Lords Sitting of 17 January 1994

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

Business Compliance Cost Assessment
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the meaning and purpose of the new section in explanatory memoranda to Bills entitled Business Compliance Cost Assessment; whether it is intended to cover costs other than those incurred by commercial businesses; and, if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the new section in explanatory memoranda is to draw Parliament's attention to the best estimates of the impact which legislative proposals would have on business. Their purpose is to help parliamentary scrutiny by providing an early opportunity to take account of implications for business. As published documents they also help other interested parties, including charities and other voluntary organisations, to contribute to the public debate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for replying to my Question. Will the matter be further considered, perhaps particularly in the light of the current Education Bill? That Bill has nothing at all to do with commercial business but, on the other hand, loads heavy administrative costs on the universities. Should not the purpose of the new rubric be extended to non-commercial businesses?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting his suggestion forward. He may like to know that the charities and voluntary sector task force is currently considering whether there should be an extension of compliance cost assessment to those bodies. That could well include the kinds of bodies that the noble and learned Lord referred to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, at what stage are these business compliance cost assessments made? Are the Government prepared to withdraw a Bill if the assessment shows that the increased cost is too great for industry to bear?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in bringing forward legislation various departments work closely with businesses and their representative organisations to obtain as fair an assessment as possible of the likely cost to business. I should emphasise that the matter we are discussing constitutes the Government's best possible assessments of the likely costs to business, and we believe the assessments are correct.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord assist the House a little further by publishing a detailed memorandum showing, as nearly as possible, the principles upon which these assessments are made, and also the methods used in their calculation, checking and verification before the explanatory memorandum appears?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to inform the noble Lord that a document has been published under the deregulation initiative entitled Checking the Cost to Business. A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment. I am told that this document is in the Library of the House, but I shall check to make sure that it is.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord state the cost of it to the public?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know the cost of the document, but it is not thick and I do not suppose it costs much.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the document is not very thick perhaps the noble Lord will explain its contents a little further. Further to the question of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, will the Minister undertake that the business compliance cost assessrnent will be properly established by a privatised firm arid perhaps indeed audited by a serious firm of accountants?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, these are of course early days as regards the compliance cost assessment. There is no reason why we should not improve on the system in the future, perhaps in the way the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, presumably the matter that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has raised is concerned with draft Bills of primary legislation. Will the Government consider having the same sort of criteria in regard to statutory instruments because it is often within statutory instruments that the real costs of changes can apply?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. Although the Question refers to primary legislation, it is also pertinent to secondary legislation, and indeed to legislation that emanates from the European Community which has a likely impact on business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, has the Minister observed that it is only the Members of the Labour Party in your Lordships' House who have the interests of the business community at heart?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I know that everyone does not entirely share the confidence that the noble Lord has in his own party and its beliefs as regards small businesses. My noble friends behind me have confidence in this Government.

Disabled People: Unjustified Discrimination
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, while the Government share the aim of ending unjustified discrimination, we do not see comprehensive legislation as the most effective and practical means of achieving it. We believe that the best way forward is a programme of awareness, education and persuasion, backed up where necessary by targeted legislation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that anti-discrimination legislation is supported by every disability organisation in Britain, by the Law Society and by governments in other countries such as the United States? Is he aware that it is supported by the majority of Members of Parliament and by this House? Above all, it is supported by millions of disabled people. If the Government continue to act like King Canute they must expect the same respect that he had. Does the Minister accept that they are damaging the interests of millions of disabled people by their refusal to enact this very necessary legislation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that unjustified discrimination against disabled people is unacceptable. The Government are committed to combating it. We believe that the best approach is one that builds on the Government's good record of increasing opportunities for disabled people through programmes of education and persuasion and, where necessary, targeted legislation. We do not believe that all encompassing legislation would be effective in helping to meet the needs of disabled people.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real difficulty that disability takes many different forms? For instance, I walk on two sticks. Other people have defects of eyesight or of hearing. There are almost infinite ways in which discrimination can take place and comprehensive legislation would be almost impossible to draft.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree very much with my noble and learned friend. The complex range of disabilities and the varied ways in which they affect everyday life cannot be addressed by a single piece of legislation, unlike, for example, the approach which was adopted to deal with racial or sex discrimination.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Viscount knows that on two occasions this House has passed a Bill for precisely this purpose. He now says in reply to the Question that he is in favour of targeted legislation. Will he explain to the House what targeted legislation means?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is legislation targeted at those who need it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I was severely disabled for a short period I received every possible assistance in all parts of these Houses of Parliament from staff and colleagues? That ought to be put on the record. It is a pity that other organisations cannot emulate the Parliament they are all so eager to criticise. There were occasions when outside this building I ran into people who could only be called malevolent. Can something be done to persuade other organisations outside to emulate our behaviour and, in particular, can we examine the possibility of somehow dealing with the evil behaviour of malevolent people who like to hurt the disabled?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked the Minister for disabled people to work with the All-Party Disablement Group to identify ways in which discrimination could be eliminated. My right honourable friend has already had two meetings with the group to discuss proposals for taking forward this important initiative. The Prime Minister's personal interest has ensured that the work has received high priority within government and we shall look carefully at any proposals which are made to us.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the right to equal treatment without discrimination on any grounds such as mental or physical disability is a fundamental right guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and that we are obliged to secure that right in our domestic legal system?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have a very good record compared with other countries in the EC. We are opposed to discrimination against disabled people. As I said, we have taken steps in the past through targeted legislation to prevent it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider the remark he made in reply to the first Question from my noble friend Lord Ashley about the need for legislation to deal with discrimination? Is he aware that we have had a 3 per cent. quota for the employment of the disabled since 1944 and that, acting on a voluntary basis, it has never been reached? Some of us have argued the need for legislation in that respect. Does the noble Viscount not consider that there comes a time when legislation may be needed to support a measure which is not receiving on a voluntary basis the support which it ought to have?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the quota is under review. We are looking carefully at the evidence and considering options. There are many arguments to be considered. As the noble Lord said, the Disabled Persons Act requires employers to employ a quota of disabled people. The Employment Department is preparing a memorandum for the Employment Select Committee which will outline the Government's view

321
on the operation of the Act and will help the department to promote employment and training for people with disabilities.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, how far have the Government been able to meet the quota which they themselves have accepted for employing disabled people within the Civil Service?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Civil Service is committed to equality of opportunity for all people, including people with disabilities. Although the Civil Service is not bound by the quota legislation it has undertaken to accept the same responsibilities as other employers. It employs more than 8,300 staff who are registered disabled. That is equivalent to 1.5 per cent. of all civil servants, which is just above the proportion of people registered as disabled in the workforce as a whole and as far as we can judge almost twice the proportion of registered disabled people employed in the private sector. Like other employers, the Civil Service employs many more staff with disabilities who choose not to register as disabled.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is that not half the target that the Government have set themselves?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes, it is half the target. However, as I pointed out, many people who are employed and who have disabilities do not register.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many measures taken by the Government are likely only to increase employment discrimination against disabled people? I refer to such measures as the proposed employers' levy under the access to work scheme and the imposition of full costs of statutory sick pay upon employers. Will the Government consider again the disability working allowance scheme? It has had a low take up. We supported the scheme when it was introduced but we pointed out that it was flawed. However, the take up seems to have been low. Can something be done about that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have announced improvements to the disability working allowance. With regard to the noble Baroness's question about access to work, that matter is to be introduced by the Employment Department later this year and will replace or add to the help currently available. It will provide a wider range of help to a greater number of people. This new, more flexible provision has been widely welcomed by various organisations, in particular those organisations which relate to people with disabilities.
On the noble Baroness's point about the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, at present there is no evidence that the changes that we propose will cause employers to treat disabled people differently from others in the workforce.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is not the difficulty about the quota system—which requires employers of more than 20 people to engage 3 per cent. or more employees who are disabled—that throughout the country the registers of disabled people contain
322
figures of less than 3 per cent. That makes the requirement almost impossible. A review of the system is required.
As one who assisted with the passage of one of the Bills referred to through this House, I ask the Government this question. Will they consider setting up a disablement commission—that is what my Bills attempted to do—rather than seeking to create new offences which have to be dealt with in the courts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. As I said in answer to an earlier question, only about 1.5 per cent. of registered disabled people are in the workforce. That may be one of the reasons why it has been almost impossible to fill the 3 per cent. quota. I am sure that we shall consider my noble friend's other suggestion.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister kindly bear in mind that there are people in the United States with a wide variety of disabilities? There are those who use two sticks, those who are deaf, and those who are blind. Yet the comprehensive legislation works perfectly well in America, Australia and many other countries. Therefore, it is no argument to talk about the diversity of disabilities.
Secondly, the Minister refers to education and persuasion. That was the Government's argument on seat belts. It failed and legislation was required. The same principle applies to legislation on discrimination. Persuasion and education simply do not work. Discrimination in Britain today is massive and requires legislation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the legislative system in America is different from this country. The laws in America are fairly new. We shall, of course, be watching all developments in America to see how those laws work. However, at the moment there is as yet no evidence—those laws are fairly new—that they are any more successful than the legislation of this country.

Drink-Driving Statistics
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty' s Government:
How recorded incidents in Great Britain of drinking and driving during the Christmas and New Year period 1993–94 compare with records for each of the previous five years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, as the figures are fairly complex, I have arranged for them to be placed in the Library and a copy sent to my noble friend. However, a simple assessment shows that the number of breath tests administered increased by 11.1 per cent. over the previous year. The number of tests which proved positive fell slightly to 4.6 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, which indicates some

323
progress. Does he ascribe the improvements to the prospect of more severe sentences or to the special campaigns?
Was the welcome improvement reported in Scotland over the New Year a result of the traditional celebrations being curtailed—that would be a pity—or because they were better planned to enable the seasonal toasts to be enjoyed in the appropriate beverage but by people on foot or travelling as passengers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asks me a number of questions to which I feel ill equipped to reply. He asked whether the improvement is due to the severe sentences or to the special campaigns. The answer is probably that it is due to both. Certainly the sentences are more severe and certainly the campaigns have made a great impact on people's lives. It is noticeable that those, if I may so describe them, in the most awkward age category are not the young people but those of rather more mature age who have become used in the past to driving when they have had drinks.
The effect in Scotland has been remarkable. Between 1988–89 and 1993–94 the number of positive breath tests has dropped from 5.76 per cent. to 1.89 per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is very good.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is very good indeed. Whether that means that friends North of the Border drink less at Christmas and Hogmanay, I leave to my noble friend to decide.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister welcome the fact that deaths and serious injuries from road accidents have fallen sharply over the past year, apparently due to the good driving of the British people? I believe that that is to be rejoiced at. I hope that the noble Earl agrees.
However, in relation to drink and driving, is there not much confusion caused by the present limit of 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood? Is this not the time to consider whether there should be an outright ban on drinking alcohol and driving?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. There has been a great decrease in the number of people who have become victims of accidents in which alcohol is present. In 1992, 610 people were killed, whereas 10 years earlier in 1982 the figure was 1,550. That is an enormous drop. In 1992, there were 3,200 serious injuries and 8,010 in 1982, 10 years earlier.
The noble Lord asked whether it would be a good idea to have a zero limit on alcohol. That would produce problems. All the evidence shows that above the current levels—that is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood and 35 microgrammes in the breath—the ability is impaired. As regards reducing the limit to zero, people have alcohol in their blood for all kinds of reasons. For instance, if the noble Lord were to eat a bad pork pie he would find that he had alcohol in his blood. That might give an erroneous reading; or a correct reading but an erroneous interpretation of the noble Lord's capacity.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some countries nil alcohol is the level for new drivers in their first two years of driving? In view of his last answer, will he explain to me how that measure works in other countries if the bad pork pie has such a disastrous effect on people in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps people in other countries do not eat pork pies. All sorts of things occur in other countries which do not happen in this country. I assure my noble friend that the evidence is that it is much better to aim our efforts towards enforcing the existing law rather than increasing its rigour.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister rightly draws attention to the welcome decline in the number of accidents involving people who have been drinking. However, how does he draw his conclusions from the proportion of tests which prove positive? Is it not equally likely that there would be a decline in the number of positive results as a result of police forces testing more indiscriminately and less accurately than from a decline in the number of people driving when they have had too much to drink?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the interpretation of statistics is always a fine art. All one can do is to ask: what were the statistics in a previous year on a similar occasion and what are they now? Overall, particularly throughout the past five years, there has been a gradual decline, albeit small. At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of tests undertaken. The noble Lord may be interested to know that, in 1988, 65,000 tests were taken throughout England, Scotland and Wales over Christmas and the New Year. This past year, there were 119,000. In the first year 7 per cent. gave positive results, and in the last year 4.6 per cent. gave positive results. My conclusion is that that is an improvement. If the noble Lord wishes to say that it is not an improvement, that is up to him, but I think that it is.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree with me that, although there has been an overall improvement in attitude—cultural attitude, if you will—there still seems to be a hard core of drivers who imagine that they are better drivers when they have had something to drink? One hopes that they are a minority, but, if the noble Earl agrees with me, what plans does his department have to target that group?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks me to insert my own mind into the minds of a few people who happen to take a certain view. I could not possibly do that. I do not know whether certain people believe that they drive better if they have taken alcohol. Some may, but I would not know. What I do know is that the effect of the campaigns which have been undertaken is a marked improvement and what has transpired is that it is those who are older who tend to drive after they have taken drink, as opposed to those who are younger. That is an overall view which is obviously subject to adjustment. However, it is those who are older who have traditionally drunk and driven who are most likely to do so now, and we must aim at them.

