were not part of Powys, save possibly in Welsh mythology for a period of about 12 years when the son of Hywel Dda was said to have taken over Powys and extended it to the banks of the Wye, though it is believed now that the banks of the Wye referred to were at Llangurig and not further south.
Having said that, I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is right and so is the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, in supporting him. I thank them both for their sustained support on the whole subject of Powys and its relationship with local government reform. Obviously, it is better to have a romantic name like Powys rather than the utilitarian name of Mid Wales, which in any event indicates to most Welsh people five counties including Cardiganshire and Merioneth.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment and also, on this occasion, to be on the same side of the road as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I should like to know one thing. So far the Government have not produced any reason whatsoever for the present Powys to be called Mid Wales. I quite admit that it is in the middle of Wales; but the reasoning behind the change has not been given to us. The expense to which my noble friend Lord Swansea referred would be quite significant for the local authority and in particular for each individual householder, who would have to change the address at the top of his notepaper. I ask the Government to think again on this matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I merely wish to indicate once again that we are in full support of the amendment. We very much hope that the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in April last year the Secretary of State's predecessor launched a consultation on names for the new authorities which invited views from local authorities, members of the public, the Welsh Place Names Advisory Committee and the Welsh Language Board. There appeared to be no strong support for retaining the name Powys for the new authority. My right honourable friend the present Secretary of State considered that Mid Wales would be more desirable, since it would not overshadow the historic names of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire, with which so many people in the area seem to identify. The name Mid Wales for the new

1733
unitary authority would also remove the possibility of confusion with the preserved county, which will retain the name of Powys.
For those reasons the Secretary of State wishes to retain the name Mid Wales in the Bill. However, he will be taking very careful note of the points made today by your Lordships and any that may subsequently be made in another place. With those assurances I hope that my noble friends Lord Swansea and Lord Kenyon will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. In any case, they may like to know that under the Bill as drafted (that is to say, paragraph 20(5) of Schedule 14) the councils of the new authorities will have the opportunity to change the name of their area in due course.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I must say that I am slightly disappointed in the response given by my noble friend. Every noble Lord who has spoken on this amendment has been in favour of it. He indicated that the Government may have second thoughts about the matter, particularly when it goes down to another place. Nevertheless, this is one occasion on which one might test the feelings of the House.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 60.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bath, M.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kagan, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

Kenyon, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Leigh, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Davidson, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milverton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Faithfull, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Feversham, L.

Newall, L.

Finsberg, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fisher of Rednal,

Norrie, L.

B. Gainsborough, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goold, L.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hollick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Teviot, L.

1734

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wharton, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Astor, V.

Chancellor.]

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mottistone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sharples, B.

Downshire, M.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harrowby, E.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

[* The Tellers for the Contents reported 88 names. The Clerks recorded 87 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 49, line 22, column 2, leave out from ("Ogwr") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I return to the three small and historic communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick, having a total population of about 3,200. They are currently within the area of the Ogwr Borough Council. The whole of the Ogwr district, except for those three communities, will be comprised in the new county of Bridgend. But those three communities will be transferred to the adjoining Vale of Glamorgan authority against their strongly expressed wishes.
Last June the Electoral Reform Society conducted a poll of the electors on the question of whether their communities should be transferred to the Vale of Glamorgan authority. The turnout was 76 per cent. and, of that high turnout, 86 per cent. voted against the Government's proposal. That confirmed that the overwhelming weight of local opinion is against the proposed transfer.
I explained in Committee that for centuries those three communities looked to the town of Bridgend for their principal services. They gravitated towards Bridgend in terms of social, business and cultural activity. We can also say that the vast majority of residents look to Bridgend for their health services,

1735
social security services, consumer protection services, the main Post Office services and their banking and financial services. That is not surprising as Bridgend is only two miles from one of the villages, three to four miles from St. Bride's Major and six miles from the third village.
Ever since the local authorities were set up at the end of the last century those communities have been part and parcel of the administration based at Bridgend, and they have been well served. I do not believe that even in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that there would be any improvement in the delivery of services. Under the Bill the local authority services will be administered by the Vale of Glamorgan. In that situation the important principle of coterminosity is totally ignored. As I said, there is no ground for believing that there will be an improvement in the quality of the services delivered to the people of the community.
The principal office of the Vale of Glamorgan council will be in Barry, which is 13 to 15 miles away. There is no direct regular bus service to Barry and there are no passenger trains serving the area. On the other hand, there is a direct and regular bus service to Bridgend. Therefore if things go wrong it would be far more inconvenient and costly to attend at the Barry offices of the council to sort out a problem and to seek a remedy. Local government services are extremely important to people and ease of access to the town hall is a significant consideration.
Those are some of the special and powerful reasons why the electors wish to be part of the Bridgend unitary authority after reorganisation. Their case is supported by the two district councils themselves and by the community councils serving the locality. Indeed, earlier on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate prayed in aid the opinions of the community council. This proposal is being imposed on the people of these three communities against their wishes—this by a government who so freely propound in the Citizen's Charter and elsewhere the doctrine of consultation and choice. We ask whether it is fair that these people should be denied or deprived of a democratic choice.
These three small historic communities have another justified complaint to make against the Welsh Office. They are not being treated equally with other small communities up and down Wales which have protested about being transferred to adjoining new authorities against their wishes, although I take note of what was said earlier on by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. But apart possibly from those villages—I am not briefed about their position—and apart from the historic county of Montgomery, the Welsh Office has taken full account of the complaints of all other communities and rescinded the proposed transfer or, as Ministers call it, the scheduled transfer.
This comes out very clearly in the Notes on Clauses. Perhaps I may trouble the House by reading a few extracts. Paragraph vi explains that,
"the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo have been included in Denbighshire … These amendments reflect the weight of representations from the areas concerned"
Paragraph vii explains:
"The decision to amend the White Paper proposals to include in Flintshire the whole of Delyn reflects the overwhelming weight of local opinion".
Paragraph x explains:
"The communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf have been added to Mid-Wales since the White Paper was published in accordance with the strongly expressed wishes of local residents".
Why then have the strongly expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of electors of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick not been similarly listened to and respected by the Welsh Office? On this the Notes on Clauses offer the explanation that they are,
"largely rural and agricultural, have more in common with the Vale of Glamorgan authority than with the town of Bridgend and with the industrialised valleys to its north".
Your Lordships will recall that this was the only justification advanced by the Lord Advocate when we discussed this amendment in Committee. Now that I have been reminded of what happened in Ystradgynlais and in Tawe Uchaf, this is a particularly inadequate explanation because it has been noted in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick that the explanation did not prevent the Government from adding industrialised Ystradgynlais and industrialised Tawe Uchaf to rural Powys when that was the strongly expressed wish of local residents. So the people of these three communities ask why they are being discriminated against.
In order to ameliorate the position, it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was suggesting in Committee on 17th January that this problem could be reviewed by the Local Government Commission when conducting its post-reorganisation review. But that review is in order that,
"anomalies can be identified and corrected".
Surely this is more than an anomaly or a boundary irregularity which has yet to be identified. Already it is a glaring mischief which is standing out a mile.
I very much hope that the Welsh Office will consider the case of these three communities very carefully indeed. But if the schedule remains unaltered, I have no doubt that they will appeal to the Boundary Commission. Then we ask: in a case such as this, why should the electors have to be burdened with the task of petitioning the Boundary Commission to remove a glaring mischief? Why should the Government treat the objections from those three communities so blatantly differently from those of the other communities which I have named?
I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will see that these three small ancient communities have a genuine complaint against the Welsh Office on both grounds —that their voice is not being listened to and that they have been discriminated against. I very much hope that the House will support the plea of the communities and that the Welsh Office will reconsider its position. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am usually quite ready to leave it to the silver-tongued eloquence of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to plead for any amendment to which he puts his name. But on

1737
this occasion, I beg leave of the House to add just a little to what he has said in pleading for justice and fairness for this little group of communities. These are the tiddlers; these are the small people in this reorganisa-tion. Many of us feel, and feel strongly, that they are being swept aside and that proper notice is not being of them.
Since we discussed the subject of the amendment at the Committee stage I, like many others, have had further strong representations on this matter from the local area. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that feeling is strong in the whole of that area. I remind the noble and learned Lord that the electoral reform ballot which was held found that each of the community councils had an overwhelming majority of residents who were opposed to the proposal to transfer them to the Vale of Glamorgan—a 74 per cent. turnout on something like this and a vote of opposition of 87.5 per cent. Indeed, it was difficult at that time to find any support for this proposal except from within the Government in Cardiff and in London.
Quite apart from the clear message from the residents themselves—the people—there is unified opposition from the Ogwr Borough Council, from the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and from all three of the elected community councils themselves. On the basis of historical background, community interests, communications and bringing local government nearer to the people, these three communities wish and surely must remain with the new Bridgend council. Indeed, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies at the Committee stage, and as he mentioned again today, the only public organisation or public figure supporting the Government's proposal is that of the present Conservative Member of Parliament for the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary constituency. Why should his voice prevail against all others?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, at Committee stage I stated that the Government included these three communities—I do not believe it has been denied that they are predominantly rural and agricultural —in the Vale of Glamorgan authority in the belief that the areas concerned had in effect more in common with communities in the Vale than with those which make up Bridgend.
Wick is a small community situated in the Vale countryside. It is in effect an isolated community. Its character in that respect is very similar to the character of other villages in the Vale such as Colwinston. St. Bride's Major and Ewenny are likewise predominantly rural in character and to that extent they more resemble other small communities in the Vale than they do Bridgend.
Although I am aware of all the representations which have been made by the residents, it is true to say that, nonetheless, they show themselves in certain aspects of their daily lives as having a sense of being part of the Vale. That is to be seen by the fact, for example, that the residents of these three communities sometimes advertise their houses as being in the Vale rather than
1738
being in mid Glamorgan. In that sense they are in the Vale and they are not identifying themselves with Bridgend.
Geographically, these communities are a natural part of the Vale and they are separated only by an artificial boundary which really does not have anything to do with topography, the rivers or anything else. Again, that is shown by the fact that in winter it is snow-ploughs from the Vale which clear the snow from the roads in the Wick area. These are matters which show that these communities have a very real connection with the Vale. It is also true to say that the other two communities are close to the existing Vale boundary and parts of them are further from Bridgend than other places like Colwinston which are already in the Vale —a point which no one is disputing.
These are the factors which the Secretary of State has had in mind as I explained on a previous occasion. I also pointed out on that occasion that the Secretary of State will be asking the Local Government Boundary Commission to look at the boundary between the Vale and Bridgend when they undertake their post-reorganisation review. In that review the commission will be able to consider splitting existing communities so that, as noble Lords have already indicated, any obvious anomalies can be corrected. The report and recommendations of that body will be considered carefully by the Secretary of State.
I have explained to your Lordships the Government's position on this matter. Nonetheless, I recognise what has been said not only today but on the previous occasion in Committee. I have already conveyed the remarks made on the earlier occasion to the Secretary of State. I shall certainly not hesitate to put forward again to the Secretary of State what has been said today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take account of the fact that the inhabitants of the three villages want to stay with Bridgend? Does he regard that as an important factor?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I hope that at no time have I suggested that that is not a factor. Since it has been stressed by noble Lords, it is a matter which the Secretary of State will have to bear in mind. I simply say to your Lordships that he will wish to take into account not only what has been said here, but also what may be said in another place by the elected Members.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may offer to help him a little on the question of estate agents and the selling of houses. I really do not believe that that cock will fight nor that horse run. If you are selling a house you are dealing in money. The Vale of Glamorgan is posh; Bridgend is not so posh. If you live in certain parts of London you say that your house is not in Kilburn, it is in West Hampstead because you can make a bit more money that way. The inhabitants of Wick, Ewenny and St. Bride's Major know which side their bread is buttered.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, because it is posh the Government may well be thinking that these three communities can help the Conservative Party to secure

1739
the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary seat which they are holding with a majority of about 18. If that is the true reason and explanation for this astonishing provision in the Bill, we say that it is really an improper use of legislation. I am disappointed by the reply. The noble and learned Lord gave us about three or four indicators of association between the villages and the Vale which I shall not deny. I should have thought that there are about three times that number of indicators showing their association with Bridgend.
There is another point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. There is overwhelming evidence that the people of these three communities want to remain associated with Bridgend. At the moment I cannot recall the precise paragraph in the White Paper, but I have the firm conviction that it is stated there that the express wishes of the population can only be set aside if there are strong arguments on the ground of improved delivery of services. That is my impression and it is something that we shall have to check on.
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord said that he has reported the discussions in Committee to the Secretary of State. He did not give us an indication of how he responded. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will seek to persuade the Secretary of State to see that there is here a risk of grave mischief and injustice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]
Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 50, line 7, at end insert:
("Port Talbot Porth Talbot The district of Port Talbot")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long in moving the group of amendments which stand in my name. They all have the same single purpose. They are designed to secure the survival of the borough of Port Talbot as a unitary authority rather than see it merged with the adjacent borough of Neath, as proposed in the Bill.
The case which I am making has been mentioned already in your Lordships' House; first, at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, a former Secretary of State for Wales. He is currently out of the country and unable to support the amendment today, but he would certainly wish to do so. He and I, and another former Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable John Morris—the present Member for Aberavon—also expressed support for it to the previous Secretary of State for Wales some months ago.
In Committee I was able rather guilefully to ride upon an amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for the survival of Llanelli and to commend this provision then. I do so now in a more orthodox fashion. The reasons underlying the amendment are extremely conventional—and none the worse for that. They were summarised in a sentence in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, on
1740
Second Reading when he said that it was upsetting the deep-seated loyalties of communities in Wales and that that is something for which the Government will not easily be forgiven.
It is difficult to overemphasise the importance of the separate sense of community that attaches to the borough of Port Talbot by contrast with the adjacent borough of Neath. Port Talbot has a long history. Although the borough was born by that name only in 1921, that was a renaming of the previous borough of Aberavon, a name that I am proud to bear as part of my present title. Aberavon can trace its history back to the first Lord of Afan at the end of the 11th century. I was proud to find in a location near Madrid not many months ago a map of the British Isles that was printed in Rome in 1677 which showed only three communities in the county of Glamorgan: Llandaff, Cardiff and Aberavon. That shows what an ancient history Aberavon has, and what a proud history Port Talbot has in its place.
However, they are two distinct communities, concentrated in two quite distinct valleys. Port Talbot has the more modern industrial history and was advertised in the days of the Steel Company of Wales by the phrase, "The City of Steel that never sleeps". The Abbey Steel Works there now employs under 5,000 people—about 4,700 people. In the days when I contested the constituency—in 1955 and 1959—when I counted BISAKTA, the British Iron, Steel and Kindred Trades Association (the steel workers' trade union) as my most important client at the Bar, almost three times as many people were working in that steel works. Port Talbot has gone through an industrial revolution on a painful but dramatically successful scale. The Port Talbot steel works is now one of the most modern and successful in Europe. That is one factor that gives a sense of identity and community to the borough of Port Talbot.
The borough of Port Talbot now extends up the Afan Valley to include many of the old communities that used to be in the former Glyncorrwg district council, such as Abergwynfi, Cymmer/Croeserw, Glyncorrwg itself, Abercregan, Duffryn, Cynonville and Cwmafan. All are separate communities that regard themselves as attached to Port Talbot and having not much to do with places like Ystalyfera and Gorseinon on the Neath side of the county. There is a serious difference of identity.
A long time ago now I was born in a house overlooking the Aberavon rugby football ground. I have with me a poster advertising the regular Boxing Day match between Aberavon and Neath. I am sorry to have to say that Neath won last Boxing Day. It was a temporary accident. For the Government to be proposing to merge those two participants in a sustained local derby is to risk the most fearful consequences. We like people from Neath as long as they keep their distance and I hope that they take the same view of we people from Aberavon, but there could not be two more distinct communities. It would be a mistake to merge them.
Port Talbot Borough Council—I have no doubt that this applies to Neath also—has a good track record of success in delivering services to its people and wishes to continue to build on that success. A unitary authority in