Life Sentence Prisoners
3.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
On whose authority persons sentenced by the courts to imprisonment for life are released.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Home Secretary may release on licence offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, if he has been recommended to do so by the Parole Board. The Parole Board can direct the Home Secretary to release on licence those offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for offences other than murder.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the case of convictions for murder, do I understand my noble friend to say that the decision is taken personally by the Home Secretary or delegated by him to some other person over whom he has no control?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend delegates a number of powers to other people. I think that I am correct in saying that those who are released on a life licence will have the personal approval of the Home Secretary.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in making that recommendation to the Secretary of State, is not the principal factor in the minds of the local review committees and the Parole Board the likelihood that a prisoner may re-offend? Is it the practice always to ensure that, in coming to their assessment, the parole authorities have the advice of a qualified psychiatrist?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Parole Board takes advice from a number of different quarters. I think that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is yes, but I should prefer to confirm that.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that, before deciding to release prisoners on life licence, the Home Secretary consults the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is available, the original trial judge? Will he further confirm that the Parole Board itself always takes carefully into account any comments that were made by the trial judge before deciding to recommend such a prisoner?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in both his observations.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the Question, as I read it, is not limited purely to life sentences in relation to murder. For example, many life sentences are imposed on those who intended to kill but did so under provocation, the persistent arsonist, the multiple rapist and the like. I believe that the procedure is quite different when it comes to the discretionary life sentence. Can the noble Earl inform the House of the Answer to the Question regarding the discretionary life sentence, and, if the decision-making process is markedly different, what is the justification?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the process is different. In discretionary life sentences the Parole Board can direct the Home Secretary to release on licence those offenders who were sentenced to life imprisonment other than for murder. There are a number of differences in the procedure, but the fact is that the Parole Board directs the Home Secretary and, if the Parole Board has so directed, the Home Secretary cannot go against its views. With a life sentence for murder, it is up to the Home Secretary to accept or reject any advice he receives.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer given by the Minister to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, indicates that there are significant differences in the procedure for murder and for other cases. The noble and learned Lord went on to ask: what is the justification for those differences? I did not hear an answer to that question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the justification is that murder is considered a unique crime and as such it requires the authority of the Home Secretary to allow back into that society for which the Home Secretary is responsible people who have murdered on previous occasions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, far from being a unique crime, murder includes an enormous range of different crimes with different degrees of seriousness and different degrees of motivation? Indeed, murder is the least unique crime of almost any which comes before the courts.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the taking of the life of an individual is a unique crime. The motivation for it covers a variety of different aspects.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, manslaughter involves the taking of a life. Is it, therefore, as unique as murder? If so, why is there not the same procedure?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to become involved in legal niceties, but manslaughter is in a different category from murder, where murder has been undertaken with the direct purpose of removing someone's life.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend reflected on the fact that if the victim dies over a year and a day after the original attack it is not murder; but if he dies a year less a day, it is murder?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, oddly enough I did consider that curious point. The fact is that if a person dies over a year and a day after the murder, it may well be that he would have died anyhow because he might have had a heart attack. It would be difficult to ascribe such a death to the act of murder. Clearly, one has to draw a line somewhere and it has been considered in law—about which my noble and learned friend will know much more than I—that that is a suitable date and there is no particular reason to change it.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Brought from the Commons; on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The local government areas]:
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("(aa) the principality of Wales;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in that of my noble friend on the Marshalled List. This amendment paves the way for Amendment No. 3. I made the case for this amendment and all the implications in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. If we believe in democratic government as against bureaucratic administration, and if we want to treat Wales with respect in the developments that are going on in the United Kingdom and in the European Community, then we shall feel impelled to support this amendment.
There are profound weaknesses in this Bill. That should not surprise us because at every level there was inadequate consultation; and there was no commission, as was established for England. The White Paper which preceded the Bill was widely criticised. That was a warning to the Government. As a result, much of the Bill has been rejected by a number of organisations: namely, the CBI in Wales; the Welsh TUC; all the county councils; most of the district councils; and by a range of voluntary organisations.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed. It vests in the Secretary of State for Wales unprecedented powers to direct and control local affairs in Wales. The creation of unitary authorities without an elected body will result in local councils that have only a limited capacity to fulfil their services. I find that quite unacceptable. I want to see unitary authorities with a strong backing from an elected authority, and not authorities manipulated by the Welsh Office and overshadowed by quangos in Wales.
When I was Secretary of State for Wales 25 years ago, I worked to expand the functions of the Welsh Office. But I did so in co-operation and in co-ordination with the local authorities whom I consulted, as some of my noble friends will recall. With regard to quangos, I can see that there are circumstances in which an appointed body may be necessary, and where Ministers and the Government will have to set up such a body. But now matters have gone too far. I believe that noble
328
Lords on all sides of the Committee accept that. In the past 15 years—it is necessary for me to give the facts to support what I am saying—the number of quangos under the patronage of the Secretary of State for Wales has doubled. There are now 80 quangos in Wales, with a budget of £1.8 billion and a staff of 57,000. I regret to say that appointments in Wales to these highly influential bodies are made to a large extent on political grounds. I have never before known in my parliamentary experience appointments to be made at that level and in that number for political reasons. It is not only unsatisfactory; it is disgraceful. And it is our duty in this Committee to point it out. We have other matters of importance to discuss today, such as the local boundary issues which concern a large number of noble Lords. But the matter that I now pose goes to the heart of the democratic process in our country. I wish to make it plain at the start of this debate that it is to be exposed and condemned.
A Welsh assembly is therefore urgently needed to subject the functions and actions of the Welsh Office to proper public scrutiny and to bring the quangos under public democratic control. Recent experience in Wales proves that we must demand more accountability and more openness at the highest levels of Welsh public life. Without that, the reputation of Wales will suffer, although that will not be the fault of the Welsh people. In short, we believe that the powers given in this Bill to the Welsh Office should be vested in an elected body of councillors representing Wales as a whole.
Secondly, given the heavy dependency on nominated bodies, there will be a need to improve co-operation and co-ordination between the local authorities and the nominated agencies, such as the health authorities, the Further Education Funding Council, the training and enterprise councils, and other important bodies. Unless we accept this amendment, no action can be taken to deal with this undemocratic structure. In my view, co-ordination is essential.
Thirdly, an elected assembly would act as a co-ordinating forum stimulating inter-authority co-operation, which I believe to be essential.
Fourthly, it would address the relationship between Welsh local government and the relevant European Community institutions, such as the Committee of the Regions or the Social and Economic Committee. The Government failed to address that issue in all the consultative papers, and that was a very grave omission.
I must say that to thrust this flawed structure upon Wales without any consideration of the European Community dimension does great disservice to the people of Wales. Why are some people afraid of an elected Welsh assembly? That fear has existed for far too long. Are they afraid of placing too much power in the hands of the Welsh people? I hope that that is not true, and that this House will therefore support the amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I rise from these Cross-Benches to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to argue the case for a democratically elected all-Wales body as part of this Bill.
Since the referendum in 1979, when the people of Wales rejected the proposals by the then lately to be lamented Labour Government, both the structure of government and the nature of public opinion in Wales on this whole subject have changed. We have seen a massive increase in executive government and in decision-making by direction from the Welsh Office. Of course, I have to include myself in a small capacity as part of that process. The creation of non-departmental public bodies and the way in which the Government of Wales proceeds by direction from the Welsh Office can only be seen as a negation of democracy. However, there are those who see this as a transitional stage in the inevitable return of the argument for an elected, all-Wales body. That argument is located precisely in the context to which the noble Lord referred; namely, that of the European regions. For, increasingly, at that level, there are now institutions which represent local and regional authority.
The notion of the regional authority features strongly in the Maastricht Treaty, which last year took up so much of the time of this House. The regional authority exists as a policy making and representative level in the overwhelming majority of member states. The United Kingdom is clearly an exception. We lose out in the whole of the United Kingdom for not having national and regional structures to parallel those which exist in other member states, and also those which are increasingly now recognised and used by the European Union in the development of its policies. That applies not just to regional policy and regional expenditure but increasingly now to regional representation through the Council of the Regions and bodies of that kind. It is at that level that Wales needs to be directly represented. The creation of an all-Wales body would enable that.
As I said at the beginning of my short remarks, increasingly we find that public opinion in Wales is moving in that direction. Clearly in all the recent opinion polls there has been a majority in favour of an elected all-Wales body. To transfer the powers of the Welsh Office in this Bill—the powers of direction given to the Secretary of State in this Bill—to an elected body, seems not only appropriate but in line with the historic attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the past to create an all-Wales body.
The Government will say that such an all-Wales body is not part of the structure of local government in this Bill. But the Government will have to return—as they have already done so in the case of Northern Ireland and as they will again, I am sure, in the case of Scotland—to the issue of an all-Wales body, either in this term of their office if they remain in office or if the Government revert to the Opposition. Certainly the next Labour Government, if we live to see one, will have the obligation of legislating on this matter. I hope that they also will have the determination to do so.
Lord Gibson-Watt: The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who moved the amendment, knows a great deal about Welsh politics and more than I do. He said quite rightly that on Second Reading he had referred to the question of the assembly. He did. So did I. I pointed out to him and to the Chamber that in 1979 that question was put before the Welsh people; and by over three-and-a-half to one the decision was against.
That happened not very long ago. I very much doubt whether an assembly, which is an extra tier of government, is the right answer at this moment in time. I do not deny that the growth of quangos irritates Members Opposite. I am considerably irritated by the fact that there are too many of them. Their appointment is a very difficult responsibility for any Welsh Minister. I accept that. Despite that remark, this is no time to create a Welsh assembly. I urge the Committee not to support the amendment.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I have great respect for the noble Lord—almost my noble friend—Lord Gibson-Watt. But on this matter, I feel that he underestimates the change that has taken place since 1979. In 1979 there was an arguable case both ways. But I must say to the Committee that it seems to me that the policy of this Government over the past 15 years in weakening local government and in strengthening the quango system (if I may use such a word for it) has altered the whole balance of the argument.
What is sought here is a very modest committee to co-ordinate or oversee in some way such quangos. Many Members of the Committee will probably be slightly surprised when I say that the budget of the quangos in Wales today is equal to if not slightly greater than the local authority budget of all the local authorities there. That cannot be satisfactory in any way at all. To deprive the local authorities of the responsibility may be in accordance with government policy; but to make them accountable only to the Secretary of State for Wales simply is not acceptable in Wales to all those of us who think about these matters.
There is also the subsidiary question, which I suppose in some ways is as important, and to which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred; namely, the nature of appointments. One would think that, given the tremendous power put into the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, he would have been extraordinarily careful to have preserved a balance of appointments that would have reflected to some extent the political complexion of Wales, though I would not ask for that absolutely. I have seen—I believe it is within the knowledge of every Member who knows what is happening in Wales—very good public-minded and devoted people excluded from committees on which they previously sat and of which they had knowledge. No rational reason was ever given for it.
I am told by a leading contender for the Conservative Party leadership (in the future but not today, so I understand) that cynicism is rife in our country. In Wales a great deal of cynicism has been bred by what has happened in the matter of those appointments. I am not one who believes that one has to have exact representation or that Ministers should be attacked for

331
the nature of their appointments. But so flagrant has that been in Wales, through the concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State and his advisers, whoever they may be, that it has become shameless. It is high time that the situation was exposed. I do not propose to go into the issue this afternoon. I suppose that we shall not carry the amendment today. But I have great belief in the influence of this Chamber. When these matters are ventilated and known, I believe that these situations to some extent can be remedied.
It is wholly unsatisfactory that the budget of those quangos should be equivalent to if not greater than the budget of the local authorities in Wales and that the appointments have proceeded in the way in which they have done.
Lord Chalfont: I rise not to become engaged in the argument about quangos and the broader aspects that that argument raises, but simply to support the general thrust of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the more general geopolitical sense. He and my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas identified a trend which is undoubtedly taking place and which to my mind is inexorable in the whole field of modern political science.
Some of the great centres of decision-making are moving further and further away from our national capitals. There may be some of us who deplore that, but it is a fact of life. Decision-making is moving away from nationalities and national capitals into broader and bigger social entities. As that happens, it becomes of greater importance that local democracy should be strengthened. As the big macro-decisions are taken further away from Westminster, Paris, Berlin or Bonn, so the decision-making of local authorities and local people has to be strengthened. Indeed, that is part of the ostensible reason for the Bill; namely, to bring local government closer to the people.
I believe that there are many cases—I know that this point will emerge from some of the amendments tabled to Schedule 1 of the Bill—in which what is now proposed in the Bill takes government further from the people rather than bringing them closer. But in a more general sense what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and others have said about a Welsh assembly reflects an inexorable fact of history. It will happen sooner or later. It should happen sooner. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, that the Government, whether this amendment is agreed today (I suspect that it is doubtful), will bear in mind the views that have been expressed in the Committee today.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that I may be forgiven for intruding into this matter. Undoubtedly, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised an extremely important point.
The only issue on which I tend to differ from him is that it is not a specifically Welsh point. As the last speaker said, it is a point which affects and will continue to affect the whole of the United Kingdom. I shall not now talk about the unhappy story of Northern Ireland because that is not relevant to the present discussion, but it should be in the back of our minds.
332
What is true of Wales is reflected in current opinion in Scotland. Again, I am not in a position to speak about Scotland. But ever since 1963, when I had a certain responsibility in the North-East of England, I have been heretical from my own party's point of view about an underlying difficulty in regard to the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole; that is, that there is room for an intermediate level of authority between Parliament and Westminster and its Ministers—whose sovereignty I should like to see unabated because I remain an unrepentant unionist in such matters—and local authorities, which we have in this country de facto and which have existed for countless centuries. My belief is that they are inadequate in point of size to deal with the problems with which regions have to deal. For example, in the North-East, when I had that special responsibility in 1963, I had to deal with 146 different local authorities of different sizes. That was rather a lot. There were only three counties as they then stood.
I believe that there is room for a regional authority. My only criticism of speeches delivered by the other side in support of the amendment is that it is inherent in the structure of the United Kingdom that sooner or later this issue must be addressed. There is the problem of tertiary education; there is the problem of quangos, to which every speaker has referred. It is undoubted that the districts and counties into which the United Kingdom—by that I include England—is for the moment divided are divided into local authorities insufficiently large to discharge a great number of what are in fact regional problems.
As I said, I am a heretic on this point. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will forgive me exposing my heretical views. But it is a fundamental problem which sooner or later must be addressed by the whole of the country.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I found it interesting to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He is developing a theme today on which he has touched over many years in articles and speeches. It is right that there is scope for another tier of authority in our country on a regional basis. Within the Bill we see the weaknesses of the present approach. We have authorities that are far too large to be local governments and too small to be regional governments. There is certainly scope for a different kind of authority.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, knows, when I saw the amendment tabled I was placed in a quandary. Like himself I have always been a supporter of Welsh devolution. We campaigned together in the Parliament for Wales campaign in the 1950s. In principle I always support moves for a Welsh assembly. I never subscribed to the view that if we went down that road we would be furthering the cause of separatism in Wales. Far from it; we would be strengthening the case for unity within the United Kingdom.
Having said that, when I saw the amendment I had extreme doubts that this was the right vehicle by which to present that idea—for this reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, intimated, the matter needs an airing and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, did a great service

333
in calling attention to the point. But what would worry me with this specific amendment—for which I shall certainly vote because in principle I agree with it—is the question of how a Welsh assembly should be set up. It would mean such a great change in our arrangements that it should be done in a separate Bill. No doubt if the Labour Party win the next election, that will be done.
I agree entirely with the points made in regard to quangos. But the amendment gives the assembly no control whatever over quangos. I am entirely in favour of an assembly that would have control over quangos. I am entirely in favour of an assembly to which a Secretary of State would be answerable. But under the formulation of this amendment the Secretary of State would only need to consult the assembly; there would be no obligation on him to take account of anything it said following the consultation.
On the drafting of the amendment the assembly may do anything that it considers necessary. That is far too wide a power unless it is circumscribed in some way. Subsection (3) states:
"The Assembly may do anything it considers necessary to—

(a) facilitate the co-ordination of administration of local government in Wales, and

(b) promote greater co-operation between the Welsh local authorities and public agencies and voluntary organisations in Wales".

What does that mean? It means that, prima facie, it can do anything it likes. I should have thought that that was an unconsidered power.
All I am saying is that if this is an exercise in pointing the way in which Wales should go—that is the way in which it has been interpreted so far in the debate—then I am entirely in favour of it upon the grounds submitted on all sides—by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Callaghan and Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. In principle we are in favour of the amendment. But, if we arrived at the situation where we had to consider in detail the powers of an assembly, I should prefer to see many of the powers devolved from our Parliament to the assembly. I should like to see the specific relationship between the Secretary of State and an assembly set out rather than it being merely left to consultation. I should like to see the question of the relationship between an assembly and Welsh local government much more carefully thought out. All I am sure of is that, if we had a Welsh assembly, we should have unitary authorities in Wales which were much closer to the people than those we have been presented with in the Bill.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, draws us to the beginning of a much larger debate than we perhaps thought we were to have on the amendment. I was surprised to hear him let drop, in the middle of what he said, an intention to vote for the amendment because he approved of the general direction in which it pointed. We need to know a great deal more in regard to what is proposed before anybody should feel themselves in a position to commit Parliament to this form of delegation or whatever else the process is described as. In particular, how is it that we listened to so many no doubt well-founded lectures regarding the appointment of quangos, yet what the amendment puts forward is a
334
body which, in spite of its name, has no provision for its election? Is that not a super-quango? Or have I missed something in the Marshalled List which shows that it is to be an elected body?
I intervene merely to draw attention to that point. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, we are addressing the central issues of the constitution and this is a central part of that issue which does not seem to have been touched on at all.
Lord Molloy: Perhaps I may briefly make a submission. The debate so far has been quite reasonable. I could not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was so anxious. If the measure is established, many of the points raised today in an apprehensive manner will be discussed and put right.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when supporting my noble friend Lord Callaghan, said that this was not solely a question of quangos. However, in Wales there is grave apprehension that the number of quangos will grow. We shall need some assurance from the new Bill, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, that we shall return to democracy.
It cannot be denied that the quango is the first small move towards authoritarian rule. That is why I hope that the speeches of my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Callaghan will be examined by the Committee. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has enormous experience. Like my noble friend Lord Callaghan, he knows precisely both the problems of the United Kingdom and the features that particularly affect Wales, our country. I therefore ask the Committee to listen carefully to my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Callaghan and ensure that the measure before us is adopted. We can then move forward in raising the status of democracy by abolishing the so-called "quangos" and, at the same time, letting the people of Wales know that this Chamber discussed thoroughly both their apprehensions and their desires.
The Earl of Lauderdale: As a Scotsman, I have listened to the debate with great interest and some perplexity. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, or other Members of the Committee can explain whether doing anything considered necessary includes raising taxes or rates. The financial powers of an assembly are crucial to its essential functions. I simply ask for information. I am not commenting either way. It is a matter that exercises those of us in Scotland who are worried about the problem. I should like to hear what our Welsh friends have in mind.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It is with—
Baroness White: I was about to give way to a former Secretary of State for Wales. I was no more than a Minister of State but I had the privilege of serving under my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in the later part at least of his term of office as Secretary of State.
Over many years I have steadfastly opposed various proposals for a parliament for Wales mainly on the ground, which has become all too familiar in your Lordships' House in recent times, that it is difficult enough to secure satisfactory general legislation in one legislative body. To attempt to do so in three or four

335
separate legislatures in an area the size of the United Kingdom seems to me wasteful of time and effort and to be quite unnecessary. When some years ago there was an official referendum in Wales on the subject I agreed with the majority against it.
But the purpose of the amendment of my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Prys-Davies is something different. Several noble Lords have already explained the reasons why we are so dissatisfied in the Principality. To my mind the proposed Welsh assembly, which would be an elected body, would provide an absolutely essential channel to secure and maintain an effective and democratic administration for the local government of the Principality. It is not to be more than concerned with our domestic affairs and our links with Europe and the wider world, which are now developing, with the arrangements for the regions and so on, at quite a rapid pace. In those circumstances it is not just a matter of the quangos, difficult as that may be. It is a serious proposition for extending democratic government in a way which can satisfy local people that their needs and opinions are having some effect.
The difficulty with the Bill as it stands, even from the most cursory reading of it, is the astounding range of powers within the competence of the Secretary of State for Wales, with minimal restraint either by Parliament or by people. As one despairing chief executive of a county said to me last week:
"If he wants to, the Secretary of State can change almost the entire Bill simply by using his discretionary powers, without local consideration or consent".
That is how it appears to the rest of us.
As we proceed through the Bill we shall have to take notice of the circumstances to which reference is made in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of the House and also of the circumstances where no reference to Parliament will be required. As my noble friend has said, we in Wales have had no commission about local authority reorganisation. We have had no one with whom we could speak freely. In Wales the Welsh Office proposes and the Welsh Office disposes. This is the basis of some of our very serious dissatisfaction with the Bill before us.
I am sure my noble friend Lord Cledwyn would agree with me that over the years since we were together in the Welsh Office the range of responsibilities of that department has increased enormously. For the Secretary of State to be adequately and effectively advised over the whole area is, in my view, not feasible—certainly when it comes to making valid judgments on the numerous details of local administration with which the Bill before us concerns itself. The well-known phrase "It is not what you know but who you know that matters" becomes more and more of a byword in such a situation. Those of us who have had some experience of the Welsh Office in recent years—we would not necessarily be able to prove it in detail—know exactly what we mean.
I shall not weary the Committee by carrying on further on this matter, but it seems to me that what my noble friend has proposed, or something very like it, is
336
essential if we are to have a feeling of confidence with regard to the local affairs and the local needs of the Principality of Wales.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It is with an understandable degree of diffidence that I rise to intervene in this debate. The Bill we are considering today is not my Bill. My Bill went through both Houses of Parliament just over 20 years ago. The passage of time has brought about a change inasmuch as it is now thought, and quite widely thought, that the two-tier system which was in my Bill no longer gives the satisfaction that it was hoped it would give and that changes are needed. It seems to me that the changes proposed in the Bill—the replacement of the two-tier system with a single tier unitary authority based on historic counties and county boroughs—are generally acceptable. I am therefore in many ways the villain of the piece and I intervene to make one short point.
Reorganisation as demonstrated in the Bill is reorganisation about removing an unnecessary tier of government. What is proposed in the amendment is the creation of a new and expensive tier of government and bureaucracy, one which will erode the responsibility of local government. As much as I understand how important it is that there should be consideration of the need for a Welsh Assembly, it seems to me that it is inappropriate that it should be introduced into this Bill. Using the Bill as a campaign for a Welsh Assembly is to distort the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to make local government close to the people it serves. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that if one is going to have a Welsh Assembly, it is such an important change that it deserves a separate Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I feel the same diffidence as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, at intervening and for the same reasons. I intervene only to draw attention to a very important commitment that the Government won at Maastricht; namely, the vindication of the principle of subsidiarity. As I understand it, that means that no decision should be taken by any decision-making body if it could reasonably be taken by some subordinate body which is closer to the person affected by the decision. If that is right, it is a powerful argument in favour of the general principle of this amendment.
For the reasons that were given by the noble Lords, Lord Hooson, and Lord Thomas, this measure is not an entirely suitable vehicle for a Welsh assembly; nor is the amendment entirely satisfactory. In fact, on the arguments heard today, there seems to be an unanswerable case for a royal commission on the constitution. This problem of assemblies in Wales and Scotland is bound up with a number of other constitutional questions.
If the noble and learned Lord who is to reply to this debate were to say that the Government will establish a royal commission on the constitution, I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn. Unless he says that, the

337
argument in favour of vindicating the principle, which is really the principle of subsidiarity, is best served by voting for the amendment.
Lord Moran: This afternoon I do not wish to enter into argument about the merits or demerits of a Welsh assembly, but merely to say that I believe it is, as has been made clear by a number of speakers, a very big question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke about regional matters throughout the United Kingdom and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale spoke about a possible royal commission. They have both indicated the width and importance of this question. It is not only very important but it is a controversial question.
We were privileged to hear this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who introduced the Wales Act 1978 when he was Prime Minister; and from the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, who led the "Vote No" campaign in 1979. He was supported then by a number of Labour MPs, including Mr. Neil Kinnock.
I say this only because it indicates that this is a controversial question. Therefore it is in my view inappropriate to try to include it in a Bill such as this, which deals solely with the reorganisation of local government in Wales. The matter should be dealt with either on its own or as part of a review of the whole question of regional government within the United Kingdom. Consequently, I am not happy about these amendments.
Lord Elton: It is Committee stage so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I intervene briefly again. It would be helpful if we could have some reply before we hear from the Front Benches on the question I asked as to whether we are dealing with an elected or an appointed body. If we are dealing with the latter, then what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, puts forward falls to the ground because one is not bringing decision making closer to the people but taking it further away—it is being given to people appointed by central government.
However, if it is to be an elected body, surely we need to know a great deal more about it—as well as what its powers will be and whether it can raise taxes—so that we can talk about it in a sensible way. However, at the moment we are speaking in a vacuum about a body which we can only see most dimly and certainly not well enough to give it any support.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Cledwyn for having explained the background to the amendment. I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Callaghan and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for their contributions.
Perhaps I may now deal with the three detailed points of criticism which have been made. The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as to whether it is to be a directly or indirectly elected body or a nominated body. I have no shadow of doubt that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and I had in mind that this would be a directly elected body; but somehow or other the word "elected" disappeared between last Thursday and today.
338
If the principle of the amendment is acceptable to the Committee, this is a matter to which we can return at Report stage.
I shall now deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt. He was returning to a point of criticism which he made at Second Reading when he suggested that in 1979 Wales had decided that it did not want an elected assembly and that that decision was to be binding on future generations. That was the implication of his intervention. With respect to the noble Lord, that decision was not irrevocable. As my noble friend Lord Callaghan has pointed out, we are living in a different world from that of 1979. I believe that today a referendum would produce a very different result.
In any event the assembly offered in 1979 was one which devolved the powers of central government. The amendment before the Committee does not devolve power from central government (that may be a point of criticism) and it does not deal with the powers of central government because they would not come within the Long Title. That title has been narrowly drawn. So the assembly which is the subject matter of this amendment would be concerned with the administration of local government in Wales.
A third point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. He said that it is inappropriate to deal with an all-Wales unit in a local government Bill. The answer to that criticism is simple: the word "local" is itself a relative term. It may mean a street or a village, such as Ewenny, which is the subject matter of an amendment to be dealt with later on today, or a town such as Merthyr Tydfil or Ebbw Vale, which is the subject matter of another amendment to which we shall come later today. It may mean one of the oldest surviving constituent parts of the United Kingdom such as the Principality of Wales. In other words, it is a relative term and we are perfectly entitled to discuss the place of an elected assembly concerned with the administration of local government when this Bill is before the House.
Regrettably, we cannot deal with the mischief of the nominated bodies. Except for that, it seems to me that the amendment, modest though it is, is in line with what is recommended by most experienced councillors in Wales and most officials of local authorities in Wales and academics who are involved with Welsh local government. It is supported by the opposition parties in Wales.
I support the amendment on three specific grounds. First, the increase in the number of authorities that will be responsible for strategic services if the Bill is enacted points to the need for a central co-ordinating body in Wales. There will be a need to secure co-ordination and a need to promote co-operation. That work could be done by a Welsh assembly which would have a voice in the government of Wales. The phrase "a voice in the government of Wales" is not our creation. It was much used by the Welsh Office when it published its first consultative document in 1991. Today, however, that phrase has disappeared from the consultative document and the Bill. In the absence of a Welsh assembly, there will be increased Welsh Office involvement, which in