1741
the present location of Port Talbot has been estimated as likely to make substantial cost savings of about £1 million, without any adverse impact on the quality of the services that are delivered there, whereas if there were a merger we would end up with two authorities, each with a present civic building, which in neither case would be large enough to house the merged authority. Inevitably, some new municipal structure would have to be constructed at substantial expense and at least one of the old buildings would have to remain. One would be creating an authority which had all the qualities of remoteness which are currently leading my former constituents in East Surrey to favour a unitary authority which takes them away from the county of Surrey because, for the folk in Caterham, Kingston is a long, long way away, just as for the people in Taibach, Margam or Glyncorrwg, places like Ystalyfera and Gorseinon will be a very long way away.
Therefore, I think that there is a very serious case to be made against the merger which is proposed. Moreover, the survival of Port Talbot has commended itself to 95 per cent. of the local people in an opinion poll that was taken on this, and the survival of Neath has commended itself to more than three-quarters of the people in that community.
The case that I made to the previous Secretary of State for Wales which, as I have said, is supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and by the present Member for Aberavon, is being made on behalf of a borough with a strong histrionic history. There are now five notable preachers who can trace their birth to Aberavon. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is one of them. I am another. Sir Anthony Hopkins is a third; Richard Burton is a fourth, and perhaps the most histrionic of the lot of us is, alas, not heard so much these days. I refer to Clive Jenkins. The House may count itself lucky that it is the least histrionic of those five characters who is the advocate now presenting this case to the House. Imagine what it would be like if all the other four were here at the same time, singing in some cymric chorus. I commend my amendment to the House.
I wrote my first political pamphlet in 1953. It was called The Lifeblood of Liberty and was on the subject of local government reform. The title page bore a quotation from a Dutch author whose name now escapes me, I am afraid, but who wrote that local self-government is the lifeblood of liberty. If that cause can commend itself to the Government, the Government will commend themselves to the people of Port Talbot. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, all noble Lords will be pleased that on this occasion my noble and learned friend Lord Howe is present to move his amendment. If I may say so, it was no less effectively moved for being spoken to slightly less histrionically than he thinks might have been the case if it had been moved by others. It was moved most effectively and eloquently.
The Government are aware—who could not be aware?—of the fact that the people of Port Talbot, just like the people of Neath, have a very strong sense of
1742
their own area, its history and their community identity. The Government are also aware that the rugby matches that take place between those two areas show them to be in rivalry in at least that sense.
Therefore, this is another occasion when, having taken account of history and the local sense of identity, the Government have had to take account also of the other factor that is mentioned in the White Paper. I refer to the need to choose unitary authorities which are able to secure the effective delivery of local services and which have the necessary population base for that. In the case of Port Talbot and Neath, partly for the reasons that my noble and learned friend has mentioned, the population and demographic trends over some decades have suggested that both areas would benefit from the kind of merger that is envisaged here, with the addition of the communities from the Lliw Valley, so creating a unitary authority which would have a large enough base to co-ordinate the strategic delivery of services. It would be an authority in which no single area would be able to dominate the others. That is something that must be taken into account when there is a sense of local rivalry.
The Government have acknowledged the strength of community identity in the areas by making a change which your Lordships may regard as being small but which in the light of the previous amendment is not so small. They have changed the name from West Glamorgan to Neath and Port Talbot. Furthermore, under the terms of Clauses 26 and 27, it will be possible for these areas, if they so desire, to apply for the setting up of area committees. That will ensure that certain aspects of the services will be decided upon and delivered by a committee which represents the local area.
Given the fact that that option is available, the Government believe that the unitary authority as proposed in the Bill is the best solution for this area. I urge my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has dealt with these complex and sensitive Welsh issues with enormous sensitivity and skill. I join in paying tribute to him. I cherish the hope that his elegant style of advocacy will be deployed within the Welsh Office so as to convince the Fellow of All Souls who now presides in that distinguished place to accept this argument. A Scotsman addressing an Englishman on this Welsh issue yet has a chance of success, and on those terms I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 19
Page 50, line 27, column 2, after ("Llangedwyn") insert ("and the district of Colwyn").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hasten to say that this is a probing amendment. It is not a takeover bid by Gwynedd of Clwyd. I wish to discover why Aberconwy and Colwyn has been split between the preserved counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd. I can foresee problems as to which preserved county official will do

1743
what, when and where. For instance, if there is a royal visit, which preserved county official will do what? Who will meet the royal visitor? Will it be the Lord Lieutenant of Clwyd or the Lord Lieutenant of Gwynedd?
I am also somewhat perplexed by the logic of splitting a county borough between two preserved counties. I had thought that one of the objects of the Bill was to encourage local affiliation and a sense of belonging. If my noble and learned friend can explain the Government's reasons for the division, I and many others will be most grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to write to me indicating that he would raise this matter. The preserved counties are being retained for non-local government purposes only; that is, for the lieutenancy, the shrievalty, the magistrates' courts and, importantly, the parliamentary constituencies. In that sense, their retention is no more than an administrative and geographic convenience. My noble friend will have noticed that the Bill provides for the boundaries of the preserved counties to be coterminous with those of the unitary authorities. That will entail only minor changes in areas such as Llanelly, the Vale of Glamorgan/Bridgend boundary, which we have already touched on, and the Mid Wales/Wrexham boundary. These changes, however minor, are considered desirable in terms of facilitating administration and identification. It would be confusing, for example, for Llanelly to be covered by a different lieutenancy from the rest of Mid Wales. That highlights the reason why my noble friend has brought the amendment forward.
In three cases—Aberconwy and Colwyn, the Heads of the Valleys and Caerphilly—the new principal area is virtually bisected by an existing county boundary. In those cases, the Government consider that the changes needed to accommodate the new area wholly within one preserved county are too substantial to be undertaken without first having a thorough review of all the implications for the functions concerned. For that reason, the Government propose in these three cases to leave matters as they stand at present, but will ask the Local Government Boundary Commission to undertake a review as soon as possible after Royal Assent with a view to making proposals to amend the boundaries of the preserved counties as it thinks best. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 to the Bill make provision for the Boundary Commission to undertake reviews of this type and thereafter to make proposals to the Secretary of State.
I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that detailed explanation, which will be a great help locally. One of the reasons why I moved the amendment was that I noticed that most of the preserved counties coincided with the unitary authorities. However, I understand that there is a difficulty in this case. It would have been nicer if we could have decided the matter now rather than
1744
have to wait for the Boundary Commission, but I understand my noble and learned friend's reasons. I am grateful for that answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Establishment of Principal Councils]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 was passed") and insert ("notice is given of elections to the new principal councils").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to an old friend, an old chestnut, and refreshingly a topic which is not a boundary dispute between two areas. I hope that we shall not hear from the noble and learned Lord any dismal phrase about taking note of what was said in another place before anyone can do anything whatever about anything at all.
As I said when we discussed the amendment in Committee, it is simple. Its purpose is to shorten the period in which casual vacancies must remain unfulfilled. The months after the Act is passed will be extremely busy and difficult for all local authorities. They will need a full crew on board to stoke the engines. We can see no reason why there must be such a long period of unoccupied time, which could cause great problems for a new council if a key person happened to fall under a bus.
As it stands, the Bill could lead to casual vacancies in the elected membership of existing councils being unfilled compulsorily for a period of up to 21 months. That could mean that communities are unrepresented, which could lead to the political balance of councils being arbitrarily changed.
As I listened to the noble and learned Lord in Committee, I thought that I detected a whiff of willingness to accede to my plea on this topic. I raise the amendment tonight to ask what progress has been made and what he can do for us. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, when this House debated this matter in Committee, I advised your Lordships that the Government were prepared to consider a later cut-off date than that proposed in the Bill, but felt that the date on which notice of elections is given would cause problems for the reasons that I explained on that occasion. We are still considering a number of options. Our present thinking, however, is that 31st December 1994 might be an acceptable cut-off date. But the Secretary of State wishes to reflect on this further and will come forward with a firm proposal in another place.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, that is indeed a refreshing answer. I have heard a murmur from my noble friends on these Benches, from a quite improper sedentary position, of something that was going through my mind as I was rising to my feet. If the Secretary of State is to reconsider this matter, why can a proposal not be put before this House rather than another place, and very soon? However, I take note of

1745
the fact that the noble Viscount agreed that the ball is very firmly in the Government's court. I note also that the Government are minded at present to consider 31st December 1994 as a cut-off date. I too must think about that. It is not a bad offer but we might be able to do better than that were we to exert a little bit of pressure. Reserving my right to exert pressure on any part of the noble Viscount which comes my way, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Change of status from county to county borough]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 45, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 2 on page 4
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deletes subsection (2) (b) of the new Section 245A, as it will be, to be substituted in the Local Government Act 1972, on the grounds that the subsection is superfluous. The provision of subsection (2) (b) that notice of the meeting should give:
"a clear indication of the purpose of the meeting",
would merely repeat the requirements of Part XII of the Local Government Act 1972. Those include that three clear days' notice of any meeting must be given and that the agenda must be published. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I rise merely to say that the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord is to our satisfaction, and we are pleased to approve the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Community meetings and continuation of community councils]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert:
("(2) For the purpose of exercising functions on and after 1st April 1996, there shall be a community council for every community in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments to Clause 8 enable us to have a short debate on the role of that most important tier of local government; namely, the community councils. The effect of the amendments would be to establish a statutory framework of community councils throughout Wales; to make it easier to establish effective local accountability through those community councils; and to make it less easy to dissolve them. There is a later amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which pursues that issue further.
The system of parish councils does not cover the whole of England; but since 1974 there has been a system of 900 community areas throughout Wales. The overwhelming majority of those—more than 750—have community councils functioning for their communities. There is a strong argument for ensuring that community councils should exist at that level of local government throughout Wales to represent the views of communities throughout Wales.
The suspicion that some of us have had is that the Government regard community councils as some kind of optional extra. Even in their early discussion document, although they paid lip-service to the role of
1746
community councils, they did not seem to be clear as to their functions and effectiveness. We feel that the principle of town and community government at that level should be written more firmly on to the face of the Bill.
There is another specific issue that I should like the department to look at. Following the reorganisation and creation of principal councils, there will be an uneven distribution of community councils within the areas of the new principal councils. In other words, in a number of areas there will be a principal council which will have part coverage and part non-coverage by community councils. That is an important issue. It may well be that the Boundary Commission should consider that matter. It seems to me that an unevenness of representation and tiers of local government may be created if some new principal councils are divided into non-community council areas and areas where there is representation by those community councils.
It is important to emphasise that community councils are not an add-on to the structure of local government. Many of us —decentralists and devotees of the principle of subsidiarity—have envied the strength of the community and mayoral system on mainland Europe. Many of us would wish to see such a strength existing at community level in Wales. We are well aware that we are not addressing a decentralising Government. We are addressing a Government who are increasingly centralising powers within the Welsh Office. I believe that in this case, a piece of democratic centralism would be welcome in the Bill, whereby the Welsh Office could ensure that every community in Wales has a community council of its own. That may then signal the reflowering of genuine local democracy. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on this side of the House we share with others a commitment to the community councils. We wish to encourage their establishment. They can make a contribution towards harnessing local loyalties, and they encourage participation in the life of a community.
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said; but I part company with him on the question of compulsion. The reality is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compel communities to set up councils. But apart from that measure of dissent, I support the amendment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I support these amendments. It seems to me that community councils are an extremely important part of local government. To most people, their immediate community is of the greatest concern. The further away you move from the immediate community, the less is the concern. After all, people take pride in their own locality, parish and town. Therefore, it is extremely important that we should promote community councils within Wales.
One of the most important functions is to give them some finance. If they have no finance, they face grave difficulties. The more responsibilities they take on, the more they find that they have to put an additional burden on the rate in their area. Some means must be found by which to overcome that particular problem.

1747
I am all for getting local government as close to the community and to the roots of society as possible. It seems to me that the means of doing so is through community councils. One of my doubts about the proposed area committee system for Mid Wales (or Powys as it is now to be called) is the question of how it will affect the role of community councils.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, for my part, I would not disagree with much that has been said. The Government certainly recognise that community councils, where they exist, can play an important part in the life of their communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, indicated, it is also correct that, where they exist, they may very well represent a very important level of local democracy. Nonetheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, recognised, they do not exist in all areas, the reason being that the people of those areas have not wished to have a local community council. Over all, I believe it is the case that they are more common in rural areas; whereas, for example, in Cardiff, they are less common. That probably tells us something about the kinds of communities with which we are dealing.
Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and where, in effect, the Government join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is in saying that compulsion would not be desirable, nor would it work. There is no proper basis for forcing communities that do not wish to have a council to establish one. If communities did so only because they were compelled, there is no reason to think that such a council would ever work or that it would satisfy local people. It would almost certainly be seen as the imposition upon them of an additional financial burden. For all those reasons, and while fully recognising the importance of such councils where they exist, the Government cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking the opportunity to emphasise the importance of community councils. I am certain that those communities which at present do not have such councils will take note of what he said. During the course of the Bill's passage through this House and the other place, I hope that there will be a further opportunity for both associations representing community councils in Wales to make further representations to the department on the lines of the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
First, I must say that I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has chosen this as the occasion upon which to make his maiden speech. We all look forward with much interest to hearing him speak.
As your Lordships will recall, the Welbeck project is an integrated scheme of land reclamation and land raising, over a square-mile area of the lower Calder Valley which was ravaged by old mineral workings. The scheme is using colliery spoil to bury existing dereliction under an attractive new landscape, and to prepare a screened void for the disposal of household and trade wastes.
The Welbeck project has already been under way for eight years, with the site being progressively reclaimed, working from its outer areas inwards. Much of the infrastructure is now in place for the spoil and waste intakes. Indeed, over one-third of the site is already permanently restored to countryside, thus much enhancing the environment.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the diversion of the River Calder to one side of the Welbeck site. That will accelerate the restoration of the river corridor, and its reopening as a public asset. It will also enable the creation of a new landform to higher levels, which will more than double the void space available for spoil and waste within the site.
The Bill was opposed by only two petitioners, one of whom, the Stanley Forum Committee, withdrew its petition early in the Committee proceedings. The Warmfield Company, who are landowners affected by the Welbeck project, thus became the sole petitioner.
The Select Committee heard some 23 days of evidence and argument involving 16 expert witnesses, spanning over nearly a 12-month period. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and his committee for their dedication and, indeed, stamina in the matter.
As I understand it, the petitioners' case was very wide ranging but made only limited critique of the river diversion itself. The main thrust of their case, rather, was that the despoiled ground of the river loop area, where household and industrial waste is to be put under the Welbeck project, is unsuitable for that purpose. The petitioners argued that an artificial containment site could not be built there; or, if it could, it would not work; or, if it worked, it would be too costly. The promoters have access to expertise in land reclamation, and showed that the land could be, and indeed was being, successfully prepared and pre-treated for that purpose. They demonstrated that a waste containment site could be built, would work, and would be viable.
The Select Committee recommended to the House that the Bill be allowed to proceed subject only to the giving of an undertaking by the promoters to the effect that, in the event of their also obtaining compulsory purchase powers, they would offer to purchase certain

1749
residual land. The latter is an area of degraded agriculture, woodlands and historic buildings which remains in the ownership of the petitioners, and which would then be of little use to them. Such an undertaking has been given to the satisfaction of the Select Committee and it may be inspected in the Printed Paper Office.
At this point, I turn to acknowledge, with the promoters' support, the constructive action by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in withdrawing his amendment. The background to that withdrawal is that negotiations between the promoters and the petitioners have very recently been making good progress. The noble Lord's action will help in taking those discussions forward.
In conclusion, I should make it clear that the Welbeck project is going and will go ahead in some form anyway, including waste disposal on reclaimed ground in the river loop. It has a long-established planning permission. The land is there, the access provisions are being made, and it needs no parliamentary approval. As I said, the scheme has already been in progress for eight years and has incurred capital expenditure in excess of£10 million.
What is at issue as regards the enactment of the Bill is the diversion of the river and the additional void space which would be created over that land. The capacity of the Welbeck project for waste disposal over the council's own land would, thereby, more than double. The Welbeck project also makes positive engineering and environmental use of great quantities of colliery spoil, which would otherwise have to be tipped on greenfield sites elsewhere.
The passage of the Bill will help to secure a long-term spoil disposal outlet for the Selby coalfield, with which I was personally much connected in my days in the coal industry and which is now central to the future of the British coal industry.
The Welbeck project and its river diversion have been justified in economic, engineering and environmental terms. The project has been pursued from the beginning on an all-party, inter-agency and partnership basis.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, expressed the hope that the Bill would have a successful and speedy passage:
"in the face of that virtual unanimity and in the face of the very restricted objections put forward".—[Official Report, 14/5/91, col. 1548.]
Nearly three years later one is bound to reflect that the speed has been a little elusive, and I hope that not too much further time will be lost. This is a substantial environmental scheme and it deserves our backing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Ezra.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. It occurred to me, in the light of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of the fact that there is no amendment and, therefore, no vote, that the simplest thing would be for all noble Lords to sit down and let the Bill go through. That view is reinforced by
1750
the fact that the Bill will go back to the other place where local Members will have their say. My honourable friend the Member for Normanton, will raise a number of issues, not least that of Newland Park, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, will say a word. When I read that he represents the Wakefield Historical Society, I am on his side. It is very important that local history is not forgotten when such schemes are passed.
For most of today I have been involved with the Welsh local government Bill, which concerns my roots; my interest now is as a former Member of Parliament for Leeds. I am supported by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds whose father represented part of the area that I represented for 30 years. So between us we go back to the First World War. I look forward to Welbeck, which is next door to Wakefield, becoming a place for wildlife to thrive, for extensive recreation and leisure and becoming a good deal better than it is now.
I am chairman of the South Leeds Groundwork Trust which is a "greening" organisation. The Bill has the support of that organisation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stated, holes left by mining must be filled in, scars must be covered up and new hills and valleys created. We shall use coalmining waste and increase the amount of household waste.
It is on the subject of household waste that I wish to speak. The origins of the Welbeck project go back 10 years and a good deal further than that to when the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council was formed. That council inherited waste disposal arrangements which varied widely, but they were inadequate. The crisis in landfill grew to such a proportion that in 1975 there was an emergency programme on solid waste disposal. The plain fact is that the Welbeck project became one important element of the new approach which sought to create at least a 10-year supply of strategic landfill capacity. The Welbeck project is expected to offer 20 years of waste disposal and it is now by far the most important household waste facility in West Yorkshire. It is important because so little additional capacity has been created elsewhere in the county in recent years.
The Welbeck project has been in planning for approximately 10 years, and £10 million of public money has been spent in preparatory work. Despite the recession and all the efforts in relation to recycling, West Yorkshire Waste Management still has to arrange for the disposal of three-quarters of a million tonnes of household waste per annum as a statutory responsibility. It also faces demands to provide for a similar tonnage of industrial and trade waste, as it traditionally has provided. Landfill capacity is vitally necessary. The river diversion scheme is the important part of the project.
I understand that times have changed since 1986. The Government are privatising waste disposal. It is easy to say that we should leave the market to take care of future provisions, and render to the market that which is for the market, but the scars which I found in West Yorkshire 30 years ago were the results of free market forces. Those scars were not the result of public concern; they