339
due course will also mean the need for additional Welsh Office staff. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been discussed anywhere in the consultation paper and, to the best of my knowledge, the accountants Touche Ross were not asked to examine the issue.
I turn now to the second ground on which I support the amendment. It has been touched on by a number of noble Lords. The amendment—modest though it is—would give the Welsh local authorities a voice within the European Union institutions. Rightly or wrongly, European Union policies and funds, such as the regional fund and the social fund, are of increasing importance to local authorities in the United Kingdom. We in Wales have more than our fair share of the most needy regions of the Community. Local authorities in the United Kingdom generally are being increasingly asked to implement EC primary and secondary legislation in areas relating to trading standards and environmental protection. For all those reasons, it is essential for a lasting reform of Welsh local government that it should be actively involved in Brussels. From my experience as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee, I know that Brussels would much prefer to deal with a Welsh elected assembly than with up to 21 smaller authorities. The amendment would give Welsh local government a voice in Brussels.
My third reason for supporting Amendment No. 3 is this: it seeks in subsection (5) to improve the checks and balances within the Welsh local government structure. Given the experience of the past 15 years, we submit that a major aim of the reform of Welsh local government should be to prevent too great a concentration of power from residing in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. That has been happening progressively over the past 15 years.
As the Labour Party sees its, the amendment addresses positively the three main issues which have been totally ignored by the Bill. Moreover, I believe that an elected assembly with a modest role—this is a compromise of a model—would bring a new impetus to Welsh life. We believe that it would provide a focus for democratic action
4 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether it is intended that the assembly is to vote supply and to raise money?
Lord Prys-Davies: In our submission, no. It would not have that power.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It will not surprise the Committee that the Government find the amendment unacceptable. I realise that the purpose of the amendment was to raise a matter of general importance. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has stressed just how wide is the issue raised by this amendment. It is the kind of issue that affects the whole of the United Kingdom and raises matters relating to Scotland as well as to Wales. I accept that what has been said reflects the deeply held views of many of your Lordships, including the heretical views held by my noble and learned friend.
340
However, the question is whether the amendment should form part of the Bill. It is clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the assembly envisaged in the amendment is not the kind of assembly that would satisfy anybody. It is a compromise of a model. The wording of the amendment has been chosen to allow it to squeeze into the confines of this particular local government Bill. Whatever assembly might or might not be appropriate for Wales, this is certainly not it.
The basic point about such an assembly as it relates to this Bill is that it runs contrary to the whole thrust of the Government's proposals in the Bill. Those proposals are aimed at reforming the system of local government and at removing a tier of local government. The aim is to entrust the new authorities with appropriate responsibilities.
By contrast, the amendment cuts across that scheme and envisages certain strategic functions being given to the new body, which would have sweeping powers, the nature of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to intervene in local government under the disguise of facilitating co-ordination and promoting co-operation. The Secretary of State would be bound, on matters of local government, to consult not the local authorities, but the assembly. That is interposing an extra tier and it is not the way in which the Government believe that one can set up the best kind of local authority. It would diminish rather than enhance the role of the local authorities.
In any event, as has been pointed out, the amendment leaves rather a lot unsaid. It does not even state whether the assembly is to be elected or appointed. However, we have now heard that it is not to be an additional quango and that it is intended that it should be elected. The precise method is left to the imagination—
Lord Prys-Davies: With great respect, I have made it clear that in the event of the principle being acceptable to the Committee, we shall return on Report with the further particulars.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I take the point, but the amendment as it stands leaves such matters unsaid. It has been admitted that the amendment does not tackle—and cannot tackle—what is thought to be the problem of quangos. It is confined entirely to the matter of local government.
The Government's opposition to the concept of a Welsh assembly is well known. We believe that it would detract from the proper powers of Parliament, exercised in your Lordships' House and in another place. We believe that it is there that the responsibility of the Secretary of State for appointments and other matters should be brought home. Interposing such a body between local authorities and Parliament or between local authorities and the Community is not the way to advance the cause of local government. We believe that it would remove powers and functions which properly belong to local government. The matter of an assembly was raised and debated at length in 1979. I know that it has been said that much has changed, but the matter was

341
raised and determined at that time. We believe that this is certainly not the amendment to bring the matter forward again.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I found the speeches helpful and interesting. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I believe that what he said was valid and right. Nevertheless, I was dealing with the Bill which relates to Wales and putting the arguments that I feel are necessary at this time. My main objective was to draw attention to the weaknesses of the Bill and to the need for another level of government to repair the flaws—if that is possible.
I should prefer to see the Government withdraw the Bill completely, because it is unacceptable. I wanted also to draw attention to, and to stress, the worries which exist in Wales on the issue of quangos. I do not deny that those worries exist also in England and Wales. I was anxious, too, to draw attention to the danger which will flow from the increase in the powers vested in the Secretary of State for Wales.
As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, we have not been able to spell out the detailed functions of the assembly in the Bill. That is not possible. We have given the main functions in relation to the Welsh Office and the unitary authorities. We have received a reasonable reply from the noble and learned Lord; but it was a technical reply. It failed to grasp or to understand the reactions of the Welsh people to the Bill.
Baroness White: And made no allowance for the difference from 1979 to now.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My noble friend has always been helpful to me. If the noble and learned Lord had shown some sympathy for the objective or promised that the Government would look again at this or set up a commission to examine the position and the constitutional implications referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I would consider withdrawing the amendment. But I cannot say that I am satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's response, and I therefore wish lo take the view of the Committee.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Airedale, L.

Bottomley, L.

Annan, L.

Bramall, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Barnett, L.

Carter, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chalfont, L.

Blackstone, B.

Chapple, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

342

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Glenamara, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L

Grey, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hayter, L.

Rochester, L.

Healey, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

McCarthy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cranborne, V.

Addison, V.

Crathorne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Astor, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Birdwood, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blyth, L.

Elles, B.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Erne, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Flather, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cadman, L.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goschen, V.

Carnock, L.

Granard, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Gridley, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hemphill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henley, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Holderness, L.

343

HolmPatrick, L.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Hood, V.

Pym, L.

Howe, E.

Quinton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Kenyon, L.

Renwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Shannon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mancroft, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Manton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Marsh, L.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swansea, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moran, L.

Trumpington, B.

Morris, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Oxfuird, V.

Waverley, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Westbury, L.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I report that, due to the lack of custom for dinner in the dining room tonight, it has been agreed through the usual channels that dinner in the dining room will be cancelled. I remind your Lordships that the Bishops' Bar and the Barry Room will be open for dinner as usual.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The New Principal Areas]:
Lord Kenyon Lord Kenyon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 49, line 10, at end insert:

("Breconshire and Radnorshire Brycheiniog a Faesyfed

The districts of Brecknock and Radnorshire together with (from the district of Blaenau Gwent) the community of Llanelly")

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may offer my condolences to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on his countrymen's defeat at Cardiff Arms Park last Saturday. However, I congratulate him on winning the first goal this afternoon.
During our debate on Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate acknowledged that the changes in local government in the early 1970s had cost Wales some of its cultural cohesion. He expressed the view that this Bill will go a long way towards restoring some of that cultural cohesion and sense of belonging.
The cultural structure of Wales, which has developed over the centuries, is not something that can be regulated by statute. Its origins are in the mists of time and no amount of local government Bills will alter the allegiance of people to their local communities. It would not be untrue to say that the strength of these cultural
344
bonds is in inverse proportion to their length, even in these times of high mobility. The longer one tries to make the bond, the weaker it will be.
As Members of the Committee know, I have some practical experience as a local councillor on the relatively compact council of Wrexham Maelor. But even there I live in and represent a ward which is some 10 miles from the guildhall. I frequently find that the council is discussing matters pertaining to an area about which I am totally ignorant. Local government really does mean "local", often involving discussion of nothing more than a few hundred square yards of land, the provision of a piece of equipment in a children's playground or the lopping of a branch off a tree. Those matters are not worthy of discussion in your Lordships' House but are of prime importance to the local community.
In moving the amendment, which must be taken with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, I propose that the old county of Montgomeryshire shall stand alone as one of the new unitary county authorities and that the balance of the Mid Wales county shall be re-named as Breconshire and Radnorshire. That will retain those historic county names in place of the eminently functional but somewhat colourless title of "Mid Wales".
Members of the Committee have heard that the new county of Mid Wales would be more than 100 miles long; that is the distance from Bristol to London. But between Bristol and London one has the benefit of a magnificent motorway or a motor railway which will carry people comfortably from one end to the other in less than two hours. I challenge anyone to undertake the journey from one end of this county to the other in less than three hours. That is on a good day, and heaven knows what it might be in fog or snow. I ask the Committee: what cultural cohesion can exist under those circumstances?
But in Montgomeryshire and in Breconshire and Radnorshire there are well-established community relations which go back many centuries. This Bill, if enacted without this amendment, will do much to destroy them. I must pay tribute to the dedication shown by the body of local councillors, even if in doing so I seem to be blowing my own trumpet. The councillors put in long hours to make their local communities work well and all for very little reward. The last thing that they want to be lumbered with now is the additional burden of travelling many unproductive hours from their homes to their town halls in order to spend time discussing matters of detail which are of little interest to them or to their local communities. Faced with that prospect, I fear that many good and able councillors or prospective councillors will be deterred from standing for the council of Mid Wales.
In a consultation paper on the structure of local government in Wales which was issued in 1991, the then Secretary of State indicated that the principal pillar on which his considerations would be based would be financial. That was a very worthy pillar indeed on which to base a structure for the 21st century. But two other pillars must also be considered. They are those of responsiveness in the delivery of our services and

345
accountability for our actions to the people. Indeed, it is the apparent lack of accountability in certain areas of local government that made this Bill necessary in the first place. Without a visibly creditable performance in these areas the whole purpose of the Bill will be lost.
The countrymen of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will have another bite at the cherry next month at Murrayfield. I hope that he will now feel able to give the inhabitants of Montgomeryshire and of Breconshire and Radnorshire the opportunity to show that they can govern themselves in the way that they perceive will retain their cultural ties most strongly and will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: During our debates on the gracious Speech and on Second Reading I was able to set out the overwhelming case for a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire. The noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, in an impressive speech favouring his amendment—which I signed, having withdrawn my amendment after seeing its terms—set out the geographic problems. He has considerable experience of local government, as had his father. The noble Lord spoke of the need for local government to be local. Here we are discussing a unitary authority which will cover one-quarter of the area of Wales. Even if it were divided into two, one would still be the largest unitary authority in area in Wales and the other would be the third or fourth largest.
I wish to go in particular to the reasoning of the former Secretary for Wales, the right honourable David Hunt. In 1991 he issued a consultation paper which was in favour of 20 unitary authorities for Wales. Of those, Montgomeryshire would be one and Breconshire and Radnorshire would be another. That was at the beginning of the consultation. After the consultation he stated:
"in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties, such as Pembrokeshire, Montgomersyhire, Cardiganshire and Anglesey".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/92; col. 171.]
Therefore, a year after the consultation the Secretary of State stated that he wanted Montgomeryshire. He named that as No. 2. I believe that he did so because in the 1991 debate the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, then a Member of another place, was eloquent in support of Pembrokeshire and against the creation of the huge county of Dyfed. I too was in support of Montgomersyhire and against the creation of the mammoth authority of Powys.
During the parliamentary election campaign which followed that statement in 1992, the Secretary of State attended a meeting of Conservatives in Montgomersyhire. I referred to that on a previous occasion. I now have a little more information about it. He spoke at a village called Llanfechain. As it was his only speech in Montgomeryshire during the campaign, the Conservative Association attended in full strength. I have checked this matter with the then chairman of the Conservative Association in Montgomeryshire. The Secretary of State said, in the course of his speech, that, among other things, he was looking forward to a Montgomeryshire unitary authority. That was not an
346
Opposition MP or any other MP speaking but the, Secretary of State who has direct responsibility for the matter.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, on instructions—of course, he can only speak as instructed on this Bill—said:
"Reference was made from time to time to a promise which it was said that the then Secretary of State made that Montgomery would indeed be a unitary authority. I was not present, but I have been told that the Secretary of State did not make any such promise. He certainly supported the idea".—[Official Report, 14/12/93; col. 1319.]
Therefore, the then Secretary of State supported the idea; and he, and he alone, has the power, subject to Parliament, to grant the authority. He has said in Parliament that Montgomeryshire will be a unitary authority. He then made that statement to great acclamation at a meeting in Montgomeryshire, having dealt with the negotiations which had apparently taken place.
However much "back to basics" may be misinterpreted by some people, it must mean at least that when a Secretary of State makes that kind of statement to a meeting in an election campaign, and then re-states what he has already stated in Parliament, he is leading peopie to believe that, if this Government are returned, Montgomeryshire will become a unitary authority.
As I have said, the movement for a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire, of which I am chairman, is supported by all parties. The chairman of each party is on the central committee and they have been totally steadfast in their support. No one doubted at that meeting but that Montgomeryshire would become a unitary authority.
After the election, there was a change. Why was that? Nobody has ever explained. If Mr. Hunt said, "Well, I may have given the impression that I was going to create that unitary authority but I was overruled in the Cabinet" (which I suspect is what happened) or, "Somebody in the Treasury forced me to change my mind", I could understand that. But many representations have been made to me on this matter and everybody left that meeting absolutely convinced that an undertaking had been given that Montgomeryshire would become a unitary authority.
As I said on Second Reading, the Tudors had it right as regards local authorities. They paid attention to the watersheds. It so happens that I live about eight or nine miles from the sources of the Severn and the Wye. As Members of the Committee will know, they rise about half a mile from each other. The Severn flows to the east. It goes through the Severn Vale to the English border at Shrewsbury and then turns down and goes via Worcester. The communications in Montgomeryshire have always been governed by that. On the other hand, the Wye flows for about six or seven miles to the east, to the village of Llangurig and then, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, knows, it turns south and eventually goes through Radnorshire and Breconshire. Of course, the communications there are governed entirely by that.
As regards the administration of those authorities, the electricity in Brecon and Radnorshire is supplied by the South Wales Electricity Board. In Montgomeryshire, it is supplied by the Merseyside and North Wales

347
Electricity Board. As regards government departments, the Audit Office in Wrexham deals with Montgomery, whereas Brecon and Radnor are controlled from elsewhere. The Severn Trent Water Authority supplies, save for a small part, Montgomeryshire, whereas the Welsh Water Authority serves Brecon and Radnorshire.
I know of no single private business which is based on a Powys concept. It is merely a question of administration. The Powys eisteddfod, which has been in vogue for well over a century now, is coming to my small town of Llanidloes this year and that is as far south as it ever goes, because Brecon and Radnor have their own distinctive and proud heritage and were never a part of Powys. It is only in the mythology of Wales in the 10th century that there is the possibility that there may have been a short period during the life of the son of Hywel Dda when they could have been part of Powys. The language pattern in Montgomeryshire is different.
The size is reflected in costs. Currently Powys County Council has the highest expenditure per head on corporate management of any county in Wales. It spent two and a half times as much as Montgomeryshire, despite having the same number of committees and members; and more than double is spent on members' travelling allowances. That is not to criticise Powys County Council. That cannot be helped when people must travel in order to attend meetings. If that follows for a unitary authority as regards housing and so on, it makes a mockery of local government.
Let us consider the position of the parishes of Denbighshire which have been joined on to Powys, about which the noble and learned Lord will know. When it was announced that Montgomeryshire would become a unitary authority, they wished to leave Clywd to join Montgomeryshire. That made a great deal of sense because they have much in common with Montgomeryshire. To their horror they now find that they have been lumped into Powys. For councillors to travel from those parishes to Llandrindod Wells for council meetings means a journey of about an hour and forty minutes each way. In inclement weather, such as we have had recently, they would probably never reach there at all. Therefore, there is an overwhelming case for a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire.
The combined population of Brecon and Radnor—the other area concerned—is larger than that of Cardiganshire and its area is considerably greater than that of Cardiganshire, and yet Cardiganshire is to have a unitary authority. Why should not Brecon and Radnorshire be that? Everything points in that direction.
As I said on Second Reading, the principles set out in the Government's White Paper are all met by Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnorshire.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: I support the amendment, which also stands in my name. It is a happy coincidence that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, should have so eloquently supported this amendment on Lloyd George's birthday.
The amendment is simple. I should like to concentrate especially on the aspect of it to which the
348
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred in the last part of his speech; that is, the viability and general wisdom of Brecon and Radnorshire as a unitary authority. We propose that as an alternative to this monstrous invention of Mid Wales which is, as has already been said, an authority which covers a quarter of the Principality and which from north to south—the longest axis of this new authority—is roughly the same distance as the distance from Hammersmith to the Severn Bridge. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, has pointed out, from Hammersmith to the Severn Bridge there is a motorway.
Anyone who has lived in, or even visited, Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire will know that one of the great problems of that area is communication. This simply underlines the fact that while the object of this Bill is, rightly, to bring local government closer to the people, the creation of this kind of authority—the Mid Wales proposed authority—does quite the reverse. It takes local government away from the people because the expense and difficulty of administering an area this size at the local government level is obvious for anyone to see. We must bear in mind that the elected representatives on local authorities do not—as we do in the national Parliament—spend most of their time on these affairs. They are local businessmen, local farmers and local people who devote their time, generally in the evenings and at weekends, to this kind of work. They are not going to travel the sort of distances that are implied in this curious new invention of the Mid Wales local authority.
On the other hand, it is true to say that Radnorshire on its own is probably not viable as a local authority although there was an idea at one time that it might well be. However, Breconshire and Radnorshire together—that combination has a certain historic viability anyway—have an administrative viability. They would cover a population of about 68,000 people, and those two counties together would constitute a larger authority than some of the unitary authorities already proposed. I therefore support most strongly the amendment which stands in my name and that of the other two noble Lords who have just spoken. It is an amendment which would improve the Bill. I do not suggest in any way that the Bill itself is at fault, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, believes that the Bill is a bad one. I do not entirely agree with him on that. There are many ways in which this Bill improves local government in Wales; but it would be further improved if this amendment were accepted.
Lord Gibson-Watt: The question which we are discussing is not an easy one. It is one which has vexed a great number of people of various opinions. My noble friend Lord Kenyon, who is a councillor, knows some of the problems of being a councillor. I, too, 40 years ago, was a Radnorshire local councillor. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is right to say that in his opinion—and also in mine—Radnor is too small to be an authority under today's economic circumstances. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, who argued his case for Montgomeryshire in a persuasive and rather aquatic

349
way. The points he made about the Severn Valley and the Wye Valley were correct. However, what I believe he and his colleagues have overlooked is that the present Powys County Council has worked extremely well. I know that it is a long way for people from Ystradgynlais or from the north of Montgomeryshire to travel to Llandrindod Wells, but the fact remains that the Powys County Council delivers good services to its inhabitants and it is for that reason in particular that I oppose this amendment. However, I would ask the Government why they propose to call the authority Mid Wales. Why do they not continue to call it Powys? That would certainly be much more acceptable to me.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I wish to pick up the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt. The county or the principal council area which is designated as Mid Wales Canolbarth Cymru is just not that. Mid Wales is an economic region, so defined by the activity of a number of different statutory bodies, principally the Development Board for Rural Wales. That board operated for a period, using a short title of Mid Wales, as did two of its predecessor authorities—the Mid Wales Industrial Development Association and the Mid Wales Development Corporation. I mention all those because they were either statutory agencies established by Parliament or they were voluntary associations brought together by local authorities, using this description of Mid Wales. I speak as a former resident of the area for 23 years. Mid Wales certainly includes the whole of southern Meirionnydd. It certainly includes Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnorshire, but also includes Ceredigion and arguably could include parts of Carmarthenshire and Dinefwr; and no doubt for some purposes Hereford and Shrewsbury, too. But what we are talking about here is a unit which had an important function and worked as an area—certainly during the period of the 30 years since the Beacham Report—of regeneration at the heart of Wales. I use another designation applied to that area, particularly by the tourist board.
In my view, to create one unitary authority calling itself Canolbarth Cymru Mid Wales is not to strengthen the structure of political administration in that area but rather to weaken it. I shall argue my next point a little later. When we were operating in Mid Wales with a number of unitary authorities working together under the old district system and under the previous local government system of counties pre-1974, we were then able to identify the region and take action in the region. I believe that performance will be less easily delivered under a system which centralises the concept of Mid Wales in an authority. Therefore for reasons of name and for reasons of structure I oppose the view being taken by the Welsh Office and I support this amendment.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, said that Breconshire was too small to be an authority under today's economic circumstances. I wonder whether we ought not to challenge that view before we reach a decision on this amendment because for years
350
and years people have said that larger authorities are better in some mysterious way; but the proof of the pudding is that they are always worse. I remember back in 1962 when my constituency was a local authority in Kent and it was put into a larger local authority in Greater London as part of the London Borough of Bromley. We were told that all sorts of improvements in efficiency would result from that change; but the numbers of staff employed in the authority became much larger than in the combined four authorities that were merged, and the service to the community became much worse.
The clerk of the urban district of Orpington at that time was a Mr. King. I remember being a devil's advocate and saying to him, "You must agree that at least there will be only one clerk, whereas formerly there were four in Bromley, Penge, Beckenham and Orpington". He replied "Don't you believe it, there will be four clerks and another one above them". That is what has happened. There was an enormous increase in administrative expenditure because of the size of the new authority, and the service to the community deteriorated partly because of the distances that people had to travel. That factor has been mentioned by several Members of the Committee. Formerly every service was administered from the town hall in Orpington or Beckenham, as the case may be, whereas after the change the planning offices were situated in one part of the borough, the treasurer's officers in another, the housing offices in a third part and no one knew where to go.
I have a question for the Minister, which was prompted by a discussion that took place at Question Time, on the financial effects of the Bill. The compliance cost assessment note reads:
"This Bill will not result in any significant additional burdens on business. Business will however benefit from having fewer local authorities with which to deal".
I should like to ask the Minister to consider the case of a business which is engaged in building in the area of mid Wales and has to deal constantly with the planning authority, for which purpose it has to send members of its staff to the place where the planning authority is located, wherever that may be. Is it not obvious that in a vast local authority such as this the members of staff of that business will have to travel much greater distances than if they dealt with an authority within the boundaries of Montgomeryshire? How can the calculation find that no increase in costs is imposed on businesses of that character?
The noble Lord who answered the Question at Question Time said that careful procedures were laid down to ensure that cost assessments were correct. I should like the noble and learned Lord to explain how it emerges that no additional costs will be imposed on businesses as a result of the creation of this enormous local authority. That is one example of how services to the community can degenerate as a result of the creation of bigger local authorities. If businesses have to travel large distances to deal with council departments obviously they will not get the same service as they would if the offices were more locally based, to say nothing of the effect on ordinary citizens. I believe that

351
it was Aneurin Bevan who once said that the essence of local government was that people should be able to walk to their town hall. Obviously there is no question of that in an authority which, as a noble Lord remarked, stretches the distance between Hammersmith and the Severn Bridge.
I put it to the Minister that it will be extraordinarily inconvenient for members of the public who have to deal with the offices of their local authority to get to those offices and transact their business. It will also be extremely expensive for them. I appeal to the Minister to consider the proposal and when he winds up at least to let us have some figures as to what the costs will be to the businesses which are involved with local authorities in such a vast area.
Lord Moran: The Local Government Commission for England stated in paragraph 41 of the progress report which it published in December last year that the expected population range for an English local government unit was from 150,000 to 250,000. It went on to say that for Wales the expected population range was between 67,000 and 295,000, with an average population of 137,000. It can be seen from those figures that the lowest figure put forward by the commission, which knows a good deal about the organisation of local government, is 67,000. However, Montgomeryshire is well below that, with a population of some 54,000. Therefore, although an eloquent case has been made today, as on previous occasions, by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for an independent Montgomeryshire, I do not believe that it has been proved that it would necessarily work.
I am concerned not so much with Montgomeryshire, because I do not live there. I live in Radnorshire. I am afraid that Radnorshire is in danger of being neglected in this argument. As I said at Second Reading, my heart is with Radnorshire and, ideally, I should like to see Radnorshire as an independent unitary authority standing on its own. But, if I express doubts about the validity of Montgomeryshire with a population of 54,000, I am bound to express greater doubts about Radnorshire, which has a population of only 24,000. This has resulted in this amendment, which suggests that Radnorshire should be combined with Breconshire, as is the case with the parliamentary constituency.
I have talked to a great many people in Radnorshire. Although many of them would like to see an independent Radnorshire and are not too happy about the continuation of Powys, or Mid Wales, they are much more unhappy about the idea of being swallowed up by Breconshire. Breconshire has a population of well over 45,000 and, inevitably, if one was to put Breconshire and Radnorshire together, the weight of power and influence would move to Breconshire. Although to begin with there might be an arrangement—as has been suggested by the Brecknock Borough Council—for services to be split or to alternate between Brecon and Llandrindod Wells, inevitably in the course of time the argument would prevail and the headquarters would be moved to Brecon. That would be a disaster for Llandrindod Wells, where at present some 500 people
352
are employed by the two councils. One of those councils is bound to go in any case, but if both went that would be a catastrophe for Llandrindod Wells. In addition, a move to Brecon would damage the whole economy of Radnorshire, which is fairly fragile in any case.
The fundamental argument is that people in Radnorshire do not want it. Of all the proposals put forward the one they like least is being put together with Breconshire. I do not believe that one should ignore the wishes of the people. Just to meet the wishes of people in Montgomeryshire one should not ride roughshod over the people of Radnorshire.
There is the problem of the strategic services—trunk roads, strategic planning and so on. That would be a great problem for a small unitary authority. I believe that it is best addressed by the proposed larger authority. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt. Why not call it Powys? I believe that smaller unitary authorities would be bound to result in increased costs.
One point that has not yet been made is that, if there were two or three small unitary authorities, inevitably for many of the functions of local government they would have to resort to joint working. As that is done most effectively with larger authorities, they would have to make joint arrangements with larger authorities to the north and south of the present Powys in order to secure those services. That would be unsatisfactory. It would not happen if the Powys authority was preserved.
There has been a good deal of criticism of Powys in this House. It is fair to say that there has also been a great deal of support for it in mid Wales. Powys Family Health Services, Powys TEC, the CBI, the NFU and the Farmers' Union of Wales, have, I understand, all written in support, as have many individual schools. Therefore there is quite a body of opinion supporting it.
As I said at Second Reading, I believe that the best practical solution would be to retain Powys but to increase the amount of devolution planned to the shire committees in order that matters which are really local could be dealt with locally by the three shire committees, and that matters that are strategic, in particular strategic planning, can be dealt with by the larger authority.
For all these reasons, I am not happy with the proposed amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Swansea: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kenyon and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I was born and brought up in north Breconshire. It is a part of Wales where my heart remains and which I know well and love. I have a great attachment to that lovely part of Mid Wales. I look back with great pleasure to the time when my permanent home was in those parts. I was a member of a rural district council which covered a fairly small area. It was a small friendly authority, completely non-political. Members got on very well with each other; and I believe that we did a good job. I disqualified myself from membership by moving out of the council area. That council no longer exists; but I often shed a quiet tear over the memory of it.