1751
were the result of "where there is muck there is money". A lot of money must have come out of that situation and a lot of muck was left.
The scheme has the support of all parties not only here but in the Wakefield district council and the Leeds district council. The procedures of the Bill take a long time. We in West Yorkshire are second to none in our support of democratic methods, but the Bill is taking a long time. When I noted the proper concern in the Garden of England, in Kent, about the effect of the Channel Tunnel line, I wished that we could have had as much support about the effect of many other things in West Yorkshire over the years. We want to see progress.
I realise that there has been a change in the law; namely, the Environmental Protection Act. However, I understand that the promoters have left a clear offer on the table and are awaiting a response. In any event, the outcome would in no way affect the need for the river diversion. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra stated, the enactment of the Bill would more than double the capacity of the site for waste disposal.
Against that background I hope that the Bill will get a Third Reading. It will go to another place and be looked at by local Members of Parliament who know the area a good deal better than most noble Lords. That is an important part of the democratic process. We have already looked at the project in our Select Committee. I support the Third Reading of the Bill as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, I understand that it is unusual for a maiden speech to be heard during a Third Reading debate on an amendment. However, as the amendment has been withdrawn, perhaps I am bending the rules less than I would otherwise be doing. It is because I have a special interest and concern for the Welbeck project that I have entered my name on the list of speakers for the debate.
My family house is only six miles from the Wakefield city centre. It is known as Nostell Priory and is about seven miles from the Welbeck site. Nostell was given to the National Trust in 1952 but my family has continued to live there and I hope that it will continue to do so for many generations to come. It is only natural that we should consider the house and perhaps the family to be an integral part of the historical, cultural and environmental heritage of Wakefield.
There was a time when our countryside was all too frequently devastated by mineral workings after the fields had been exhausted and abandoned. They were allowed to become overgrown and were put to no further use. I welcome wholeheartedly the fact that throughout our country these problems are being handled with a vastly improved attitude as such sites are being restored and, where necessary, landscaped for practical and scenic values.
The Welbeck project concerns one of those areas which, instead of being left as useless and abandoned land, is being put to a very different purpose. I would not support the Welbeck project, nor the proposed
1752
version of the River Calder, unless I was sure that what has been envisaged will be carried out to the highest standards both for scenic and safety measures.
I do not intend to spend any time speaking on the technical issues which have arisen at the planning stage of the proposed diversion. Not only would it be completely wrong of me to do so, but also I would be interfering in matters which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, understands and has explained so well since his experience of these matters goes back many years.
It says much about the concept and the conduct of the Welbeck project that there has been so little local opposition to so great an undertaking. I have to admit that until I visited the site several months ago it was only a name in the newspapers to me. I was ignorant of the true scale and complexity of the endeavour and, indeed, of the fact that it had already been under way for many years.
The Welbeck project is one of those things that has to be seen to be believed, and I mean that literally. I have visited it on more than one occasion and it is open to any members of the public who are interested in going there. In the past 12 months it has had no fewer than 1,400 visitors, including 600 children and their teachers, 200 students and lecturers, and sundry other people, including professionals who come to see it from their own point of view.
To me the project is remarkable for two reasons: its vision and its care. First, as regards its vision, somehow at Welbeck the engineers and planners have broken free from the constraints of their specialist roles and responsibilities and produced a concept possibly never before attempted. Basically, that concept says, let us take three problems—derelict land, waste and spoil disposal—and solve them together, to mutual advantage, at the same location.
The project does that by enhancing today's technologies in an economic way: the ability to discharge a 1,500 tonne payload train of spoil in half an hour; the ability to move material by machine at a fraction of historic costs, dealing with quantities and qualities which eclipse even the Channel Tunnel muckshift; and perhaps most critical to this Bill, the ability to design and construct a new river corridor with a predictable performance in flood or drought conditions.
Secondly, there is the care with which this vision is being carried out, and especially its care for the environment. Perhaps most central in the context of the Bill is the detail with which the river diversion is being engineered and landscaped. This is not only from the viewpoint of the stability of the new channel. The aim is also to create a wider river valley which will offer a rich variety of habitats for nature to recolonise, and a recreational asset for generations to enjoy. Already one can see on site at Welbeck a quality of restoration which not only puts right the years of mineral working dereliction, but truly vies with the attractiveness of the pre-existing countryside.
It is for your Lordships to decide whether the promoters' scheme would become a viable and valuable asset to the region. A mass of evidence has been produced and perhaps it is not an easy decision to reach,

1753
but it has been summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who will doubtless have more to say in his final speech tonight. Certainly, I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion every step has been taken to ensure the highest standards of technical excellence for a scheme that could become a precedent for comprehensive planning on other sites, not only in this country but also overseas.
There is only a short amount of time at our disposal so I shall not continue at any greater length, except to add this. There is one overriding problem about coal spoil and household waste which no one can possibly argue is not with us all the time. Both have to be disposed of somehow. It is essential that they should be disposed of as efficiently as possible. If that process can be used to advantage, what can be better than that?
To put it bluntly, the problem is this. Is the scheme for the diversion of the River Calder to form a loop for the containment of additional waste matter well conceived and, above all, is it safe and to the advantage of public interests? If your Lordships decide that the high standard required cannot be attained, the promoters may well have to sacrifice the river diversion scheme and the loop for the containment of the additional spoil and be satisfied to carry on with the Welbeck project as it is now being worked. That would be a great disappointment to many and I hope that it will not occur. However, if your Lordships agree that those standards will be attained, I hope that the Bill can be enacted in the other place as expeditiously as possible.
7.25 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, on his excellent maiden speech. As everyone will have realised, he spoke with great knowledge of the area which is under discussion. He spoke with feeling, he was interesting and non-controversial, all of which are excellent in a maiden speech. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord on many future occasions.
It is now nearly three years since we debated the Second Reading of the Bill. One of the reasons for the dereliction of some of the land under consideration is the result of uncontrolled mineral working in the past. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that, although not a Yorkshirewoman, I have lived there for many years, and I have always been told that where there's muck, there's brass, not money.
The enhanced colliery spoil is being used to prepare and screen containment cells for waste disposal and to help restore the derelict land to fields, hills, lakes, woods and for recreational purposes, not forgetting wildlife and the environment generally.
North Yorkshire County Council finds that electricity generators have recently added to its spoil disposal problems by tightening their fuel specification. Whereas previously 18 per cent. of ash content was allowed, this has now been reduced to 16 per cent. This leads to the generation of more waste overall, and within that there is a proportion of wet, fine waste which is difficult to handle. There is not a one-way traffic in waste disposal from North Yorkshire to West Yorkshire, it occurs both
1754
ways. Some West Yorkshire domestic waste goes to Darrington in North Yorkshire for disposal and in exchange some North Yorkshire colliery spoil will go to the Welbeck site in West Yorkshire. If the Welbeck scheme fails, North Yorkshire County Council fears that the size of the tipping proposal at Gascoigne Wood would have to be increased.
There will always be industrial waste and household waste to be disposed of somewhere. Utilising the Welbeck site would not only improve the environment with controlled waste disposal but would provide many amenities for Wakefield and the surrounding area.
I hope that the Bill will succeed, and I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I wish to say just a few words in support of the Bill. I say them as a Yorkshirewoman born and bred. I want to deal particularly with the social and environmental dimensions of the project and the river diversion, not the technical matters.
The progressive reclamation of Welbeck for leisure and recreational activities represents one of the most significant regeneration programmes in the country. This is at a time when we hear of so many other natural environments being destroyed by road programmes and other development activities. The project will create a recreational and environmental asset on the doorsteps of Wakefield and Normanton, an area—as my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees said—not noted at present for its beauty. It provides more and better lakes, wetlands, view points, river banks and waterways, some of which are already being discovered and enjoyed by local families, fishing clubs, boaters and bird watchers.
On the question of access and after-use, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has reported on the assurances given to the residents' group, the Stanley Forum, which originally objected to the scheme.
Concern has also been voiced on the future of the Newland Hall area. The Wakefield council has given an undertaking that in the event of its purchasing the area from the Warmfield petitioners, it will be retained as an area for countryside and leisure purposes. There is no intention by the local authority to use this historic area for the deposit of controlled waste. However, like my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, I trust that the ancient monument situated on the banks of the River Calder will be protected and that the Wakefield Historical Society will be involved in the discussions on the reinstatement of the ancient monument.
The local authority has been prepared to address all the details in its planning with the utmost care for nature and for community concerns. That has been done since the inception of the project some eight years ago, not only in terms of both technical studies and achievement on the ground, but also through an extensive programme of public liaison, information and education.
There has been close involvement with both English Nature and the Countryside Commission throughout the project. The project has been welcomed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It welcomed it on the basis that,

1755
"large scale measures are necessary to deal with the large scale problems of the area".
The project has the support of the other four district authorities in West Yorkshire because it will provide a major leisure and environmental amenity to the area —an amenity that will benefit not only the residents of the immediate locality in Wakefield but all the residents of West Yorkshire.
I hope that your Lordships' House will support the Third Reading of the Bill.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise with great sadness because my appearance at the Dispatch Box is due to the absence of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Sadly, he received the news this afternoon that his father has died. As a consequence, he had immediately to attend to his duties. I wish to say, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, that we understand why he is unable to be present and express our deepest sympathy to him and his family at this time.
I know that my noble friend would have enjoyed appearing at the Dispatch Box on the subject because he did so three years ago. I indicate, as he would have done, that by convention the Labour Party has no partisan view on the issue. We are neutral on the matter. We hope that the findings of the committee will be forwarded to another place. Any remarks that I make are from a purely personal point of view.
First, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on an impressive, masterly and brief outline of the issues. I was present three years ago at the Second Reading of the Bill. Those who take an interest in such matters will have followed the Bill's progress over the past years—if progress is the right word for a Bill that has been in Committee for such a lengthy period. Nevertheless, I was impressed by what the noble Lord stated about the outcome if the Bill was passed not only in this House but in another place.
Reference has been made to the economic, environmental and financial aspects. Those issues have been dealt with fairly and kindly. There is no doubt that there will be economic advantage to the communities in the area. We ought not to be mealy-mouthed. There are definite advantages in transforming a derelict and obsolete piece of land into an environment which will produce jobs and will be supported by the communities.
On the social aspect, people living nearby will undoubtedly be affected by the operation of the new scheme. It is right and proper that we should listen carefully to what will undoubtedly be said—we may not hear it at first hand but at second hand—by the Member of Parliament, Mr. Bill O'Brien. Quite rightly, he wishes to ensure that the worries of his constituents are fully taken into account. Not only is that the proper thing to do, but many noble Lords in this Chamber may have served, as I have done, on a planning committee and will recognise that it is pointless not to listen to the views of any sector of the community affected. Their views hold weight. Those who are affected by the operation of the scheme are entitled to have their view taken fully into consideration.
1756
I have been impressed by the dedication and determination of local councils, which recognise that an opportunity has occurred in the past few years to take advantage of a situation which was not of their making but which can be transformed, environmentally and economically, to the advantage of the people whom they represent.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees indicate the all-party nature of the issue. It is not simply the authorities, as I understand it, but the members of authorities of all political complexions who favour the scheme making progress. When I read the papers I was impressed at the genuine effort to achieve the agreement of all the interests which are affected, including business and industry. Such people are perfectly entitled to make sure that their interests are protected and well looked after. I was pleased to hear in the past two days that the councils' determined efforts to make progress through agreement appear to have borne fruit. Therefore I believe that the communities in the environs of Wakefield, Bradford and Calderdale, Kirklees and Leeds have been well served by their councils.
In this Chamber tonight we have been well served by our procedures. They have been somewhat exhaustive, but I hope that at the end of the day the people who will be affected will feel that their voice has been heard.
A number of people will take a keen interest in the Bill when it goes to another place. Although I am a Geordie and know the mining area, I cannot remotely claim the interests indicated by those who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, is to be congratulated on making his maiden speech on such an important issue—many of us speak in general terms in our maiden speeches. The noble Lord made a great impression on the House. When the Bill passes to another place, Members of Parliament who serve the interests of the people of the Wakefield area will wish to ensure that the views of their constituents are fully taken into account. We know that those Members will not be backward in coming forward to ensure that their points are taken up by the Committee. Even at the Third Reading of the Bill in another place they will have their opportunity.
We have been well served in this House. I speak in an individual capacity, but we on the Labour Front Bench hope that the Minister will say kind things about the Bill and speed it on its way.
7.39 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may first congratulate my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald on his maiden speech. He spoke with enormous lucidity and sensitivity about land which he obviously knows well and about which he feels passionately.
As my noble friend Lady Blatch said during the Second Reading of the Bill in May 1991, the Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the council. I am glad to be able to say that remains the position today.
The Government have given financial assistance and encouragement for the Welbeck project; but in view of

1757
the so far unresolved matter of the compulsory purchase order associated with the project, which is still to be decided by the Secretary of State, I trust that noble Lords will understand why the Government's position must remain essentially one of neutrality.
However, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Third Reading so that it may proceed to another place where I am certain that all the points raised by your Lordships' House will be most carefully considered.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, including the noble Earl, Lord Arran, whom I thank for his benevolent neutrality. I hope that I can use the word "benevolent" without causing any offence. All the speeches have been important; but included in them were two particularly important ones from the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, to whom reference has already been made. His speech was all the more relevant to our proceedings because of his great knowledge of the area, stretching back a long time through his family.
I also wish to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. At short notice and in the sad circumstances affecting the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which prevented his appearance, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, took on his role and carried it out admirably, expressing his personal opinions.
Rarely has there been such a unanimous view from all speakers in the debate. Most of those who spoke have probably seen the site and could not fail to have been impressed with all that has been done. I wish to pay tribute to the City of Wakefield for the work that it has done. We have all been extremely well-served by them, with every form of assistance that we could have required in order to conduct proceedings in this House. I wish particularly to express appreciation to Doctor Chris Macdonald who provided the briefing to all of us. He will, I hope, be totally satisfied with the satisfactory outcome, if I may anticipate the conclusion of proceedings.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.43 to 8.5 p.m..]

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 8.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from ("before") to ("take") in line 19 and insert ("1st October 1997").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Government acknowledge that a five-year time-lapse to ensure that all communities have both a Welsh and an English name, where generally accepted alternative forms exist, was perhaps a little too generous. Accordingly we have
1758
reconsidered and now bring forward this amendment which will reduce the period to 18 months. We feel that this is appropriate since it will enable principal councils to undertake consultations in the appropriate community areas, with the community councils (where they exist) and with specially convened community meetings where community councils do not exist—which is the case in over 130 community areas in Wales. Lest there be any confusion about the matter, I should point out that the naming provision in this clause relates to the community areas, not the community councils. The fact that there are so many areas without councils is why responsibility for ensuring that there are Welsh and English versions is being assigned to the principal council. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his amendment and for implementing the spirit of an earlier amendment that I moved at Committee stage. Clearly we have had two great victories this evening. Powys will still be called Powys; and the Government have accepted the spirit of the naming of community councils. I thank the noble Viscount for that.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we also welcome this amendment. It requires the community council to be named by 1st April 1997. We believe that is acceptable. In Committee I raised a number of other specific questions on the clause. I just want to place on the record that I have received a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, which is satisfactory.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Establishment, dissolution and grouping etc. of community councils.]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Community councils: supplemental provisions.]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
("(i) in case of the establishment of a community council such number as is equal to 30 per cent of the local government electorate or, if that number exceeds 300, is 300; and
(ii) in case of the dissolution of a community council such number as is equal to 50 per cent of the local electorate or, if that number exceeds 500, is 500.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that in those community areas that do not have community councils the procedure for establishing a community council is made easier, and the dissolution process is made somewhat more difficult. This amendment is, as it were, a second or third tier following the two previous amendments which we debated before dinner referring to the position of community councils. I would argue that this amendment seeks to put into effect what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate advanced in his speech opposing my earlier amendment; namely, that application of the principle of establishing a community council in those areas which do not have them is made easier by this amendment.
There has been a lot of concern both on the part of the Wales Association of Community and Town Councils and its sister organisation, the National Association of

1759
Local Councils, about the position whereby community councils can become dissolved by a snap vote on a rather narrow local issue. Therefore I believe that it is advisable that where that structural government exists, it should be more firmly established, and where it does not exist it should be more easily established. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment and in particular its second paragraph. Under existing law a council can be dissolved without any advice or review by an external body. As the Bill now stands it can be dissolved with the consent of just 30 per cent. of the electorate, or 300 if the electorate exceeds 300. That is far too low.
As we have thought almost from the beginning, it is an invitation to instability. We support the amendment and in particular the second limb of it, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas said, it will prevent the hasty dissolution of a community council.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have already acknowledged the important role that community councils play, where they exist. Nonetheless, I cannot accept the amendment.
I do not think it is correct to say that the amendment will make it any easier for a community council to be established than does the proposal contained in the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to tease out the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 12 so as to retain for the establishment of a community council the figures in subsection (5) but to substitute in the case of dissolution the figures in the amendment.
As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be to leave the establishment of community councils on the same basis as proposed in the Bill. Nonetheless it would have an effect in the case of dissolution.
However, it is important to notice what in fact the Bill provides; namely, that in subsection (4) of the clause:
"At any community meeting at which there is discussed a proposal … for the dissolution of a community council … a decision to hold a poll on the question shall be effective only if not less than the required number of local government electors is present and voting".
That number is then specified in subsection (5).
But the decision at such a meeting is simply a decision to hold a poll. The issue of whether or not the community council should be dissolved is a matter that would then be determined at a poll. With the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I believe that it would be wrong to suggest that somehow or other the dissolution of a council could be achieved simply upon the voting figures in subsection (5). On the contrary, that is simply what is required to put the issue in front of the electorate. At the end of the day it is for the electorate to decide in both cases whether or not a community council should be established or whether or not it should be dissolved.
In my submission that is the correct way to look at the matter. A council should not be forced on a community if it does not wish it. The community should not be forced to retain one if on a poll the majority of the electorate do not support it. The proposals in the Bill are
1760
a very secure basis for a democratic decision on both the establishment and the dissolution of a council. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I find it a curious argument that a community may argue that it wishes to have a community council or it does not; in other words, its identity as a community may or may not be related to a political structure. Earlier in other parts of the debate the Government have taken a very strong view that whether or not a community wishes to remain a community or to identify itself politically is a matter for it to decide. Here we have an inconsistency.
It seems to me that in the creation of a principal council it is not a matter for the communities which constitute areas, shires or counties to decide to maintain their integrity or their political structure. In the case of Montgomeryshire or Merioneth or whichever of the other authorities we may refer to, it is not for the community to decide that it wishes to express itself in a political authority. However, when we come to community councils it is apparently for community areas to wish to express themselves and for them alone.
That exposes two aspects of the Government's attitude to the Bill. First, they do not really believe that community councils are an integral part of local government structure; and, secondly, it is clear that the principle of local democracy applies where it is least effective and not where it might be most effective in exercising political influence.
Having made what I suspect is in effect almost a Second Reading speech, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [General provision for transfer of functions]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 21, leave out ("or by any instrument under").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. In Committee we had some trouble with subsection (3) of Clause 17 and indeed with the whole of the clause as it stands. I recognise that the amendment that I moved Committee was in the nature of a probing amendment. It had certain defects which the noble and learned Lord quite properly pointed out. But I believe that it is right to return to this matter.
I asked the noble and learned Lord to have a look at the wording of Clause 17(3) before Report stage. He has done that and very kindly written me a letter. That letter was dated 8th February 1994 and I have not had a great deal of time to read it. But I am bound to say that even if I had had all the time in the world to read it I might not understand it any better than I do at present.
Clause 17 declares the general intention to transfer to the new principal councils every current local authority function contained in any relevant legislative provision. That is perfectly clear in subsection (1). Subsection (2) is equally clear. It is a general provision. Therefore, prima facie this is a wholesale transfer of each and every current local authority function, however and wherever

1761
described, to each of the new principal councils. That is the function of the clause. That is what Clause 17(1) and (2) say.
If that is the case, there is obviously a question of why there needs to be a separate provision in Clauses 18, 19 and 20 (for planning) and Clause 21 (for highways, transportation, housing, public health and related matters). Those functions are subject to the general provision of the transfer of functions in Clause 17(1) and (2). I accept that in the case of overlapping functions such as planning, some specific clause for transfer may be required. That may be a case where one needs a clause such as Clauses 18 or 19.
But the problem with subsection (3) is that it has the power to negate completely subsections (1) and (2). In other words, subsections (1) and (2) state a clear principle, which I have just enunciated and which is perfectly clear. And subsection (3) gives power to the Secretary of State to negate that principle and not just by what he puts in the Bill, but also by any instrument under the Act. The object of the amendment and the wording is absolutely clear on that point. We feel that the provision of secondary legislation to negate what is a primary function of Clause 17(1) and (2) requires further explanation from the noble and learned Lord.
I accept that to leave out subsection (3) altogether would be wrong. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his letter—in the part which I understood—in Schedule 6, paragraph 20(13) there is a specific provision to the contrary; that is, a specific provision qualifying the general transfer which is contained in the Bill. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do because your Lordships can discuss that matter as and when we come to it.
But when we come to doing what is in the schedule, and instead of putting it in the Bill we have an order doing it, then I start to become a little edgy, for two reasons. First, the transfer of functions should be quite simple if we follow Clause 17(1) and (2). Secondly, the 1972 Act, to which the noble and learned Lord referred as being analogous to what is happening here, is in fact not analogous. That Act dealt with both England and Wales and with the transition from county, urban district, rural district, parish and community councils to county, district, parish and community councils. It is therefore a much more complex arrangement than simply the wholesale transfer of certain functions carried out by certain local authorities to another group with which the Bill is concerned. I do not believe therefore that the 1972 Act is a proper analogy.
I recognise that if my amendment is accepted it will negate subsection (6) of Clause 17, because that would be an instrument under the Bill and the Secretary of State would not have the power to make an order adjudicating between councils where there was doubt. I think the noble and learned Lord said that it was some kind of failsafe procedure. All I can do is to repeat what I said in Committee: it is a little odd to have to write failsafe procedures into every Bill. It is up to the Government to get the Bill right and if they get it right then we do not need a failsafe procedure.
The problem with Clause 17(3) is that it allows the Government to negate the general transfer in a manner
1762
which Parliament at the moment cannot foresee because the Secretary of State can do it by order rather than putting it in the Bill. Therefore functions can remain with the bodies that have them at the moment simply because the Secretary of State says that they will remain with that body, and that is an end to the matter. That is why this specific subsection is causing great anxiety and why I would welcome from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a justification of why that wording in regard to subordinate legislation should be in the Bill at all. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I listened with great interest and a certain amount of comprehension to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have an interest in the amendment, which at present is academic, as a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which did not pick up the point. However, it is a related point.
As I see it, the provision contains the intellectual difficulty of double and triple negatives, with which I always have a problem. If I understand the situation correctly—and I believe I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—the amendment would prevent the Secretary of State doing what he otherwise might do, which is to extend the effect of the Act to existing legislation after the Act has been put on the statute book; in other words, extending its effect beyond that which Parliament can foresee in authorising it. Therefore the extent to which the use of that power is limited elsewhere in the Bill seems to me to be crucial to the extent to which we should favour the noble Lord's amendment.
I shall listen with great care to hear whether my noble and learned friend is saying that that will not happen because the Government do not intend to do it, but he cannot answer for succeeding governments, or whether he is saying that the Government will not do it because the provisions do not permit it. I should be most grateful if he could show us the extent of the use of the power.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I hope that the difficulties that noble Lords felt with the provision are due to defects in my exposition rather than any defects in the clause itself. I start by saying that of course Clause 17(3) does not give power to make orders, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognises. The power to make orders is the general power to be found in Clause 52. No doubt we shall come on to debate that.
In general terms the effect of an order-making power in connection with any Bill (or Act as it will be by then), is to give the Secretary of State power to make orders which carry forward the purposes of the statute. The purposes of this statute are to make provision in respect of local government in Wales and in particular to transfer functions and so forth.
Subsection (3) qualifies a general and comprehensible provision of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 17, which provide in broad terms for a general transfer of functions. Then comes the qualification in subsection (3), and it says that,
"This section has effect subject to any provision to the contrary made by, or by any instrument under, this Act".

1763
Let us consider the words, "under the Act". The noble Lord, Lord Williams, acknowledged that the example which I gave was an example of that. The question then is what is intended by the words,
"any provision … made … by any instrument under, this Act"?
So far as possible the Bill provides, both in the general provisions of Clause 17 and elsewhere, as the noble Lord pointed out, for transfer whether generally or slightly more specific. But there are functions of local government the details of which are set out in secondary legislation. It would not be practical or indeed sensible, for the amendments to that secondary legislation to be contained in primary legislation.
What is envisaged is that there may be secondary legislation which is required to amend the existing secondary legislation which deals with the functions of the local authority. I accept also that there may be occasions where secondary legislation is used because, in going through the various statutes, certain functions have not been picked up. It is difficult to find all the references tucked away in legislation, so it is acknowledged that it may be used for that purpose also.
That is the kind of situation which is envisaged. The question then is: why, on looking through the Bill, one can make an instrument which provides that something should not be transferred? That is what the noble Lord is asking. The answer to that is most easily given if I suggest that there may be certain functions which should not be transferred or which it would not make sense to transfer.
For example, with the combination of county functions and district functions, there could be a situation where, under the existing system—with both the county and the district —there would be a power for the county to act in circumstances where the district failed to act—a kind of failsafe provision. In the transfer to the new unitary authority, there would be no room for the transfer of such a function to the county because one would no longer have two different councils. One would have only the one council. In that situation, it would make no sense for such a failsafe mechanism in the county to be transferred to the unitary authority because there would be only one authority. That is the kind of situation which is envisaged. There may be situations where there is a power which exists at the moment in one of the authorities which it would not make sense in the framework of the new unitary authority to transfer to that unitary authority. It may be that—
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. For the purposes of this clause it is irrelevant whether the function is defined in an Act or in an instrument. It is all included in subsection (2), so that part of the argument is irrelevant. If I may take the noble and learned Lord's example, there is a function which at the moment is exercised by a county, say, the failsafe: if a district does not do something, then the county can intervene. If the county is not going to exist, if there is to be a unitary authority, then the question of the failsafe falls
1764
automatically. Once you transfer to a unitary authority, you transfer to a unitary authority. So there is no question of using these powers.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with respect, it seems to me that the noble Lord makes my point. If one has two authorities, with one of them acting in a failsafe capacity, it does not make sense for the legislation to provide, as it would provide if only Clause 17(1) and (2) existed, that both sets of powers would transfer to the new authority. The noble Lord may say that there would be no reason to invoke it. Nonetheless, there would be an extraordinary anomaly on the statute book in that the new unitary authority would have inherited two incompatible powers—two powers—only one of which would ever have to be exercised. Lawyers may do foolish things but they should not have on the statute book something which is entirely redundant and something which would cause doubt in the minds of people who had to operate the provisions in the future.
It is to allow appropriate provision to be made by statutory instrument—in order to take away that unnecessary power —that under subsection (3) the transfer takes place subject to the provision—in that case the statutory instrument. That statutory instrument would provide, for example, that only one power—whatever it would be—would come across. Therefore it would provide that this fallback power would not transfer. There would be no reason for it to transfer. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this further because, in my respectful submission, it makes sense in that context.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that exposition. It seems to me that we are getting down to a question of whether lawyers like something to be clean and clear. Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord's example ad absurdum. Authority A—a county council—has a failsafe over authority B, which is a district council. If authority B does not do something, authority A can step in and do it. All powers of authority A are transferred to authority B. This means that authority B—a unitary council—has powers not only to do the thing itself but actually to supervise its own doing of the thing. That may be untidy but it is nevertheless perfectly plain because authority A ceases to exist.
If the noble and learned Lord is saying—if I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—that the only purpose of such an instrument made under Clause 52 is to clean up these small legal anomalies, and if he is prepared to give an assurance to that effect, I am perfectly happy, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be perfectly happy. But I am rather more suspicious by nature than that. I should like the noble and learned Lord please, by leave of the House, to reply. If he cannot give that assurance, I should like him to tell us exactly how he sees this power being used.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say very briefly that all that can be done is to use the powers which are given by the statute to make orders. There is no other power. The general power—apart from particular ones in particular clauses

1765
—is the power in Clause 52. That in itself is very limited to incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions. We shall come on to debate that clause in due course. All the authorities indicate that these powers are able to be used only in a very restricted way. The kinds of situations which we have in mind are those which I have indicated to the noble Lord. I cannot say that they will all be to do with fallback provisions, and so on. It is a technical provision to make sure that when the legislation takes effect and people have to apply it, they are not faced with something which is anomalous, hard to construe, hard to make sense of or hard to know how it is meant to work in a particular situation. It is to allow that kind of thing to happen. The power which is envisaged being used here would prevent the transfer of that kind of function. It is in that limited context, and I am quite happy to give that assurance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, it may be that his last sentence covers this point but I shall have to read it in Hansard to make sure. He was pointing us to Clause 52 to reassure us and saying how limited the powers under the clause are. There are order-making powers elsewhere in the Bill, not least in Clause 30 which we shall be discussing shortly. The assurance that we need—I do not see why it could not be on the face of the Bill—is that this subsection relates to orders made under Clause 52. That would be an even neater and cleaner way of doing it. I am quite prepared to be told I am wrong because I am not a lawyer, and lawyers are always right. When they are right, I usually am wrong. But I should be grateful to my noble and learned friend if he would look at that.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am happy to look at it but I should not like to give the assurance in those terms this evening because I would have to look at that more carefully. In broad terms, I am happy to give the assurance which I have already given. I would simply reassure noble Lords that the order-making powers are powers granted by Parliament. They can only be exercised in the terms which Parliament has granted. If the Secretary of State strays beyond those powers, they can be struck down by the process of judicial review, a process which, as noble Lords know, has become very effective in recent years.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for all his responses. I think that the argument is postponed until we get to Clause 52. As I said when I moved the amendment, subsection (6) of Clause 17 also contains an order-making power arbitrating between councils and therefore would be, as it were, subject to subsection (3). That is how I understand it. So there may be other places in the Bill, apart from Clause 52, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, where that would apply. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord prefers to duck the point. I think that we should postpone the argument until a later date; indeed possibly until another stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [New principal councils to be local planning authorities in Wales]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a number of questions on which I have written to my noble and learned friend. I would like to have some clarification concerning this clause and other clauses which refer to planning. My first question follows my noble and learned friend's remarks at Second Reading (Official Report, 14/12/93; col. 1271). I ask: first, what confidence can the local people have that the planning system will deliver better decisions than it has in the past? In particular, will rural entrepreneurs still experience long and costly delays by dilatory planning authorities? Secondly, will the Government look again at DoE Circular 8/93 to make sure that those new and more local planning authorities do not behave unreasonably?
It is not unusual for an inspector to rule that a local planning authority has "behaved unreasonably" yet be unable, because of the circular, to award costs. So the local planning authority just laughs and continues to behave unreasonably. That is not quite in line with the Citizen's Charter. Can my noble and learned friend say whether ombudsmen's and inspectors' recommendations in future may—I say "may"—be made legally enforceable? They are in Northern Ireland.
My noble and learned friend may say that these points have nothing to do with this Bill. I beg to differ, not least because the new planning authorities will have lost the guidance, as far as overall structure plans are concerned, from the county councils. I shall be grateful if my noble and learned friend can tell me who, and more importantly, when, the future structure plans will be in place.
I suspect that these thoughts are somewhat similar to the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in a slightly different context but with the same philosophy on the last amendment. Perhaps my noble and learned friend can confirm that existing county council structure plans will remain in force until the new unitary authority plans are produced, or will the Secretary of State issue interim plans? I do not know. Perhaps he can also say what the position would be if an area committee adopted a planning policy contrary to a unitary development plan.
If there are to be joint arrangements between unitary authorities, are the Government going to issue guidelines as to how they should work? In particular, I am sure that guidance is needed on such things as road planning and certainly on waste disposal.
To put the matter in a sentence: believe that there could be a muddle. I accept that many of these points cannot be corrected in this Bill, but whenever any change in anything is made there is always a knock-on effect and it is always wise to be aware of that: commercial organisations are. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to say that the Government will be looking at these points and will take any necessary correcting action; otherwise the planning system, which will inevitably become more locally