353
Local government should be local. The council depends greatly on an intimate knowledge by councillors of the area and its inhabitants. That principle has been entirely lost sight of. We now have an enormous, amorphous county in Mid Wales called Powys. I shall not venture into unparliamentary language by attempting to describe what I think of it. However, although with respect to my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt the system works well, nevertheless it is a great disaster. That may be a contradiction in terms. It is a disaster that the council loses the close intimacy between councillors and the people it represents.
We have heard from several noble Lords that the county of Powys is over 100 miles long. It stretches the distance from the Severn Bridge to Hammersmith. What member of a council based, say, in Bath or Bristol knows anything of Hammersmith? Members of the council would not know the people they represent. The concept of a county of that size is nonsense.
Since the reorganisation of local government areas in 1972, the former shire counties have been subsumed in those vast, totally impersonal, new counties. The councillors do not know the people they represent; and the people they represent hardly know their councillors.
I believe that Montgomeryshire is a viable unit. It has a population of about 54,000. If it were taken away from Mid Wales, Breconshire and Radnorshire would be a viable unit with a total population of about 69,500. That is a greater population than that of Cardiganshire, which is a proposed unitary authority.
I urge the Government to think again. In the past they have said that they would take Montgomeryshire from Powys. Perhaps the Government will consider again whether they were not right the first time. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. If a county in Mid Wales is to be maintained, let us stick to the name of Powys.
Lord Prys-Davies: The amendments present difficulties. We have had interesting speeches both for and against them. The people of Montgomeryshire have a genuine complaint about the attitude of the Government, bearing in mind the statement that was read by the former Secretary of State.
My initial worry about the amendments is that they will destroy Powys. That could present problems for Breconshire, with a population of about 41,000; and Radnorshire, with a population of about 23,000. On the other hand, the combined Brecon and Radnor authority would have a population of 64,000. On balance, we believe that the problems can be overcome with the aid of the enabling concept, although I do not accept for one moment that that concept is a panacea.
Both new authorities will have access to the enabling authorities. They can set up joint arrangements. We therefore believe that we can support the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: This is the first of a number of amendments that we shall consider today, all of which have the common characteristic that they have the effect of increasing the number and therefore reducing the size of authorities created in the Bill. The Committee may therefore find it helpful if, without
354
seeking to pre-empt debates in later amendments, I explain at this stage some general points in response to the amendments.
First, the Government of course recognise the strength of feeling which is often based on historical factors, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned in connection with Montgomeryshire. Those are historical factors which exist in many areas and which underlie many of the amendments before us. However, as has been made clear throughout the consultation process, which has been an extensive one, the desirability of establishing authorities with boundaries which reflect or strengthen existing community localities is just one of the factors which the Government have sought to take into account in determining the authorities. It would not be right to set up what might initially appear to be locally popular authorities if those authorities proved unable to deliver the services necessary for the people.
Therefore the Government have consistently emphasised that they also want to establish authorities which will be able to provide public services of a high quality which can be delivered efficiently, economically and effectively. It is against that criteria that we have difficulty with the amendments before us today, including Amendment No. 4, to create separate authorities for Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire.
We have in effect two main anxieties, the first of which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in relation to Radnorshire. The greater the number of very small authorities, the greater the number and complexity of the joint arrangements that are likely to be required to give effect to the new structure for services. The Government are not opposed in principle to having such arrangements. Indeed, it is one of the principles in the Bill. But we do not wish to have unnecessary situations in which those complex arrangements may be required.
Secondly and more important, we have very serious doubts about the ability of such smaller authorities to manage their resources in the most efficient and effective way. In our view, the smaller the authority, the greater the proportion of its resources which would have to be spent on central overheads such as finance, personnel and management generally.
At the same time, such small authorities would in practice be likely to find it difficult to attract staff of the same calibre as larger authorities. They would therefore suffer a double impediment and the losers, if that proved to be the case, would be the recipients of local services.
It was with those considerations much in mind that both the present and the former Secretary of State looked particularly closely at all the proposals that had been put forward for small authorities. They accepted those proposals only where they were convinced that a sufficiently good case had been made for their establishment as effective authorities. It is nonetheless worth noting in this context that the proposals for Wales in the Bill already involve the creation of authorities which, on average, are of a smaller population size than those proposed in the parallel legislation for Scotland

355
and those which seem likely to be created for England. So in no sense have the Government been parsimonious with authorities in Wales.
Those are the matters which create the general context.
Turning to the specific group of amendments, the Government of course acknowledge and have acknowledged the strength of the tradition and community identity in the three pre-1974 counties which make up Mid Wales. That strength has come over in the debates in your Lordships' House. But, in taking his decisions, the Secretary of State had to balance those principles against considerations of population and rural sparsity. The considerations suggest that the people of Mid Wales would be better served as part of a single large authority which would be better able to plan the delivery of the full range of local government services. Mid Wales would have a population of about 109,000; Breconshire and Radnorshire would have a population, as the Committee has heard, of about 70,000; Montgomeryshire, with the three communities from southern Glyndwr, would have a population of only 55,000. The smallest among the 21 authorities included in the Bill is Cardiganshire, with almost 68,000.
Again, I take up a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. The Government believe that a Breconshire and Radnorshire unitary authority is not one which would meet either the best interests or—and this is important—the wishes of residents of the areas. In particular, it would not be popular, the Government understand, with the residents of Radnorshire. The two districts, with populations of about 46,000 and 23,000 respectively, are considered too small to be self-standing unitary authorities and there appears to be little enthusiasm among residents for an alternative proposal based on a merger of the two districts.
It has been pointed out that earlier proposals put forward by the Secretary of State made provision—and this was put forward very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—for a separate Montgomeryshire. However, the proposals provided no more than a basis for further discussion, consultation and consideration. Subsequent to the Statement of the then Secretary of State on 3rd March 1992, detailed consultations were held on the basis of the then 23-authority proposal which accompanied that Statement, involving the local authorities through their associations. Also consulted were private bodies, professional organisations and members of the public.
During the consultations, genuine anxieties were expressed about the ability of small authorities to manage the delivery of the full range of local government services. The concern was reflected in the report of the Structures Group to the Welsh Consultative Committee on Local Government. The report was published in September 1992 and a copy is in the Library of the House. In formulating his final proposals, the Secretary of State took account of those anxieties.
Taking up the question of the inaccessibility of those authorities, the Government have put forward in the Bill—and we shall come to this when we reach Clause 26 and so on —proposals for decentralisation. They are
356
put forward as a genuine response to the concerns of people in areas such as Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. They are designed to deal with precisely this kind of case. What is envisaged is that, where appropriate and desired by the people in these areas, area committees may be set up which would have responsibility for the delivery of many local services and would be fully accountable locally. They would not be mere talking shops, but places in which much of the relevant business of local government for that area could be transacted. Therefore, when it is said that the new body would, in effect, be too remote, too big and too far away, one must measure that in the context of the proposals for decentralisation.
Taking up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to whether there might be more cost involved on certain occasions in travelling some distance to see planning authorities, on certain occasions there might be. However, one must remember that under the existing system those businessmen would have to take planning matters to two authorities rather than one. Under the new proposals they would only have to deal with one. Therefore, in that sense the burden would be lighter.
I have explained the thinking of the Secretary of State in the matter and I have made it clear that, in reaching these proposals, the Secretary of State has listened carefully to what was said in consultations on the White Paper. The Government do not accept the amendments, but the Secretary of State will want to reflect on what Members of the Committee have said today and what may be said subsequently in another place.
Finally, on a point which was raised by some Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about the name, it is something upon which the Secretary of State would listen to suggestions. In some senses, the name "Mid Wales" may be desirable because in no sense does it overshadow the historic names of Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. Therefore, some may think it preferable for that reason. However, if the overwhelming sentiment of the Committee is that some other name would be preferable, that is something which the Secretary of State would also wish to consider.
In the light of all that and on the basis of what the Committee has said and that the matter will be considered, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is it not correct that what he is saying is that the Secretary of State has a closed mind on the subject? Am I not right in interpreting it that way?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The position is that the Secretary of State has considered the representations that have been made by all the various public bodies and so on. It is now time for Members of your Lordships' House to make representations and for representations to be made by Members of the other place. All those matters will be taken into account by the Secretary of State and I do not think it would be correct to put it that

357
he has a closed mind. He has put forward his policy but he will take into account what your Lordships say and also what Members in another place say.
Lord Hooson: That is a most disappointing answer. When the Minister replied he referred to the average and lower figures that were considered for England and Scotland but did not mention that there are two unitary authorities in Scotland with much smaller populations than Montgomeryshire which work perfectly well. That is why I said on a previous occasion that the Scottish experience is much more relevant. Of course, he has corrected the figures put out so far on population. In Brecon and Radnor it is very nearly 70,000; in Montgomeryshire it is 55,000, anticipated to come up to 60,000 by 1998. It is very significant that the only two noble Lords who have spoken in favour live in Radnorshire. They live very close to Llandrindod Wells—they do not live away from it at all. It has been in one sense a godsend for Radnorshire to have the headquarters of Powys there. Surely the proposal is totally unacceptable. I intend to test the feeling of the Committee on this matter and press this amendment to a Division:
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hanworth, V.

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Haskel, L.

Airedale, L.

Henniker, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Avebury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hooson, L. [Teller.]

Barnett, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jay, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.

Kenyon, L. [Teller.]

Chalfont, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Longford, E.

Donoughue, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals. L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ezra, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Molloy, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mulley, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Ogmore, L.

Hamwee, B.

Peston, L.

358

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Swansea, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Manton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Moran, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Morris, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mottistone, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Quinton, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Selborne, E.

Flather, B.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Geddes, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Howe, E.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wise, L.