1767
based under the Bill, will fall into, dare I say, even more disrepute than already exists, if that is possible. In short, I am quite worried. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, are well put. The whole arrangement of how planning will work under the unitary councils, it seems to me, has yet to be determined. That will effect not just the business of structure plans and the development of Wales itself. It will affect all the voluntary organisations—I speak as president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—which will have to deal with the planning mechanism as it is. Until we have some clear idea in the form of guidance from the Government as to how the whole thing is to operate, and a clear indication from the Welsh Office that the scheme is to work in the way it believes is efficient and it can be demonstrated that it is efficient, we are a bit in the dark.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, when he says that the planning regime in Wales does not have the highest reputation. It may even get worse unless the Welsh Office takes a grip of it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer convincingly the points which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and that the Welsh Office will put these matters into practice pretty soon after the Bill becomes an Act.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it seems to me that the explanation which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is seeking may be supplied in my noble and learned friend's explanation of the effects of Clause 19, which would not work without Clause 18, which my noble friend's amendment seeks to remove. Therefore, it is proper to ask him whether the new body which is to be set up by the Secretary of State—by order, I might add, in the light of our last debate and under Clause 19(1)—will be the body which creates the structure plan. Will the structure plan created by it have the same effect as the structure plan under the existing arrangements in this country? I agree with my noble friend that without a structure plan planning will be all at sixes and sevens.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I may not be able to answer all the points which have been raised in sufficient detail. If that is so—and I shall reflect on what I am able to say—and as I reflect on the questions in Hansard, I shall write on these matters to my noble friend. But in broad terms it is of course the case that the new unitary structure does necessitate changes to the planning system in Wales. That is inevitable. Clause 18 provides for the new authorities to be the local planning authorities and the mineral planning authorities.
As noble Lords know, at the present time planning is currently the function of both the county and the district councils in Wales. The major effect and advantage of reorganisation will be to rationalise the administration and delivery of the service by vesting it, in effect, in a single authority for an area. I believe that that will mean
1768
that there is less confusion about responsibility for any particular matter. There will also be clear accountability.
I know from my own experience as regards equivalent legislation in Scotland that it is often difficult to deal with matters when there are two planning authorities involved. One finds oneself caught between the two. There is the awkward matter of evidence coming in or positions being taken by the county in Wales, and in Scotland the region, and so on. I believe that that of itself will be an advantage.
Clause 20 provides for a consequential change in the development plan system. That is a change from one based on local and structure plans to one based on unitary development plans, regulations and orders and directions as conferred by the Bill. That is the situation in broad terms.
In answering the questions more particularly which my noble friend Lord Stanley has put as regards what confidence local people can have that the planning system will be simplified, and so on, I have already indicated that the streamlining down to one authority should of itself help. I believe that that is a major advantage. Whether it will lead to all these authorities being as efficient as one would wish I cannot yet say because one has to see how they work. The trouble at the moment is that it is not necessarily the structure that is wrong but sometimes perhaps the particular body has not administered it as efficiently as it could. I cannot say at the moment that one can be absolutely confident that they will all be as punctilious in meeting the demands as my noble friend would like. However, I think that the system is an improvement.
My noble friend asked whether and to what extent one can expect the present planning system to be perpetuated. I think that it is correct to say that the system will not be fundamentally altered. The Town and Country Planning Act, as amended, will be amended to reflect the change in the nature of the authorities. Under the new system, each authority will prepare a single plan, a unitary development plan. It is expected that the new authorities will commence work on the unitary development plans as soon as practicable when the new system comes into force.
However, it is possible that the new authorities will find that they have inherited development plans which are in the course of preparation. They may take the view that those plans should be progressed through and, in due course, be adopted. They can apply to the Secretary of State for approval to do that. That is set out in Schedule 5. That would be an interim measure to ensure that an up-to-date development plan is in place before work commences on the unitary development plan.
To that extent, that measure is designed to deal with the kind of transitional problems which my noble friend has said that he fears. I think that any such change will have teething problems. We hope that such a measure will at least minimise those problems. The matter of the timescale for adopting the unitary development plans is something which the Welsh Office intends to deal with in guidance.
The question of approval of the unitary development plans will depend on local circumstances. A new

1769
authority may be able to take forward an existing plan, but that will not always be possible. It is for that reason that the department has not set any date for adoption of the unitary development plans throughout Wales. However, this is a matter which will, again, be dealt with by means of guidance from the Welsh Office.
Another question that was asked (of me in the letter) was whether clear guidance will be given in the unitary development plans to prospective developers. Unitary development plans will provide clear guidance. The decision-making of the new authorities will be based on the development plans. Although any individual planning application will continue to be considered on its merits—that must always be so—noble Lords will recall that under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, local planning authorities are required to determine any application in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In broad terms, the area committee would have to apply the terms of the unitary development plan. One of the matters that I should like to consider further and about which I shall write to my noble friend is the question of exactly what the remedy would be if the area committee decided not to do that.
I hope that I have, at least in broad terms, answered the questions that have been put to me. As I have said, I shall read Hansard and if there are any other matters on which I can help my noble friend or any other noble Lord, I shall seek to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down for the second but not the ultimate time, will he take on board the fact that it seems to me that the whole question of whether this will work hangs on the operation of Clause 19, which enables the Secretary of State to determine the size of the planning board? If boards are too small, the Secretary of State can make joint boards by order. That is crucial to planning. If the unitary authorities—the principal authorities—are very small, it will be almost impossible to have an industrial development plan, a housing plan or any of the other sorts of plans that should be established by an authority that covers much more of an area than one of the little bodies that we are creating. The Secretary of State can either leave a mosaic of small bodies or have a patchwork quilt, as it were, of larger authorities by using Clause 19. It would be extremely helpful to know the extent to which he intends using that power. If my noble and learned friend could put that information in a letter to me, I should be most grateful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord has not yet sat down, perhaps I can ask another question of information. Is there any mechanism in the Bill as drafted for the Welsh Office to approve these unitary development plans? I can imagine that in relatively small authorities the development plan of one authority might adopt a completely different philosophy from the development plan of another authority. I think that I said in Committee that Radnor
1770
and Brecon have completely different methods of adjudicating on planning decisions. Indeed, the two counties look very different. That has been happening over the past 15 years to my knowledge. Does the Welsh Office have any mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can ensure that the unitary development plans follow a coherent pattern?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, not for the first time this evening—I am sure this will happen in the future—I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the great care and trouble that he took in replying to my question—
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to say that I should like to reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the matter that he raised. I shall reply equally to my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to have been in such a hurry.
Not for the first time, I feel that I have pushed the ball into court and that your Lordships are playing it. I am grateful to noble Lords for their help in expressing similar concerns to mine over this matter. It needs quite a lot of careful thought, which is what your Lordships have given it. I strongly suspect that the Government will hear more about this problem, particularly when we get to the English Bill. I hope—I beg—that the Government will consider carefully (my noble and learned friend has obviously done this) the points that I and other noble Lords have raised so that we get this right—or as near right as possible. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 19 [Joint and special planning boards in Wales]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 14, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, and now for something completely different. We shall, of course, be returning to questions of planning—in my case, in about 30 amendments' time. Meanwhile, we are all looking forward with scarcely concealed impatience to the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the national parks. The noble Lord, my noble friend Lady White and I have the honour to be Vice-Presidents of the Council for National Parks and have a deep interest in that subject. I should stress that we have no pecuniary interest in that topic so far as I am aware.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek an assurance from the Minister that if the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, fails—and heaven forfend that it should—the Secretary of State will definitely create boards where there are currently committees of county councils to administer the national parks in Wales. At present all three national parks in Wales are run as committees of county councils, which will therefore cease to exist.
Fortunately, there is an alternative legal framework for administering a national park. It is known as a "board". A board is a freestanding thing within the local government framework. Two-thirds of the members are from local authorities in both kinds of operation. It should be noted that in 1991 the Minister announced that the Government believed that all 10 national parks in both Wales and England should be constituted along the lines of boards and not committees. The term used was "independent authorities". That has come to be the term of art for this particular board.
That became a manifesto commitment. We on this side of the House never cease to be impressed by the way in which Her Majesty's Government honour any commitment which has appeared in the manifesto, no matter what may come. We hope that they will honour this one. Clause 19 makes it much easier to change existing park committees in Wales into boards and under current legislation that would be difficult. Therefore, we have no difficulty whatever in seeing some real merit and relief in Clause 19.
On Second Reading it was announced that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, hopes soon to introduce his Private Member's Bill with government support. That would offer a superior legislative framework for setting up national park authorities along the same lines as boards. The Bill would be superior because it would be drafted from scratch rather than amending and patching existing legislation. There would be the opportunity and scope to sort out anomalies and to incorporate best practice from existing areas which have boards. It would also apply equally to England and Wales.
Also on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord helpfully said that if the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is successful with his Bill it would be the preferred option for the Welsh national parks. Therefore, from our point of view, Clause 19 can be seen as nothing much more than an insurance policy in case the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, should fail.
The danger that the Council for National Parks wishes to guard against is a scenario which might be as follows: the noble Lord's Bill fails for some reason unconnected with any of us, and for some reason the Secretary of State decides not to set up board parks in Wales using his powers to make an order. At present, Clause 19 is perhaps a weak enabling clause. We would prefer the Bill to say "shall" rather than "may" because "shall" is a firmer, mandatory word, briskly reminding the Secretary of State of his duties. It is a word which would both permit and oblige the Secretary of State to do as King Henry V—that great and good Welsh king of England—advised his English army; to stiffen his sinews, summon up his blood and set up boards for the national parks. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, I cannot quote Shakespeare, but I shall say that as a fellow vice-president of the Council of National Parks, I am entirely in favour of the proposed amendment. I hope that the Government will have the sense to accept it herewith.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the favourite parliamentary ploy is to play about with the words "shall" and "may". On this occasion, the word "may" can be preferred on two grounds. First, that the Secretary of State wishes to have an unbridled discretion. Secondly, that he envisages circumstances in which he may not want to institute a special board. I take it that we can discount the first and that the Secretary of State does not want an unbridled discretion but is content if necessary to be guided by Parliament. Therefore, when the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, replies—he seems to be the one on the point of reply —your Lordships will want to know what are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may not wish to act as directed in the subsection.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the Government remain committed to their manifesto pledge of establishing independent national park authorities. The setting up of such authorities would dispense with the need for planning boards. Your Lordships are aware of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Norrie proposes to introduce. It would have the effect of creating independent national park authorities. Were my noble friend's Bill to receive the approval of Parliament, the Government would not need to bring into effect or use the provisions of Clause 19 to create planning boards for national parks in Wales. In the event of my noble friend's Bill not receiving parliamentary approval, however, the Government would certainly move to establish such boards.
The Government thus wish to retain the wording of Clause 19 as drafted. That will ensure that there is no compulsion to establish special planning boards when they may no longer be required on account of changes brought about by legislation being brought forward separately and subject to different parliamentary timescales. It will also retain consistency with existing permissive powers to establish joint planning boards which remain unaffected by the requirements of local government reorganisation.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply; at least I think I am. I find it quite astonishing, as I found the whole of this splendid debate on what I thought would be a simple and pleasant little amendment. I normally find that anything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, commands my instantaneous agreement and support. I found that to be so when he said that he was concerned about unbridled discretion being given to a Secretary of State. I found those to be cheerful and fortifying words. I am always suspicious of giving unbridled discretion to any Secretary of State —and I almost go so far as to say, of whatever party.
The noble and learned Lord asked what circumstances there may be in which a Secretary of State may not wish to act in the way that has been described. I am bound to say that the noble Viscount brought forward no such circumstances and I am relieved and pleased that I did not hear any such thing.
If I understood him correctly, the noble Viscount said that there is no need for any change here because, in the unlikely event—that sounds as though this aeroplane is

1773
coming down on water, does it not?—of the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, not succeeding, then the Government are minded, nay determined, to act as I want them to do. They do not wish to be told that that is what they have to do.
Forgive an old Welsh cynic but I find that I am always suspicious when somebody says, "There is no need for you to tell me to do that, because I fully intend to do it". Circumstances change; times change; things go differently. It is always nicer and more pleasant to have something set down in law and on the face of the Bill rather than having to rely on a statement made, even in your Lordships' House, and even by someone like the noble Viscount, with whom I would trust my life. Who was it who said: "God is love but get it in writing"?
That is still my view about the Bill. Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount to explain why he is so robustly ready to do what I want him to do but does not want the words written on the face of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the matter hinges on the fact that we should not need the powers of compulsion if the Bill sponsored by my noble friend Lord Norrie passes through Parliament. However, we have, as a commitment, undertaken that, if the Bill fails, we shall bring forward legislation to set up the necessary boards. We also wish to keep consistent existing law. Therefore, we prefer that Clause 19 should remain as it is.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on the understanding, which I had not taken on board—and that was probably my fault—that, in the event of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, failing, legislation will be brought forward and that there is a commitment to do that, I am delighted and pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, Amendment No. 32 should read:
"Insert the following new clause",
and not the words as printed.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Local education authorities and minor authorities in Wales

(".—(1) In section 114 of the Education Act 1944 (interpretation), in the definition of "local education authority" in subsection (1), after "the county," insert "in relation to a county borough, the council of the county borough,".

(2) In section 192 of the 1972 Act (education), in subsection (1), after "non-metropolitan county" insert "in England" and at the end add "but, for each principal area in Wales, the local education authority shall be the council of that principal area".

(3) In section 114(1) of the Act of 1944, in the definition of "minor authority", omit, in paragraph (b), "is a community having no community council or" and, in paragraph (c) (iii), "which is a community having no community council or".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 introduces a new clause. The Government are conscious of anxieties that have been expressed about the absence of any reference to education in the Bill as it was originally drafted. That gave rise to certain suspicions. I hope that those suspicions are allayed by this amendment, which makes good that deficiency. On that basis I hope that the House
1774
will welcome the amendment, which effects the transfer of the functions relating to education to the new authorities by making textual amendments to the relevant legislation.
All the amendments are solely for the purpose of carrying forward existing county functions into the new councils. As I believe your Lordships will appreciate, in one sense it is possible to achieve that merely by using the provisions in Clause 17. But, as with certain other functions, it has been thought better—and by "better", I mean better for those who must operate the legislation when it becomes an Act—for these amendments to be plain on the face of the legislation so that people can use them. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we welcome the new clause. I have sought technical guidance from the officers of the county councils in Wales on its contents, and am advised that the clause appears to be in order.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Trading standards
.—(1) Before 1st April 1996 the Secretary of State shall by order either—

(a) make a scheme to establish a single trading standards authority for Wales in accordance with the following subsection; or

(b) make schemes to establish a trading standards authority in accordance with the following subsection for the local government comprised in each of the combined areas set out in Schedule (Combined areas for trading standards administration) to this Act.

(2) A trading standards authority shall—

(a) have all the duties, functions and powers of a local weights and measures authority under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 or under any other legislative provision;

(b) enforce the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990;

(c) discharge, with its agreement, any function of a new principal council under any legislative provision;

(d) be empowered to make, or assist in the making of, arrangements to provide advice to or for the benefit of suppliers and consumers of goods and services; and

(e) have a membership drawn exclusively from representatives nominated for this purpose by each new principal council.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall, for the convenience of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 42. In Committee, there was universal agreement that effective trading standards control is essential not only for the well-being but also for the safety of the public in Wales, as is the case everywhere else. There was almost universal agreement that each of the successor bodies —that is, the principal authorities—created under the Bill would on its own be too small to deliver effective trading standards control. Therefore, not unexpectedly, the Bill provides the power in Clauses 29 and 30 for principal authorities to set up combined trading standards authorities.
There is also universal agreement that principal authorities can operate together. In addition, the Government believe that they will do so and that they will do so permanently. In Committee, I reminded noble Lords—as, indeed, I now remind my noble friend the

1775
Minister again with some authority—that that assumption is ill founded. I had exactly the same belief in 1985 when I was a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and took the Local Government Bill of that year through the House. I was in exactly the same position as my noble friend today and I took exactly the same stance, though I was not justified in so doing.
In that Bill, six voluntary joint authorities were set up to begin with, which is what I expected. I should add that, of those, the smallest had a population of 1.3 million. However, only one of those bodies now survives, while the rest fragmented into 32 constituent parts. There is general agreement that those 32 constituent parts are less effective and more expensive as the administrators of trading standards control because they are so much smaller. Indeed, the smallest post-1985 group was 1.3 million, but the biggest Welsh post-1994 group will only be 275,000—that is to say, one-quarter of that size—if the constituent parts fragment as happened before.
It seems that everyone, except some government departments, is alert to that prospect. Indeed, I have a very large mailbag to prove it. At this late hour I shall not drone on through it all. Nevertheless, I think that it is worth quoting selectively from some of the letters. I shall start with the Director-General of the CBI, who says:
"There is growing concern among CBI members about the fragmentation of regulatory service which may follow local government reorganisation … The Secretary of State for Wales is aware that business in Wales is concerned about the fragmentation of regulatory services … We"—
that is, the CBI
"have had approaches from several multiple retailers about the effect on trading standards enforcement in particular. If there is no stiffening of the provisions of the Bill now before the Lords, we hope that the Secretary of State will be ready to look again at some of the arguments set out in debate in the Lords in particular".
The British Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent. of British retailers, initially wrote to the Secretary of State in June 1993 expressing its concern that the considerable reduction in size of operational units would make it impossible to provide the level of expertise necessary to provide a full trading service. The consortium then wrote again to the Secretary of State in December saying that it remained worried about the Bill now before Parliament.
Many retail groups have written independently stating their anxieties. Indeed, Mercury Communications said in writing to the Secretary of State that,
"initiatives such as this could discourage investment in the Principality".
On 24th January 1994 Mercury wrote again saying:
"We have a continuing concern centred on the increased burden to business in general, and small businesses in particular, of the current proposals. In our view, this will be an inevitable consequence of increasing the number of operational units with which Mercury, along with other businesses, will have to deal. We would urge that further consideration be given to the points raised when the Bill is debated again".
The Retail Credit Group also wrote to the Secretary of State last month to say that its members are concerned that,
1776
"trading standards officers should be based in sizeable organisations … and combined authorities would be very much better than those based on small district authorities".
The noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, who is president of the British Bankers Association, has also written in similar terms. The National Animal Health and Welfare Panel has also written. The National Federation of Consumer Groups says:
"We are deeply concerned about the fragmentation of the trading standards service. It will substantially weaken [the system]".
The Welsh Consumer Council has written a similar letter. I have reams more and those are only an extract of all the correspondence that has been received.
There is consensus that the small units will not be affected. To that point, my noble and learned friend will no doubt reply, as he did before, that there is a reserve power in Clause 30 which the Secretary of State can use to direct local authorities to form joint working groups.
Even with the amendment which my noble and learned friend has kindly made to the timetable for triggering the intervention of the Secretary of State, the prospect is that intervention would be retrospective—that is, after the damage has been done.
The damage can be serious. As I stated at Committee stage, it could be the failure to contain bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); it could be the failure to ensure that motorists got a full litre of petrol when they paid for it; it could be that your Lordships would not know what they were eating from reading the label on food provided in Wales. That situation is very relevant today in view of the comments on the television this evening: it could be a failure to control the distribution of pornographic and illegal video material.
My noble and learned friend may also state that we want to substitute a duty for a power, which would be to diminish democracy. I refer my noble and learned friend to the readiness of his Secretary of State, as expressed in Clause 19 subsection (1), page 14, line 29 to 36, to order local authorities to do exactly that under the planning regulations that we discussed a moment ago. Planning is surely a matter for democratic control. Therefore, it does not lie with my noble and learned friend to say that to do this would be anti-democratic. All that I and my noble friends ask, and what the Liberal Party were asking at Committee and will no doubt ask again when we return—as, I hope, will others—together with the CBI and virtually the whole of the commercial sector who have written to us is that the power should be turned into a duty.
The amendments propose two different methods of achieving that aim. Amendment No. 33, with Amendment No. 36, sets out a scheme by which the Secretary of State shall require local authorities to co-operate either in a single scheme or in a number of schemes of his determination. Amendment No. 42 proposes the simple solution that he should hand the duty of regulation to, or make it coterminous with, that of the fire authorities.
I apologise for taking 11 minutes of your Lordships' time so late at night. On the other hand, it is a big subject and to have given less would not have done it justice. I offer my noble and learned friend two ways forward for

1777
Third Reading. I hope that he will choose one of them and I shall listen very carefully to his answer to see which.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not elaborate, expand or go over the points that have been made by my noble friend Lord Elton, because he has put them so well. I rise to state that I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have not previously played an active part in the Bill but I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Elton because I believe that his amendment impinges upon another Bill which is before your Lordships' House and with which I am concerned—that is, the Trade Marks Bill. Its effectiveness particularly in relation to clamping down on counterfeiting, for example, will very much depend upon how it is policed. If enforcement effort is dissipated because trading standards expertise is dispersed, then we shall lose some of the proposed benefits of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to take on board the very persuasive arguments that have been advanced by my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Elton again in this debate. I do not believe that the fracturing of trading standards departments would be of assistance. It would not be seen as an advantage by the citizen, and after all the citizen is the taxpayer. Ultimately we, as the Government, are responsible for giving our best endeavours to ensure that trading standards officers' work is done properly.
It was interesting to hear the very persuasive argument that creating more and more unassociated departments is not in the interests of the protection of the citizen, which is the purpose of the amendment. It is important to understand that the work of trading standards officers is cohesive and interdepartmental; it should not be fractured. My noble friend Lord Elton has already said that there is provision for the Secretary of State to overrule. However, as he said, the damage has already been done.
I draw your Lordships' attention to an example of where the citizen judges whether a statute is good or bad. In 1984, during the miners' strike, the standards relating to the heat treatment of material from slaughterhouses were lowered, not by statute but simply by a sweep of the pen. Now we see serious cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Indeed, it is now considered there is a possible association with Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, which has an 18-year incubation period.
The cohesion of trading standards officers is vital. They provide a service. For example, in relation to the Ministry for Agriculture, an expert in Wales wrote an extremely interesting book on the way in which diseases in sheep were transmitted. It mentioned rainwater and cloud formations, and the cycle of snails, with which some of your Lordships may be familiar. That gentleman had experience covering a wide range of subjects in which he interacted with all his colleagues.
1778
I do not support every trading standards officer who may drive into your yard. Their efforts may not always be particularly useful to the endeavour of the citizen. They may wish to be more powerful than they are. Nevertheless, there is greater accountability if they remain a cohesive professional body. They could become a quango which simply enforces EC law by, for example, shutting down small slaughterhouses and putting people out of work, or stopping a man in a pub from cutting sandwiches unless he has spent a fortune on his kitchen, or regulating natural water supplies so that people are not allowed to drink from them although they have probably been drinking from them for 400 years.
The body of expertise is built up through cohesion. Breaking up the departments is not correct, in my view. That is why I wish to support my noble friend's amendment. There is no doubt in my mind that we are all mortal; but, make no mistake, the roar from people who are disturbed by what becomes statute but is bad law will be heard.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, unlike my noble friends, I fail to understand why trading standards officers should be singled out for special attention in the Bill. Trading standards offices are one of the regulatory authorities. The trading standards officer is similar in many respects to the environmental health officer. Environmental health officers are employed by each of the 37 district councils at present. I believe that there would be considerable empathy between those two bodies if they were to be incorporated into the new unitary authorities. As my noble friend and kinsman Lord Harlech pointed out, the problem of BSE and Creutzfeldt Jakob disease is dealt with by environmental health officers, probably as well as the trading standards officers. I do not believe that there is an argument for making a special case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for bringing forward the amendments. At Committee stage we had a discussion about the principle of putting trading standards under one, two or three authorities. I differed from the noble Lord on certain points. He has come back with a formula which is an advance on the formula that he put forward in Committee.
The trading standards functions which would be transferred if the provisions of Amendment No. 33 were in the Bill are only part of the trading standards functions exercised by trading standards officers. With the new principal councils would remain duties under the Petroleum Acts, concerning the licensing of petroleum stores—for instance, garages—explosive Acts controlling the storage of explosives and the sale of fireworks, the road traffic Acts, the Children and Young Persons Act, the Agriculture Act 1970, the Poisons Act 1972, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Acts 1958 and 1972, the Trading Stamps Act 1964, the Unsolicited Goods and Services Acts 1971 and 1975 and the Medicines Act 1968. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has the same list.

1779
It is not a question of transferring all functions from the new principal councils. Indeed, those important functions will remain with the principal councils.
We are therefore discussing a split in the trading standards function between those which are carried out under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 and Sections 14 and 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990 and functions under the other legislation that I have just recited. That gives rise to certain problems. Be that as it may, if such problems can be resolved, it is perfectly clear to me that the new principal councils would have a very powerful trading standards function in their own right even if Amendment No. 33 was accepted.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 42 are designed, as I understand it, to avoid the problem of the difficulty of democratic accountability that was raised in Committee. If I were to talk at length about Amendment No. 36, I would like to see it not in the form of a schedule but as a voluntary combination which principal councils might wish to make, as opposed to it being set in stone in a schedule. It would be a fairly delicate matter.
On Amendment No. 42 I confess I have a problem. I realise that it is an alternative to Amendment No. 36, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, explained. I find it an odd conception that a fire authority should suddenly become a weights and measures authority. I wonder whether subsection (b) of Amendment No. 42 which states,
"have all the duties, functions and powers",
extends the powers. At the end of the subsection there is the phrase,
"or under any other legislative provision".
That seems to me to depart from the main thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was saying that many trading standards functions would remain with the principal councils and some would go to the bodies which he recommended. That would depart from the main thrust and allow the bodies which the noble Lord recommends to take over all the functions of the principal councils. I may have misunderstood the amendment and perhaps he would be kind enough to put me right if I have.
Thus, although the amendment is an improvement on what the noble Lord put forward in Committee, I believe that it leaves a major role for the new principal councils. When the noble Lord comes to it perhaps he would explain how the two roles can be reconciled in a proper and efficient manner.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton has argued his case again with his usual force, I know at some personal inconvenience. The Government understand the points which he made on this occasion and in Committee. He and the Government share the objective that a proper service of a proper quality should be delivered at least as effectively under the new structure as it has been under the existing structure. Where we part company is on the means of attaining those ends.
Until I heard the extremely enlightening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the precise legislative provisions involved, I had understood at least the intention of my noble friend's amendment to be that the new trading standards authorities, as he envisages them,
1780
should take over the role which would otherwise be transferred to the new unitary authorities. I had taken it that his intention was that all the roles should go to the new bodies. I have treated the amendment on that basis. It may be that that was wrong, but that was the intention, as I understood it, from conversations with him and others.
We do not believe that such an approach is the correct way forward and I adopt what was said by my noble friend Lord Kenyon. The Government do not believe that there is any significant difference between the trading standards function and the kind of function which is to be transferred to the new unitary authorities in an area such as environmental health. It seems to the Government that the area of environmental health has many aspects which are similar to that of trading standards and that the inspectors involved in the two areas have performed functions which are not entirely dissimilar. They have skills which are not entirely dissimilar, and just as environmental health functions can be properly addressed by the new authorities, so we believe that the trading standards function can also be transferred and dealt with satisfactorily by the new authorities. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that that is not to say that we expect all the functions to be carried out by each of the authorities. I know that this has not met with the approval of my noble friend. But we envisage that the local authorities would be able and would wish to enter into appropriate arrangements with other authorities for the delivery of services, especially where specialist services which they themselves did not have had to be delivered.
We believe that the local authorities, democratically elected and taking a responsible view of what is required for their areas, would indeed make appropriate arrangements for trading standards services of the correct standard for their area. We have no reason to think that they would fail in that matter any more than we would expect them to fail in other areas.
Amendment No. 48 has a bearing on this matter, as my noble friend said. Even at the stage of the draft services delivery plan, if it appears that adequate services will not be available, the reserve powers which are provided for in the Act are available to the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that, especially in the light of all the representations made to him about how the matter will not work, he will wish to examine carefully the arrangements that are proposed or then put in place to see how they are operating, will operate or have operated. If necessary he would use the reserve powers to ensure that standards of an appropriate level were maintained by the service.
For those reasons we believe that the scheme as laid down in the Act is appropriate. We do not believe that any of the schemes put forward by my noble friend Lord Elton would be appropriate or an improvement. We feel that this, like other services, should be delivered locally and subject to the availability of all the arrangements for joint delivery of the services. For those reasons I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. I believe that the Government's approach to this matter is right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends who have supported me at this late hour. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Kenyon for giving me the opportunity to remind your Lordships that the burden carried by trading standards officers is one of enforcing 70 statutes and over 500 statutory instruments. When two or three people are trying to run an entire trading standards administration in an authority, the number of different forms of expertise and scientific skills that they are expected to have is simply insupportable. It is universally agreed that they cannot operate separately. My noble and learned friend and I have no difference on that.
Indeed, I am very puzzled because my noble and learned friend finds it perfectly all right for those people to co-operate in large groups if they want to do so, but he finds something undemocratic and unacceptable about it if they do not. It seems to me that safety of life which may be involved in these cases comes above the theory of democracy in this matter.
The Secretary of State already envisages putting efficient planning above the requirements of the theory of democracy in Clause 19. I do not understand why he cannot do that here.
My noble and learned friend pointed to Amendment No. 48. I have already thanked him for it in advance. I thank him again now and will thank him for a third time when we come to deal with it. One has to be grateful for crumbs of comfort in this place. He pointed out that because of that provision the Secretary of State will have a reasonably small amount of time—albeit a small amount of time and not the nanosecond that there was to have been in Committee —in which to avert the danger of local authorities not coming together voluntarily to start with. That is not the danger.
I have been here before. I had the same sanguine hopes as my noble and learned friend and his right honourable friend and mine, the Secretary of State. I expected everybody to coalesce and they coalesced. But I expected them to go on working together and they did not. So I rode my bicycle down a smooth road and fell in a pothole. All I am trying to do is to help my noble and learned friend gracefully to avoid the pothole and show himself sensitive to the reasoned arguments that I put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, courteously changed his position a little towards me in recognition of the fact that I had changed my position a little on the amendments. He raised a number of cogent questions. Nonetheless, I would be perfectly content if a means could be found under Amendments Nos. 33 and 36, as redrafted for a later stage, for the groups that are eventually imposed compulsorily to be arrived at voluntarily first if possible. Indeed, I should like the machinery in the Bill to work and then for the Secretary of State to say: "So be it, you cannot go back". That would satisfy me. The parliamentary draftsman may be able to do it in a few lines; I cannot. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. I have none at my command; my noble and learned friend does. I hope he will use those services.
Amendment No. 42 brings up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Williams—I almost called him "my noble
1782
friend", so unaccustomed am I to his warm support—drew to your Lordships' attention. It was a list of the powers which should not be included under the provisions, if they were adopted, of Amendment No. 42. I confirm that as far as I know the list was complete. That illustrates that trading standards legislation—loosely so termed—is not a seamless whole and it is possible to transfer bits in and out of an administration. The amendment serves only as a peg on which to illustrate how that can be done. It would be for the Secretary of State, or for your Lordships at a later stage, to decide how much should be ceded to the wishes of district councils to increase or retain a number of powers and how much should be retained for the effective working of the protection of the consuming public. I would not wish to go into the details of that tonight, but it is an area which may have to be explored.
I believe that there is a simple route forward—not quite on the lines of my first amendment and the one consequential upon it, but on the lines that I mentioned of the Secretary of State allowing the voluntary system to form itself; only intervening if it does not completely form itself, and then when that process is complete saying, "This is how it is going to be unless you persuade me otherwise in the future". If he does not do that it will fall down and the results will be nastier in Wales than they were in Greater Manchester or in the other metropolitan county areas, because the units will be infinitely smaller and all this turns on size. Let us not forget in this teeming City of Westminster, this vast metropolis, that we are dealing with extremely small communities which have just the same spectrum of risk and complexity of legislation to deal with as we have here with the concentrated population and the larger number of officers able to enforce it.
My noble and learned friend did not accept my invitation to choose one road forward or another. I shall have to reflect between now and Third Reading which of the three roads, as they now are, forward I must ask your Lordships to take. It is an issue of sufficient importance for us not to leave it hanging in the air when the Bill leaves this House for another place. I shall doubtless be in contact with my noble and learned friend between now and Third Reading and I hope that he will consider yet further my arguments and anything I have succeeded in adding to them tonight. I shall stop doing so now as I see the clouds of sleep forming around your Lordships' heads. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Minor and Consequential Amendments:Planning]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 73, line 22, after ("(1)") insert ("In section 57 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (penalty for displaying on footpaths notices deterring public use), in subsection (3), after "district" insert "or, where they are not the highway authority, the council of the Welsh county or county borough".
(1A)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. This is a technical amendment. Part II of Schedule 6 to