Kimball, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 49, line 12, leave out ("and Merionethshire").
I hope that the last debate that we had, and particularly the last vote, will give the Welsh Office cause to reflect on the feelings of this House on the question of the scale and size of unitary authorities, and on the difficult balance between a sense of community and the need for efficient government, which is what we are debating. It was quite helpful that we, as it were, got the result of the game in the last debate. It was not as successful as Saturday—but then I would say that, wouldn't I? However, the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was able to set out the principles under which he, the Government and the Welsh Office approach the matter of the numbers and size of authorities makes it easier for me in moving my Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the strength of feeling and the wishes of residents. The evidence from Merioneth is certainly that a majority of the electors of the district, and a majority of residents, in responding both by petition to another place and by correspondence with the Welsh Office, indicated a wish that Merioneth should be a unitary authority. Merioneth was an historic county and was also the parliamentary constituency which I represented, on the old boundaries, from 1974 to 1983. Certainly my experience is that there is the required strength of community identity which must be the basis of an effective democracy.
I am the first to recognise that there are other considerations and that historical and cultural considerations are not the only ones which apply in matters of local government structure. But I am also faced with another difficulty; namely, that we now see quite clearly the alternatives before us in Merioneth and other would-be unitary authorities. We have received from the Minister the paper from the local government reorganisation group at the Welsh Office which now sets out the criteria for the alternative status that we might have; namely, that of an area subject to a decentralisation committee.
Obviously, we shall talk about the detail of the different structures later in the Committee. But, when we look at that paper, we see that among the criteria set out for applications to be considered for a decentralisation scheme are included geographic, historical, cultural and demographic circumstances. But the paper goes on to set out quite clearly what will not be in the functions of a decentralisation committee. With the exception of some interesting proposals on the relationship between an area committee and the area-based social services provision and the possible linkage between that and housing, it is clear that all major services are to be mainly centralised. For example, the paper says that no education functions could be delegated to area committees. To me it is quite unacceptable that a district such as Merioneth, which has a long and honourable tradition of developing its education policy, providing
360
school and adult education policies and so on, should not be able to have under its area committee much of an influence over education policy at all.
Faced with a choice between arguing for a unitary authority for Merioneth, with a slight extension of the boundaries as set out in the amendment, and the possibility of being only an area committee, I am certain that the majority of the population of the district of Merioneth and a number of surrounding communities both to the north and to the east would certainly want to be identified as a unitary authority.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned the other criterion of size. As my noble friend Lord Hooson said, there are at least two unitary authorities in Scotland currently under the proposed reorganisation which are significantly smaller in size than would be the unit of Merioneth that I propose in these amendments.
It seems to me that the other aspect of the argument relates to the structure proposed in the Bill. Let us not mislead ourselves. We are not talking about a simple scheme to create unitary local government. We are talking about a very complex multi-tiered structure. Again, I hope that we may return to this matter later in the Committee and at Report stage. There will be local government areas which are communities, counties and county boroughs. But there will also be the new principal councils and the area committees subject to the decentralisation schemes. Joint working arrangements will be established by direction of the Secretary of State—the Welsh Office will be extremely busy implementing the whole of the Bill—and there will also be possibilities for joint working authorities, which are in fact further bodies to be created by the Secretary of State (the Welsh Office) on the basis of this Bill. We are told that those bodies are to be treated as new principal councils. So we are talking about a structure of local government which will look much more like a kind of territorial federal system than simple single unitary authorities.
I can see the argument that possibly the majority of powers will be placed with the principal councils. But if the decentralisation schemes and the joint working arrangements, including the joint working authorities, are to be effective, as the powers are set out in the Bill, we shall have a complex system of different levels of powers.
Quite simply, my question, in putting forward the case for Merioneth as a unitary authority, is: what is the difference between having Merioneth as a unitary authority and having a series of powers for decentralisation schemes and for joint arrangements between different authorities? Why is it suddenly thought that a principal council of a certain size, which could itself share its joint arrangements with other authorities around it, is not at least as efficient a way of delivering local government to the residents of that district as the scheme now proposed whereby Merioneth is to have possibly only a decentralisation scheme and not be a unitary authority?
All those matters are by direction of the Welsh Office. Should the Welsh Office have so wished, it could have created—this point refers to our earlier debate—a

361
structure for local government in Mid Wales which was more flexible than the model of the principal council as a unitary authority. It could have created by a small act of the imagination—I believe the department to be increasingly capable of imagination—a system of local government reorganisation which balanced between those criteria of efficiency, skill of delivery of service and community identity.
It is precisely when one comes to those sparsely populated vast terrains of rural areas that the issue of community identity becomes very important in efficiency of delivery of service and identification between population, representatives and both staff and members of authorities. In my view it would have been possible, even within the terms of the Bill as it stands, to designate a historic county such as Meironnydd as a unitary authority and make it subject, by direction of the Welsh Office, to schemes for joint working arrangements or joint authorities which would have met the efficiency criteria and also maintained the notion of community.
That brings me back to the Mid Wales argument. Historically, geographically, sociologically, industrially or whatever criteria one wants, Meironnydd looks in many different directions. It certainly is a part of Mid Wales. It is also part of North-West Wales. It has historic links with North-East Wales, with Clwyd and Powys. The example I quoted in my days as a Member of Parliament for the area was to point out that I had constituents with postal addresses in at least three different postal centres—up in Bangor, over in Wrexham, down in Aberystwyth, and even some as far east as Shrewsbury. That was the nature of the territory. The area is still served by NHS trusts and district general hospitals based in Bangor, Aberystwyth, Gwent, Shrewsbury, Wrexham and Glan Clwyd Bodelwyddan.
Those were the nature of the services delivered for a district such as Meirionnydd. For those reasons, to lump it in with the historical county of Caernarvon, and the district of Arfon and Dwyfor, does not meet with the feelings of the community; nor does it meet with the criteria for effective delivery of service to that area. It will he more difficult to deliver an effective service to the southern part of Meirionnydd if the centralisation with Arfon and Dwyfor based in Caernarvon is the course to be followed.
Historically, the communities of Meirionnydd have been linked eastwards as well as north-westwards. That is why the amendment looks at those communities that have already indicated a wish to maintain a link with Meirionnydd if it were to be a unitary authority; to have them included within the borders. Of course, they are practical people and when they realised that the Secretary of State was not proposing Meirionnydd as a unitary authority, those communities indicated that they would prefer to be part of Sir Ddinbych, Denbighshire authority, which was to be a unitary authority, rather than to be lumped in with an authority centred on Caernarvon.
But given the option of being part of a historic Sir Meirionnydd, Merionethshire, the communities to the east indicated that they would wish to be part of that, as indeed have a number of communities to the north that
362
are now part of the parliamentary constituency in another place of Meirionnydd Nam Conwy. Those issues will arise in a number of further amendments about the possibility of a local option for community councils to decide as to which community they wish to belong.
That brings me to my final point. Of course in the United Kingdom we deal with a centralised system of government, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us. Local government is not really local government. It has no basis of power; it has no statutory basis apart from what is established for it by central Government. Its boundary is not determined by the natural sense of community of how people operate in their social lives. It is determined artificially by central Government and the Welsh Office. In this exercise it is historically the case that the wishes of the people of Meirionnydd are not paramount. The wishes of the people of Meirionnydd have not been sufficiently considered by the Secretary of State in coming to his decision. The only logic that we have heard in any of our local government debates and in the whole discussion on the consultation papers, is to do with the number of authorities.
If the Meirionnydd or the Montgomeryshire cases were conceded, then at least two or three other cases would have to be conceded. In fact, it is only two or three other cases. We are looking at a specific historical community with a particular mix of geography, culture and demography. When we are dealing with that we must also take into account the way in which local populations express their wishes. Those arguments must be balanced with the argument for efficiency. Given that we have a structure within the Bill through the joint working arrangements which could deliver both a unitary authority for Meirionnydd and efficient services across border with Arfon, Dwyfor, Sir Ddinbych, Montgomeryshire or whichever neighbouring authority could be part of those joint arrangements, we could have both the central identity and the sense of community maintained, and also efficiency delivered. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I support the amendment, which will be no surprise to any Member of the Committee. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, is to take our views to the Secretary of State on this matter, he should pay a great deal of attention to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
Historically the term "Mid Wales" was used to denote an area that benefited from certain economic measures. My own county of Montgomery benefited a great deal. Its population is on the increase and has been increasing swiftly over the past few years because of the work of the Rural Development Corporation which was an evolution from the Mid Wales Development Association. That was a voluntary body set up by the five county councils which are to be historically regarded as Mid Wales—Cardigan, Merioneth, Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery.
Bearing in mind that it is an extremely large area, sparsely populated, and that one has in Cardigan two universities which played a vital role in advising the

363
development of the economic rehabilitation of Mid Wales in the Rural Development Corporation, it would have made a great deal of sense if there had been five unitary authorities and they had shared an organisation to provide services. Providing services is not the be-all and end-all of local government. Local government must be local. I advert to what was said earlier in the debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that we need to provide certain services on a regional basis. There is a danger in the Bill of falling between two stools; that is, creating a mammoth authority in order to say that it needs a minimum population to provide the services, and at the same time failing to provide local government. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, proposed one solution and this is another possible solution.
With the Government's emphasis on the role of a local authority in providing services—that is, they do not have to provide them themselves; they are an enabling authority —it would have made a lot of sense in Mid Wales to have that solution. On the consultation process the truth, as I am told it, is that the Welsh Office took the bit between its teeth and was not paying any attention to suggestions made to it of this kind of alternative. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, can probably appreciate that with his experience of Scotland. There are areas of Scotland with which there is no comparable area in England and they must be dealt with on a different basis. Likewise with Mid Wales.
I was struck by the opposition of Arfon District Council to the proposition that there should be a Gwynedd unitary authority including Merioneth. It did not want Merioneth to be joined on to Arfon and Dwyfor. It pointed out that the lines of communication in Merioneth lead into Montgomeryshire. People in Merioneth do not shop in Bangor, as do the people in Arfon and Dwyfor. If they want to shop in a large town, they shop in Shrewsbury, because they use the natural lines of communication. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out, there is a great deal of cross-border co-operation, as it were. There is a tradition of it.
I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales not to have a closed mind on these matters but to look at this problem anew. If he had not created a Ceredigion unitary authority and left it at that one would have had Ceredigion as a central point for Mid Wales, with its two universities available to give expert advice from, for example, its two education departments to the education departments in each of the unitary authorities. That would have made a great deal of sense. With the economic and agricultural departments at Aberystwyth guiding and providing the expertise, there would be no need for unitary authorities to hire for themselves. They could have had it by contract.
I very much support the amendment. I know perfectly well—for I was for 12 years successively the deputy chairman and chairman of the Quarter Sessions in Meirionnydd and I have a great affection for the area—that it would run it perfectly efficiently. It is quite interesting that the clerk, as he was then called, of the
364
Meirionnydd County Council, this tiny county council which we are told was not capable of running itself, was appointed successively when we moved on to these larger authorities. He became the administrator of the Wales and Chester circuit, selected in preference to anyone else, and then became the ombudsman for Wales. That shows the quality of the person who had been attracted to that position. I totally disagree with the broad brush approach taken by the Government, as though local loyalties, local feeling and local tradition mean so much less than the figures provided for them by the Treasury.
Lord Prys-Davies: From these Benches I support the amendment so ably presented to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I believe it to be true to say that Meirionnydd is one of the oldest surviving units of government in Wales and indeed has its origins in the old Hundred of Meirionnydd which predates even the 1284. Over the centuries Meirionnydd has adapted itself to changing circumstances. It was a staunch supporter of Owen Glendower's revolt in the 15th century. It continues to this day to be a very efficient unit of local government and a source of community pride.
If I remember correctly, the motto of Meirionnydd is "Tra Môr, Tra Meirion", which translated means "While there is the sea there is Meirionnydd". The sea is there; the sea will be there; Meirionnydd is there; and Meirionnydd should be allowed to develop as a unitary authority to serve its people in the coming century. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can persuade his right honourable friends to take this proposal back to the drawing board and return with a proposal that will be acceptable to the people of Meirionnydd.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It goes without saying that the Government well appreciate the sense of history and the other factors which go to make up the identity of Meirionnydd, matters which have been put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. But as he himself acknowledged, in considering the question of what is the appropriate local authority area, other factors come into play. In considering that the Secretary of State has taken into account the very factors which have been mentioned—the sparse population scattered over a very large area. Those factors simply cannot be overlooked when determining and settling the boundaries of the new authority.
The population of Meirionnydd would be somewhat less than 35,000. The Secretary of State believes that that is too small to constitute a self-standing unitary authority. It is said that the Bill encapsulates the idea of enabling authorities. I accept that. But that does not get over the point which I made in my general remarks that when one has an authority as small as that, the proportion of its resources that has to be devoted to overheads—of finance, personnel and so on—would be, in the Government's judgment, much too high. It would also leave it vulnerable in competition for staff with the

365
larger authorities. While the enabling concept in some sense has a bearing on this matter, it does not provide the complete answer.
The Secretary of State believes that the people of north-west Wales as a whole—Meirionnydd, Arfon and Dwyfor —will be better served as part of a unitary authority large enough to co-ordinate and provide for the delivery of the full range of local government services and one in which no single part would be able to predominate over the others. The decision to merge Meirionnydd with Arfon and Dwyfor results, as in the decision in the case of Montgomery, from consideration of the consultation documents and from all the representations made by different people. The decision was not taken lightly or blindly. It was taken as the result of considering all that was said, and the points which I have mentioned were the kind of points which weighed.
I accept that joint authorities may be useful in the provision of services. But again, as I stressed in my general remarks, it is not the Government's view that that is an ideal solution. It is better than one should consider whether or not one has authorities which in the first place seem to be able to be large enough and substantial enough to provide services and to enable services to be provided properly for their own areas.
I stress again that in considering this proposal for Meirionnydd one does so against the background of the mechanism which we shall come to consider in due course under Clauses 26 and 27 for area committees. I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, that the guidance indicates that education could not become the responsibility of such an area committee for the reasons which are given in that document. But equally the Committee will have noticed that many other relevant functions, such as housing, planning, environment, health and leisure, can be dealt with by these area committees, which would therefore give an opportunity for the policies to be developed very much with the needs, desires and wishes of the community of Meirionnydd in mind. I believe that when it is looked at overall that is an acceptable way forward, an acceptable compromise, if one likes, between the desire to represent the local community and the importance of getting a stable and balanced structure of local government.
The Government do not accept the amendment, but I stress and say quite sincerely that the Secretary of State will wish to consider what has been said in Committee today and what may be said in another place. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and for an indication that there can perhaps he further consideration by the Secretary of State at least of the separation of powers between the area committees and the unitary authority. I should also like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, for their contributions. I believe that we have seen, particularly from the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the
366
alternative route which the department could have pursued. I still take the view that the response to the sparsity question is not to say that because. they are sparse these people should not be properly governed. The response should be that because these people are sparse, in a sense they require more government. I do not mean that in the sense that they require more forms of intervention, but that a larger proportion of overheads may need to be available to them in order that services are sensitively delivered to that area. That is the argument I am putting forward.
I now turn to the staffing argument. I will not accept, and I know that all my colleagues in this House who know Welsh local government will not accept, that some of our smaller authorities have not in the past produced innovation of policy, standards of public administration and innovation in all aspects. I refer to the Isle of Anglesey in the 1940s and 1950s as regards education and the leisure services, and the small authority of Dwyfor which has struggled to develop its environmental service and leisure potential. It has a language policy which has set an example to many other authorities in the past. Therefore, it is possible to have within the smaller authorities forms of innovation which match the needs of the local population and which can provide for a high quality of service and a high quality of life.
I am in a little difficulty here because I have recently moved from the district of Merioneth to Caernarvon so in a sense I do not want to appear too critical of the possibility of cohesion between Caernarvon and Merioneth in a future authority. It is definitely the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, that the district of Arfon did not want to be part of this unit with Merioneth. I am yet to be convinced that the solution of the area committee is one which will excite people in Merioneth. They will not feel that they have real autonomy. They are not even allowed to make the final decision for any schemes prepared under the Welsh Language Act 1993. If the area committee of an area like Merioneth cannot even make its final decision on language policy, the area committee is hardly likely to represent an autonomy which will satisfy the community.
Having said all that, so that further consideration of this matter can take place and the Welsh Office can have an opportunity to look at our debate and the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate can discuss these issues, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 49, 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, Peterston Super Ely, Rhoose, St. George Super Ely, St. Nicholas and Bonvilston, Sully and Wenvoe.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps it may be convenient to the Committee if I also address my remarks to the two other amendments which