1783
the Bill provides for minor and consequential amendments to enactments other than the Local Government Act 1972 as a result of reorganisation.
Amendment No. 34 amends Section 57 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to provide for the power of prosecution which is presently vested in the district council to be vested in the new council in Wales where it is not the highway authority. Amendment No. 35 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the noble Viscount has indeed heard the plea of a number of organisations concerned with the countryside which have written to me about this amendment. He has brought forward an amendment which meets their needs and improves the Bill. On behalf of all hikers, ramblers, wanderers in the wilderness, tramps and friends of the national parks, I thank him for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 73, line 22, leave out ("the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949") and insert ("that Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Transfer of other specific functions]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule 9A makes provision for the transfer to the new principal councils of functions in relation to social services.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a new schedule which is set out in Amendment No. 40. The schedule contains consequential amendments to legislation relating to social services. The amendments are solely for the purpose of carrying forward existing county functions to the new councils. These provisions are similar to the provisions in relation to education. It is a matter which it would have been possible to leave resting on the basis of Clause 17, but again it has been thought better for the users of the legislation that the matter should be spelt out in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I welcome Schedule 9A. Reading through its provisions gives one an idea of the extensive range of the social services functions and how important they are. We shall return to this issue at a later stage.
Again, I have sought advice from the officers of the local authority associations in Wales. They may later on pick up one or two items which have been left out. For the time being it appears to be in order and I am therefore pleased to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Highways, Road Traffic and Transport]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 78, line 40, after ("section,") insert ("for "district council" substitute "contracting council" and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. Schedule 7 to the Bill makes
1784
provision for the transfer to the new principal councils of functions in relation to highways, road traffic and transport. Amendment No. 38 corrects the amendment to subsection (6A) of the Highways Act 1980. That subsection empowers the Secretary of State's agent authority to sub-contract to another Welsh council in respect of a trunk road outside the sub-contractor's area. It corrects it by substituting a correct reference to a contracting council. Amendment No. 39 corrects the amendment to Section 220 of the Act in consequence of the new subsection (2A) of Section 220 which has been inserted by paragraph 21 of the schedule. Both of these amendments are purely technical drafting corrections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 81, line 11, leave out ("for") and insert ("after first "subsection (2)" insert "or (2A)", after "district council" insert " or Welsh council" and for second").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.40:
After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 9A
SOCIAL SERVICES
The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
1.—(1) Section 96 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (provisions as to local authorities) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1A), at the end add "but, in relation to Wales, shall be the councils of counties and county boroughs".
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Subsection (4) above does not apply in relation to the council of any Welsh county or county borough."
The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29)
2.—(1) In section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (removal to suitable premises of persons in need of care and attention), in subsection (12), after "City of London" insert ", in Wales the councils of counties and county boroughs".
(2) In section 64(1) of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" at the end add "but in relation to Wales means the council of a county or county borough".
The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 (c. 33)
3. In section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 (provision of sheltered employment by local authorities), in subsection (5), omit "or Wales" and at the end add "and in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough".
The Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c. 37)
4.—(I) In section 56 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (prosecution of certain offences), after subsection (1) insert
"(I A) Subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to Wales as if the reference to a county were a reference to a Welsh county or county borough."
(2) In section 63 of that Act (interpretation), in subsection (1A), after "metropolitan counties)," insert "of county boroughs,".
The Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c. 46)
5.—(1) In section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (promotion, by local authorities, of the welfare of old people), in subsection (11), after "county, or of a" insert "county borough,".
(2) In section 64 of that Act (financial assistance to certain voluntary organisations), in subsection (3) (b), after "non-metropolitan county," insert "county borough,".

1785
(3) In section 65 of that Act (which makes similar provision relating to financial assistance by local authorities), in subsection (3) (a), after "county, or of a" insert "county borough,".
The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c. 54)
(6) In section 70(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", after "county or of a" insert "county borough,".
The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42)
(7) In section 1 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (local authorities for the purposes of the Act), at the end add "but, in relation to Wales, shall be the councils of counties and county boroughs".
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c.44)
(8) In section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons), in subsection (8), omit "or Wales" and after "London borough" insert ", the council of a Welsh county or county borough".
The Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36)
(9) In section 72(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", after "City of London" insert "but, in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough".
The Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (c. 71)
(10) In Schedule 5 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (re-establishment courses and resettlement units)—

(a) in paragraph 2(2), after "counties" insert ", of county boroughs"; and

(b) in paragraph 4(2), after "county," insert "a county borough,".

The National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49)
11.—(1) In section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (co-operation between health authorities and local authorities), in the Table, in column 2 of the entry relating to an Area or District Health Authority in Wales, after "county" insert "or county borough" and after first "district" insert "in England".
(2) In section 28A of that Act (power to make payments towards expenditure on community services), in subsection (2) (b), after "district council," insert "or to a Welsh county council or county borough council,".
(3) In section 128(1) of that Act (interpretation)

(a) in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,"; and

(b) in the definition of "local social services authority", after "county," insert "of a county borough".

The Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (c. 41)
12. In Part II of Schedule 9 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (meals and recreation for old people)

(a) in paragraphs 1 and 2, after "council" insert "or Welsh county council or county borough council" in each place; and

(b) in paragraph 3, after "district councils" insert "or Welsh county councils or county borough councils" in all places.

The Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
13. In section 105 of the Children Act 1989 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), omit "and Wales" and after "City of London" insert ", in relation to Wales, the council of a county or a county borough".
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19)
14. In section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (local authority plans for
1786
community care services), in subsection (3), in the definition of "local authority", after "county," insert "a county borough,".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to already. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Fire services]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 17, line 35, leave out ("to whom the proposed scheme relates").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it will be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak to Amendment No. 43. The purpose of these two amendments is to widen the class of persons who can make representations to the Secretary of State about a proposed fire service combination scheme under Clause 22 or a proposed police amalgamation scheme under Clause 23 and to ensure that they will be considered by the Secretary of State in arriving at a position.
As the clauses now stand, the Secretary of State is only under a duty to give consideration to the representations made by any authority to whom the scheme relates. We believe that it is perfectly legitimate for the Secretary of State to be under a duty to take into consideration representations from other sources. For example, it is envisaged that representations may be made not only by a fire or police authority but also by a principal council for an adjoining authority or a trade union whose members are employed in the service. So the fire or police scheme could have implications for many authorities and organisations. Therefore, their representations should receive the consideration of the Secretary of State.
Our concern lies in the inhibitive wording of the two subsections. In Committee we were told by the noble and learned Lord that the department was reluctant to spell out a specific duty to consider representations from an authority which might have no direct interest in the particular proposal. But in our view that is not necessarily a satisfactory reason for rejecting the amendment. Are we to say to the trade unions or to an adjoining council that Parliament has not placed a responsibility on the Secretary of State to take into account their representations? We shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can look favourably on at least the main thrust of these two amendments, although their wording may not be perfect. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in one sense I do not know that there is a great deal between us on this matter. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to consider representations about a proposed scheme from any Welsh local authority whether or not it was directly affected. I believe I said in Committee that I have no doubt that in these cases, before he makes any order under either of these provisions, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will want to take account of all relevant representations.
As I said in Committee, the effect is that if a relevant representation is made; if he has put before him matters which are relevant to the decision, then, as the noble Lord will be aware, his failure to take into account such

1787
relevant considerations would render his decision vulnerable to judicial review. Nonetheless, when spelling the matter out on the face of the statute, it seemed proper to put the duty in the terms that it stands in in the Bill as drafted.
Having said that, I am happy to take this matter away and consider the drafting of the provision to ensure that we have caught all those authorities whose interest in the contents of the combination scheme is sufficiently close to justify imposing a duty on the Home Secretary in relation to the representations. I am happy to take that away and have another look at it. I think that that is what the noble Lord has in mind and I am happy to do it.
10 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. The gap between us is not wide, but the wording possibly needs to be redefined. As I have said, I am grateful for the Lord Advocate's response and I am happy to leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved].
Clause 23 [Police]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Provision of services by one new principal council for another]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 19, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 45. I say straightaway that these two amendments are of a probing nature. Indeed, they are alternatives. There is no particular difference in substance between them. Both seek to achieve the same point, which is that through these amendments we should like the Government to clarify in greater detail than was spelt out in Committee by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate the restrictions in the exercise of the power that will be imposed by the regulations that we are discussing under Clause 24(5) (a) and, more particularly, whether the activities of the local authorities which are subject to compulsory competitive tendering will be precluded by regulations from being the subject of service agency agreements either immediately or, as has been suggested in some documents, at the expiry of a transitional period of two years.
This is a key clause in facilitating the concept of what are known as "lead authorities". It will permit authorities to buy services from other authorities and is intended to overcome certain limitations in the Local Government Act 1972 and in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, so that the lead authorities can develop and sell their services to adjoining authorities. This is slightly tangential to my main argument, but in that connection I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could reassert or
1788
confirm the statement that he made in Committee to the effect that the Government do not consider it necessary for local authorities to be able to compete for contracted-out contracts outside their areas. It seems to us to be the absolute essence of Clause 24 and these plans that an authority must be capable of providing services to an authority in an adjoining area.
When Welsh Office officials have been quizzed on the point they have said that the Government intend to exclude from service agency agreements those activities which are required to be exposed to compulsory competitive tendering. If that were the case, considerable inroads would be made into the lead authority concept. It would rule out all services which are the subject of CCT. For instance, CCT for professional white collar services will become mandatory in October 1997. There will be CCT for security work, on-street parking, vehicle fleet management, 50 per cent. of housing management in group 1.B authorities, removal of competition and free requirement for highways work, and a whole series of issues will become housing management in 1998. A whole series of items will become subject to compulsory competitive tendering and they will therefore be removed from the scope of service plans between local authorities.
For some reason—and I look at the White Paper—Ministers seem to believe that it would not be desirable for such arrangements to apply to services subject to CCT under the Acts of 1980 and 1988. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether, if local authorities, the new principal councils, could show—and an amendment could be brought forward requiring them to do so—that they guaranteed the full cost of recovery of the services—so there is no marginal selling, remembering the Audit Commission's judgment on the 1970 Act—the Government would take a more relaxed view of the whole question of CCT services being ruled out of service plans. As regards the principal councils, which will be involved in what in any sense will be a difficult operation—the provision of services by one council for another—this would be a welcome relief to a threat that they see hanging over them.
Clause 24(4) permits the Secretary of State to make such regulations as he,
"sees fit to make for the purposes of this section".
The Government appear to be stating that the regulations will be used to prevent cross-border tendering, if not immediately, at the end of the two-year transitional period that has been mentioned. The noble and learned Lord asserted in Committee that there was an adequate private-sector supply which should be encouraged. If it can be demonstrated that local authorities can compete with the private sector on fair terms, and if we can build that into the Bill, will the Government please accept that it is the right of local authorities, the new principal councils, so to compete not on marginal costings but on a true reflection of costs and in the overall interest of the charge payers and the supplying council?
I say that this is a probing amendment because I want to hear the noble and learned Lord's reply. It is an

1789
important point for principal councils and if we do not receive a satisfactory reply I am certain that we shall want to return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, the effect of the amendment would be to enable unitary authorities to compete for work which has been put out to tender by another unitary authority in compliance with the statutory requirements for compulsory competitive tendering.
The Government's policy is to prevent unitary authorities from competing for such work. If I said something else in Committee, I did not intend it. The Government are opposed to what is envisaged in the amendment because they do not believe that such competition would be in the best interests of council tax payers. As I said in Committee, the Government believe that where one has such a system of compulsory competitive tendering, one can expect that the private sector will be available to take on the kinds of work involved and the kinds of risk which may be involved in such work.
If authorities were allowed to compete for such work, the danger is that the council tax payers of one unitary authority could end up funding the costs of any losses incurred as a result of work undertaken by their authority in another area.
What I can say—and this may go some way towards meeting one of the points made by the noble Lord—is that if the local authority associations or any other body were able to come forward with a proposal which enabled such cross-border tendering to take place while at the same time meeting the Government's anxieties about the risk to council tax payers, then my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to look very carefully at such a proposal. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the point made.
The issue of the two-year transitional period is complicated and rather than wrongly state the position, I should prefer to write to the noble Lord about that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response because, as he rightly says, it goes some way towards meeting my anxieties. In moving the amendment I said that I should be prepared to see an amendment brought forward in another place, if that is what the Government want; namely, to have written specifically into the Bill that any cross-border tendering represents a true reflection of costs and is not based on marginal costings; reflects the Audit Commission's interpretation of the 1970 Act; and that there should be overall protection of the interests of the charge payers of the supplying council.
It seems to me that we are getting very close because I am volunteering more than the noble and learned Lord seeks. If we could come together on that, we should be able to reassure district councils about which are to become unitary authorities and which are to become principal councils. They will engage in cross-border tendering and can compete with the private sector.
I believe that we could persuade those district councils that the lead authority concept is not something which is pronounced but not put into practice. We could
1790
persuade them that the Government are not trying to penalise the public sector and give preference to the private sector out of dogma, but that they are genuinely trying to find a method of making the lead authority concept work. If that is the attitude of the noble and learned Lord—and it appears so to be from what he has said—then I would be quite happy to reconsider the matter. Indeed, I am prepared to discuss with the noble and learned Lord what amendments there might be to the Bill which could enshrine what he has just said. I believe that to be a fair offer.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I should like to consider further the detail of what the noble Lord has said. However, I believe that we have at least moved a little towards one another in the matter. I would not like to go further than I have already gone this evening. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to say that I will look further at the detail of what the noble Lord proposed. It may well be that, when I look at it in more detail, it will prove to be the case that he has, as he said, gone further than I in the matter. If the noble Lord is content to leave the matter there, I am content to look at it again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am very content to leave the matter on that basis. However, it is a complex subject as the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out. For example, there is the whole question of what is compulsory competitive tendering, how it works and also the issues as regards the Audit Commission on the 1970 Act. Indeed, the question of how all such things will work is most complex. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord has any difficulties when looking at the matter with his officials, perhaps he will contact me. I shall then consult those who have been briefing me to see whether such difficulties can be resolved. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 19, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) For the purpose of the exercise of powers under the Local Government (Records) Act 1962 with regard to the acquisition and preservation of archives, where a principal council contains within its area an archive repository empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, that council, through a joint committee consisting of representatives of the new principal councils concerned, shall administer archive services in respect of the area of the old authorities to which existing collections relate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn in Committee. Unfortunately, my noble friend is suffering from a very heavy cold and, although he has been sitting in his place for the past seven-and-a-half hours waiting for the amendment to be called, I had to advise him half-an-hour ago that he ought to retire from the Chamber. I told him that I would do the best I could to look after his amendment.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn drew attention in Committee to the considerable concern in the Principality about the lack of information as regards the arrangements for the archive services in Wales

1791
following the reorganisation proposed by the Bill. Since then, we are aware that many more representations have been made. I am fairly sure that the professional organisations have written to the Welsh Office about the failure of the Bill to safeguard Welsh archives. The Lords Lieutenant, as well as the Society of Archivists, are also deeply interested.
Everyone had hoped that the reference to archives in paragraph 4.21 of the White Paper would have been translated into a short provision in the Bill which would ensure that the archives would be preserved in a safe repository in the custody of knowledgeable officials but with ready access for members of the public.
We have taken account of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord in Committee. The amendment which we now put before the House seeks only to safeguard the public records in the care of the existing counties. The important point here is one made by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn in Committee; namely, that the archives should remain intact. Reorganisation creates many difficulties. The difficulties relating to the archives ought to be resolved in the Bill. For example, if the 21 principal councils each become an archive authority, then the existing repositories will be fragmented. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn would say, that would be a tragedy.
One object of the amendment is to limit by statute the councils empowered to hold archives to those so,
"empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962".
Noble Lords will have noticed that the amendment has been altered since it was moved in Committee on 17th January. It now states that a council empowered to hold the archives shall administer the service,
"through a joint committee consisting of representatives of the new principal councils concerned".
We hope that the additional provision addresses the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in Committee. We trust that it meets his objection and that he will, therefore, be in a position to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I readily accept the amendment that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is not here. He has a very nasty cold. He had been looking forward particularly to moving the amendment which did so well at Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has explained the amendment very well. One cannot see any possible objection to it because it is so clear and concise. However, there are one or two matters that I should like to raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to "public records in the area". It should be local records. The wording "public records" refer to the national archives, the Public Record Office. The noble and learned Lords, or noble Lords who are barristers and learned will know that "public" means public policy of the Realm; it is not of public people. The local records contain all official records, parochial records and even private collections. It is really since the two wars that record offices have been established in England,
1792
although the earliest record office in Wales was established in Glamorgan in 1939, and the most recent was one in Llandrindrod Wells, for Powys, in 1985.
Before the Bill leaves this House, I hope my noble and learned friend or my noble friend will go a little further than they did at Committee: one must have some assurance that archives are better looked after. From the experience of the abolition of the metropolitan counties, archival provision for many of the boroughs has been inadequate. It is an abysmal, total mess. I shall not name names—and some of the old areas have kept archives in a better way than others. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton can expand on this point. Records do not necessarily contain historical archives. When one thinks of archives, one thinks of historical archives; but there are archives being accessed or compiled every moment of the day. Modern archives are extremely important and they must be looked after. There must be retrieval access; councils and local authorities must be able to access them and use them. I hope that my noble and learned friend will deal with the amendment extremely seriously, particularly bearing in mind the awful experience with the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the amendment raises a very important and sensitive point. As the noble Lord indicated, the degree to which local authorities which are archive authorities met their responsibilities has varied a great deal in England—and also in Wales, I regret to say. He referred to the fact that it was only in 1984 that Powys County Council set up an archive department. From the Powys County Record Office they attracted a total of 211 visitors in 1991; 356 in 1992; and 648 in 1993. If we assume further growth of business, say, to 750 in 1994, that is on average 15 per week—three a day. Those figures indicate the inaccessibility of Llandrindrod Wells to the bulk of the population and to the potential users of the archives.
I am often asked by people in my part of the world —Montgomeryshire—who have good collections associated with the area, where those records should be sent. I always advise them to send them to the National Library of Wales because one can be sure that there they will not be lost or forgotten about when there is a change in local government.
It is important to consider the future of the archives. Where are they to go? I should like to see much greater co-operation between the National Library of Wales and the local authority archives. In addition, co-operation with local historical record societies is important.
Such is the dislike of Powys County Council in Montgomeryshire, and such is the nature of the communications, that it is very difficult to persuade people to go to Llandrindod Wells to do their research in the archives. They much prefer to go to the Powys Land Museum and Library in Welshpool, which is a voluntary organisation which was set up for the keeping of records many years ago. I remember that in my town there was great resistance to its local treasures being transferred to Powys County Council, where it was felt they would disappear from view.

1793
What I have said illustrates the delicate and sensitive nature of this subject, which is an important one. The keeping of archives is important. How it is to be done —whether through joint authorities or the existing authorities, or whether there should be regional authorities or some link with the National Library of Wales—needs much greater thought than has been given to this subject hitherto.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and, in absentia, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know that I am a friend to the purpose that lies behind the amendment. The anxiety which the noble Lord expressed relates principally to historical archives but also to contemporary archives which, I remind my noble friend Lord Teviot, become historical archives rather more rapidly than one would wish at our age.
The principle that needs to be remembered is that the value of an archive is its accessibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said. There is a process of concentration, which is beneficial, and a process of dispersal which is to be avoided. However, there is another form of dispersal. I can best illustrate both the value of historical archives and the process that should be avoided by an example.
The documents of the Manor of Adderbury, of which I happen to be Lord, were in my care until some eight years ago when the local historical society became interested. It spent a number of years putting them in order and transcribing a great many. It generated a completely new community spirit, in the historical sense, that had not existed before. It was discovered that the names of many people in the village were the names of people who had lived there in the 14th century. When that process was completed I transferred the documents to the Oxfordshire County Records Office, with a copy of the catalogue to New College, which has the gift of the benefice.
That has concentrated the documents in an accessible place. But when Oxford becomes separated from the Cherwell district council, in which Adderbury lies, the danger is that if nothing is done on the lines suggested in the amendment, future discoveries of medieval documents and any new documents generated will be deposited not with the existing collection of Adderbury papers in Oxford but in some new collection in Banbury. The scholar will then run a 50 per cent. chance of losing out, or at least his work will be doubled.
Therefore I hope that my noble friend will look kindly at the intention underlying the amendment. Perhaps I may suggest two considerations. First, the drafting, although an improvement on Committee stage, is not draftsman watertight. If the Government accept the principle, it is for them to make it watertight. I suggest some linkage with Clause 24. However, if the Government take the issue on board, it is for them to undertake to do so, and I do not need to advise them.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, we all recognise that this is a sensitive matter. We are all sad that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was not able to
1794
move the amendment on this occasion. It will be a common belief that he did so with particular passion and skill on the previous occasion. Since he is not present, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I put the argument at some length so that he can read it.
As I explained on the previous occasion, our approach to all local government services, of which this is one, is, first, that no existing local government functions should be transferred from local government control. I believe that that is accepted. That is achieved by Clause 17. Secondly, the new authorities should be free to enter into arrangements with each other or with the voluntary or private sectors for the delivery of particular services or aspects of a service. We have heard of various means by which these may be delivered. In addition, we have made explicit provision in Clause 24 of the Bill for local authorities to trade with one another.
Thirdly, new types of statutory joint authorities will not be created by the Bill. That is on the basis that their creation would detract from local accountability. On the other hand, the Government recognise that they may be required to set up such systems where otherwise the services would be at risk of breakdown. That is recognised by the provisions of Clauses 28 to 30 of the Bill, which we have seen in so many contexts, which give the Secretary of State his reserve powers.
I have difficulty in tracing the paragraph at present. However, my understanding is that the provisions in the White Paper in relation to archives envisage that the same kind of measures would be put in place as deal with the position of museums and galleries. The paragraph in the White Paper relating to that aspect provides that reserve powers would be in place for a year. Noble Lords know that the provisions of Clauses 28 to 30 envisage a wider measure. Therefore the reserve powers would be available with regard to archives for a period of up to three years. The reserve powers in the Bill are greater than those envisaged in the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was concerned in Committee that the archive service would be vulnerable during the transitional period. His amendment, which we are considering again today, would have the effect of creating lead authority arrangements. The effect of that would be that an authority which happened to have the repository in its area would be responsible for the archives of all the new local authorities in the area covered by the repository.
As I understand the thinking which lies behind the noble Lord's amendment, he is anxious that the existing collections which have been built up could be broken up as a result of the introduction of the new unitary authorities. He was also worried that they might be housed in inadequate facilities. In one sense, there is a tension between the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who wishes to keep them in their existing places, and the anxieties of other noble Lords who have pointed out that sometimes records are found in places which are inaccessible. It may seem more useful or more attractive to people to have readier access at a more local

1795
level. There is a certain tension in the matter and that is probably why we all recognise that it is a sensitive subject because the arguments go different ways on it.
The Government recognise the importance of the archives service. As noble Lords are aware, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has a direct interest in the matter. His responsibilities under the Public Records Act 1958 include the approval of archive repositories in Wales as places of deposit for public records. I should say that public records go slightly wider than was suggested at one point, and they would cover such matters as census records and other similar records. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for those places of deposit. At the moment, about one-fifth of all public records are stored in such places of deposit in Wales. It therefore follows that the Government have a distinct interest in ensuring that those repositories continue to maintain a high standard of accommodation and services.
It is the case that, although the Lord Chancellor's responsibility is for public records, those records tend to be held in repositories which contain other records which cannot be classified as public records. But in effect his responsibility ensures that the conditions in which they are kept are also of an adequate standard.
The Government's approach under the Bill is that we do not wish to interfere with local decision-making unless that interference is forced upon us. The whole ethos of the Bill is that it is right to rely upon the good sense and discrimination of locally elected people who are democratically accountable.
At present, there are 12 repositories in Wales, which are managed by seven archives services. Mid and South Glamorgan operate a joint service. The existing repositories are located in 11 of the new authorities. Some local authorities, it is envisaged, will decide to nominate one as the lead authority for the single archive, while others will decide on joint committees. As your Lordships perceive, the Bill does not require or encourage the splitting of archives. It leaves the matter to be dealt with by the new authorities. It would only be where it seemed that the arrangements which were proposed—and they would have to be proposed like other arrangements—were inappropriate that the Government or the Secretary of State would envisage having to intervene, using his reserve powers in Clauses 28 to 30.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is really saying that, because of their unique and irreplaceable nature, the archives should be an exception to this general approach in the Bill. For the reasons which I have indicated, the Government would be reluctant to make such an exception. But, that said, I fully recognise that there are deeply felt anxieties on the matter, which is unlike anything else with which we have been concerned. Particularly in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is not in his place this evening, I shall make a point of drawing these matters to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wished to have an opportunity to express his views on this matter directly to the Secretary of State before the Bill goes to another
1796
place, I understand that the Secretary of State would be very happy to have a meeting with the noble Lord on this matter.
With that explanation, I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his very full explanation of how the Welsh Office sees the development of the service. We shall read his words with great care. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn will take up the offer to discuss the position with the Secretary of State. However, if the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, or an amendment along those lines because the wording may not be perfect, I am sure that the House will require further assurances before the Bill leaves this place.
The noble and learned Lord referred to paragraph 4.21 of the White Paper. The concluding sentence of that paragraph reads:
"The Government proposes transitional arrangements to safeguard provision similar to those described above for museums and galleries".
Those in Wales who are interested in archives have been expecting particulars of the transitional arrangements. The White Paper was published in March 1993 and we are still awaiting particulars of the arrangements.
We shall have to press a couple of questions on the Government. For example, what will happen to the existing archives on the day when the new authorities are established? What will happen on the following day? Will the new authorities be entitled to demand the return from the existing repositories of the records relating to their area? Will they be entitled to do that?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the Lord Chancellor's responsibility. I understood that in practice the Lord Chancellor's responsibility is exercised by the Public Record Office. But can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell the House what discussions have taken place between the Welsh Office and the PRO since last March? Have the terms and conditions upon which the new authorities can demand the return of their papers been agreed with the PRO?
I shall press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate —not today but certainly when we come back to a discussion of this amendment if it is not acceptable —to confirm that, unless they are a recorded repository, the new authorities will not be entitled to require the documents to be physically transferred to their keeping until such time as the PRO satisfies itself that the arrangements for custody, safe-keeping and public access are satisfactory.
I believe that the House is entitled to receive an unconditional assurance in those terms before this Bill becomes law and indeed before it leaves this House. If, at the end of the day, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can give us that kind of assurance, will he then please explain to the House the precise terms upon which the public records are to remain in the existing repositories?

1797
Those are some questions which are relevant questions upon which we shall need assurances from the Welsh Office.
Lord Elton: My Lord, does the noble Lord agree, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that one of the noble Lord's anxieties would not be so much whether an authority might demand the repatriation of what it regarded as its documents, but whether the authority that then had them in its possession might obtain money for looking after them? If not, who is going to pay them for looking after the documents that are not repatriated?
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, that would certainly be one aspect which needs to be looked at, and that is why I suggest we want to know upon what terms and conditions the documents are to remain in the existing repositories. I have asked a number of questions. I know that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn will read the debate with great interest. He will pursue the matter further and if there is no satisfaction I am sure that he will wish to return to the amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Service delivery plans]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 19, line 23, leave out ("before the specified date").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 47, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50, which go together, and I hope that I can be brief.
Amendment No. 48 addresses the undertaking which was given to your Lordships during Committee stage that the Government would consider again the date by which the new councils should prepare and publish service delivery plans. Our proposals provide for draft plans to be published before 1st November 1995 and final plans before 1st February 1996. The Government believe that specifying that date for final plans, together with the requirement to publish draft plans at least as early as the autumn of 1995, will provide sufficient time for interested parties to consider the implications and make representations in relation to their own circumstances and interests. It will also, most importantly, mean that draft staff orders can be drawn up during November 1995 on the basis of each authority's service delivery proposals. In the light of the new provisions of subsection (2), the reference in subsection (1) to a "specified date" becomes superfluous, hence the deletion provided for by Amendment No. 47.
Amendment No. 49 seeks to clarify a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, at Committee stage. Its effect is to leave to the discretion of the principal councils the manner in which their plans should be published so as to bring them to the attention of people who may be affected by the performance of their functions. The noble Lord had a little sport at my
1798
expense on that matter in Committee and I am happy to come forward and put the matter right in the light of what was said then.
Amendment No. 50 provides for draft service delivery plans to be published and made available for inspection on the same basis as final plans. That will enable all parties with an interest in the service delivery intentions of the new authority to consider the contents of the plan and make representations, if appropriate, at the earliest possible juncture. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thanked my noble and learned friend for this when it was first mentioned. I said on a second occasion that I would thank him now; I do thank him now. That is enough thanks.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have one point only to raise on Amendment No. 47, and it concerns a question of timetable. Obviously this is the merit of putting the dates at which the plans must be prepared on the face of the Bill.
The provision states that the exercise is to be completed by 1st February 1996. But if one then turns to the decentralisation provisions in Clauses 26 and 27, one can see that the two timetables simply do not match. In other words, a decentralisation scheme must be submitted any time before 1st January 1996, which is only one month before the publication of the completed service delivery plan.
I realise that the service delivery plan must only be delivered in respect of the first year, but nevertheless it sets the trend in the unitary authorities. Once the service plan has been set for the first year it is likely to be followed as there will be a number of councillors and officials who will want to adhere to it. Nevertheless, the decentralisation plans will not be in place and the Secretary of State can take up to a year before he approves the scheme. So it seems to me that this provision, though on the face of it highly acceptable, could be self-defeating because it is incompatible timetable-wise with the provisions of Clauses 26 and 27. I am quite certain that this matter will need much further consideration.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to speak along more or less the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Amendment No. 48 was tabled in response to a probing amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, the district council association officers are worried about the timetable proposed in the amendment. At a meeting in the House yesterday evening the officers of the district councils told us of their worries. In their judgment there is every reason for believing that if the delivery plan is to be worked up in any reliable detail it cannot be completed within the timetable proposed by the amendment.
Perhaps I ought to remind the House of the timetable. The election of members to the new councils will not be held until April 1995. The first meeting of the councils will be convened in May 1995. The chief officers will be appointed in June or July 1995. The management boards will probably not be in post until September 1995. Against that background and timetable it will be

1799
extremely tight for the officers to produce the necessary plans if they are dependent on policy decisions, as they will be, and to have them ready by 1st November 1995. Indeed, the officers whom we saw yesterday told us that they thought it would take several months before they could get the necessary policy decisions.
Then there is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. There is particular concern that after the plan has been worked up the area committee may have been established under Clauses 26 and 27; and if it has been established, comments will be coming in from the area committee. Indeed, the council could well be driven quickly to make substantial amendments or even to abandon its initial thinking about the plan. That again has timetable implications.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord ought possibly to withdraw the amendment until those concerns have been examined by the department in consultation with the officers of the local authority associations.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I would prefer to move the amendment and to ask that it be included in the Bill. But that is without prejudice to considering further the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Prys-Davies. They courteously raised the matter with me earlier today and that has allowed me to speak briefly to the Welsh Office officials about it. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to those who contacted him that the Welsh Office officials will be very happy to discuss the kind of concerns which he and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, have raised in connection with this matter.
1800
As I have mentioned already, the Government are conscious that it is desirable that these draft plans should be available as early as possible if only to assist people who have to consider their futures, their employment and so on, which I know are matters of concern to everyone in Wales. That is one of the reasons why we hope to get as early a date as possible. That having been said, I am very happy to offer the kind of undertaking which I have given.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 50:
Page 19, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Each new principal council shall—

(a) publish a draft of their proposed service delivery plan before 1st November 1995; and

(b) complete and publish their service delivery plan before 1st February 1996.").

Page 19, line 34, leave out from ("consultation") to end of line 35 and insert ("or as to the contents of the plan.").
Page 19, line 41, at end insert:
("(6) Subsections (4) and (5) also apply to the draft service delivery plan required to be published by subsection (2) (a).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Durham Bridge (Amendment) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.