367
stand in my name. There is a wide consensus in favour of single-tier local authorities. I have long held the view that Cardiff should never have lost the unitary status which it enjoyed prior to 1974. It is right that we should seek to restore to the capital city a local authority capable of exercising all the local government functions.
My concern today is that the provisions of this Bill constrain the capital city of Wales within artificial boundaries created by the Local Government Act 1972. The Government maintain that that Act had many flaws which require the wide-ranging revisions contained in the present Bill. The boundaries established in 1972 may have been appropriate 20 years ago in the context of county and district government, but they are not appropriate today for a unitary authority and most certainly will not serve the needs of the future.
Cardiff deserves the same opportunities which other United Kingdom and European cities enjoy. Cities such as Bristol, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cologne, Copenhagen, Seville and Bologna, are emerging as driving forces in their areas. Indeed, Professors Minford and Parkinson have described cities as the "wealth of nations" and as "economic dynamos". I agree with that view. Therefore, I believe it is essential that Cardiff should encompass all the strategic assets which drive cities forward.
There are many key assets in the area—that is to say, the M.4 corridor, Cardiff Bay, the city centre, Barry Docks, the green belt and the Cardiff (Wales) Airport are among those. Cardiff must have room to accommodate planned development without destroying important environmental assets. It must have a population base approaching 450,000 in order to register on the European and world stage. Cardiff must not be denied this opportunity which will enable it to take its rightful place along with the United Kingdom and European cities which are poised to take us forward into the 21st century.
The boundaries of Cardiff have been extended on six occasions since 1875. There is nothing special about the 1972 arrangements. At that time Parliament did not expect them to be regarded as the final solution. This Bill provides for a Cardiff authority with the highest population of the 21 proposed authorities. In doing so it recognises that Cardiff is a special case. In geographical terms, the Bill will make Cardiff the second smallest of the 21 new authority areas and the highest population confined to one of the smallest areas. It provides a recipe for urban sprawl, for unplanned expansion into valuable green belt areas which is something we must avoid. I understand that the Land Authority for Wales will shortly be announcing that housing land in Cardiff will dry up in five years.
The future of the city was of some controversy during the passage of the 1972 Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Gibson-Watt, both made contributions at that time. The problem which was faced then was that Cardiff was having many of its powers taken away from it, such as education, personal social services and others. These powers were being handed over to the new county of South Glamorgan. Speaking about Cardiff at the time the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said:
368
"We feel that it is undesirable that areas which ought to be looked at as a whole for such matters as town and country planning, roads, education, and personal social services, should be split by boundaries which are based on the out-dated idea that the county borough should begin where the continuously built-up area ends".—[Official Report, 31/3/71; col. 1406.]
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, when he was a Minister in another place, in defending the setting up of South Glamorgan County Council, said that Cardiff would be split:
"permanently from the coastal plain with which it has close geographical, social and economic links".
Those views are even more appropriate today than they were when they were uttered.
The partnership between central and local government and the wider business community has been particularly successful in Wales, supporting the claims that are being made daily that the Principality is leading us out of the recession. The capital city has been a very powerful component of that success. It is essential that the fragile recovery in Wales is not strangled at birth. The Cardiff Bay development will be an essential ingredient and, with the eventual passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act, Parliament has recently decided that the city should be physically joined to the Vale of Glamorgan, ensuring that the futures of both areas are inextricably linked. Artificially to separate complementary areas which will be joined physically will serve only to slow down or even derail the proposed development.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, said in another place when proposing the creation of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation:
"The objective … is to put Cardiff on the Map as a superlative city which will stand comparison with any such City in the world, thereby enhancing the image and economic well being of Cardiff and Wales as a whole".
The city cannot fulfil its role if it is to be constrained within the boundaries suggested in the Bill.
I understand that if the Government were to regard my amendment sympathetically, a number of consequential amendments would be necessary. It is in that light that very serious discussions have been going on back home between the local authorities. Although one can never get agreement on everything, I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that there is a very large measure of support for an agreement in which we could bring forward the consequential amendments.
In conclusion, I think that I heard the noble and learned Lord say that all the amendments concerning boundaries would increase the number of local authorities. That is not true in this case. This amendment would reduce them. I beg to move.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Over 30 years ago as chairman of the Welsh parliamentary party, I had the privilege to lead a deputation to the then Home Secretary, the late Lord Tenby, Gwilym Lloyd George, to seek government agreement to the appointment of the City of Cardiff as capital city of Wales. Leading the Welsh parliamentary party, I had the support of all the Members of all political parties in the other place, including that of my noble friend Lord Callaghan who was one of the distinguished Members representing the

369
capital city at that time. Of course, there were other distinguished candidates for the post of capital city—some in North Wales and one in my own constituency. But Cardiff was chosen and since then has grown in importance and dignity.
It has one of the most attractive city centres in Europe. It is a centre of government, of education and the arts, not to mention sport—especially last Saturday. I live as far from Cardiff as a Welshman can go. Indeed, another capital city, Dublin, is much nearer to my home than Cardiff. However, Cardiff is a great city and a great capital of which we are proud. It deserves all the privileges and honours which local government can bestow upon it. For those reasons, I support my noble friend and his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: I rise briefly to support the amendment for the reasons that have already been stated. I shall not rehearse them except to say that as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, Cardiff nowadays (unlike its aspect in the 1930s) is a city of great beauty and great spaciousness. It is a dynamic city. The Cardiff Bay development project, the concert halls, the opera house, Welsh National Opera and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, the sports centres have made Cardiff into a great capital city of a great Principality. However, Cardiff can and should go further. It should become one of the great cities of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, has said. I wish that we could get away from the curious conceit of the "Euro-capital", which to me is an ugly phrase. The phrase "European capital" does well enough. For all the reasons that I have given, I can see Cardiff in the next century as one of the great European capitals, and it is for that reason that I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Molloy: I should like briefly to voice my appreciation of and support for the amendment which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa and for the way in which he presented it to the Committee. The final and absolute proof that everything that he has said about Cardiff is correct is when somebody from Swansea agrees with him. I am proud to be able to do that tonight because I believe that not only Swansea and Neath but all the other towns in Wales, particularly in South Wales, will appreciate the fact—there can be little doubt about it—that in the past 20 to 30 years Cardiff has grown in all ways, particularly culturally. It is not merely a great Welsh city and a great British city, but a great European city. Therefore, I hope that the reasoned amendment of my noble friend Lord Brooks will find support in this noble Committee.
Lord Hooson: I, too, support the amendment. It seems to me that, as I said on Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said that he intended to table such an amendment, he must be right to do so. Unlike other noble Lords, I do not have the detailed geographical knowledge that would enable me to agree with all the points raised in the amendment, but in principle it must be right that a greatly developing
370
capital city such as Cardiff should have room to expand and should be able to control those areas into which it probably will expand.
Lord Aberdare: To square or round up the circle, perhaps I, too, may say a word in support of the amendment, particularly in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, quoted my words of considerable wisdom of some time ago. What is more, as I was in charge of that Bill in this House, those words represented the views of the Government, so I have no reason to withdraw them. I think that it is right that the capital city of Wales should have room for expansion. It certainly should have within its borders its own airport and the area of the Cardiff Bay development.
Baroness White: I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Callaghan would favour us with a contribution because he, after all, has a close connection with Cardiff—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: If my noble friend will permit me to intervene, I was reserving my fire until I had heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord the, Lord Advocate.
Baroness White: I apologise unreservedly if that was my noble friend's intention.
Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to be present on Second Reading, but naturally I read the report of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, who has now left his place, referred to way back in 1969–70 when the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, was Secretary of State. He was the Secretary of State who succeeded my noble friend and for whom I was a Minister of State. The noble Viscount was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, for not having undertaken at that time a reconstruction of Welsh local government. We left it for succeeding Welsh Office Ministers so to do. Apart from the fact that we had many other things to do, one of the reasons that we hesitated in 1969–70 was the difficulties attaching to some areas in Wales. We did not want to embark upon a wholesale reorganisation of Welsh local government until we could see the way clear.
I am afraid that subsequently, when the succeeding Conservative Government took charge and introduced the Bill in 1972, they understandably made some errors of judgment, and who would not in such complicated situations? To my mind, one of the most serious of their errors of judgment was the creation of South Glamorgan and the lack of concern for the capital city of Cardiff. I do not want to go into the whole question of South Glamorgan, but anyone with any sense would have realised that what Glamorgan needed at that time was a west Glamorgan with Swansea and an east Glamorgan with Cardiff. The whole nonsense of the creation of South Glamorgan arose from mistaken political aspirations, which I am afraid the Conservative Party found not to be as promising as it supposed they were going to be. But I must not go into that further.
Unless we do something specific in the Bill, Cardiff will remain hemmed in physically from the area to which it should be entitled, because as far as I can see there is nothing in the Bill which will help Cardiff.

371
Therefore it was extremely important that my noble friend Lord Brooks should have put down the amendment. I cannot pretend for a moment that I agree with every detail of it, but something serious should be done to enhance the possibilities for the capital city of Wales. That is an extremely important part of the Bill. I hope that it will be taken seriously and that the error of 1972 will be corrected forthwith.
Lord Prys-Davies: My noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa has developed the case for a greater Cardiff council. Indeed, he touched upon that point on Second Reading. He has been well supported in Committee, and I am sure that that has given him great pleasure.
The amendment seeks space to enable Cardiff to develop not just as the capital city of Wales but as one of the more important capital cities of Europe, with its appeal to the European investor. I understand—I am not sure whether my noble friend mentioned this—that the case is supported by business interests in Cardiff, and that the two county councils are supportive of the proposal, and that is good.
There is one point—it would be putting it too high to say that it causes me concern—about which I have a little anxiety. It arises out of two letters which I have received. It is only fair that I should mention this. I have received a letter from the leader of Cardiff City Council which seeks to set out an alternative view for Cardiff's future. I cannot offer a judgment on that alternative view. I have also received a letter from the leader of the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council, who tells me that his council is opposed to the amendment. Clearly those letters contain relevant information, and I should be failing in my duty if I were not to mention them.
I am the first to accept that my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa has raised an important issue which must be addressed seriously as quickly as possible. Of course, as so often happens when one embarks upon an inquiry, the answer may give rise to other issues which may not have been identified or thought through. I have no idea how the Government will respond to my noble friend, but we on this Front Bench hope that the Government will give further consideration to the amendment and report back. I thank my noble friend for the way he presented the case.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It has been said by several Members of the Committee that Cardiff is a great capital city for Wales. I do not believe that anyone in this place would disagree with that description. It describes how Cardiff has developed over the years and how it has grown to the state that it now enjoys. That does not mean to say that a Scotsman necessarily approves of everything that happens form time to time in its Arms Park. But otherwise it is undoubtedly a capital city which has the admiration of people not just in Wales but throughout Britain and elsewhere. That has happened with Cardiff within its present boundary.
The amendment proposes to do away in effect with the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority, partitioning it so that the Cardiff authority would acquire the eastern two-thirds, with the rest going to Bridgend. The Government do not believe that that proposal would
372
reflect the wishes of the people in the areas concerned. When the White Paper was produced, Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council expressed support for the proposals contained in it. Therefore, it seems to me to be wrong to say that the White Paper contained nothing for Cardiff; it obviously contained what Cardiff City Council thought was appropriate. It therefore comes as no surprise to hear that correspondence to that effect has been received. On the contrary, it is clear from the consultations that we have had that the proposal would meet the strongest possible opposition from the areas in the Vale of Glamorgan which under this proposal would be absorbed by Cardiff. This is an occasion when I can say that we are taking carefully into account the views of the local people.
The idea behind the proposal seems to be that Cardiff needs this expansion of its boundaries to enable it to grow. My understanding is that redevelopment sites are available in Cardiff, particularly of course those which will become available in the Cardiff Bay area. There are also other sites, major and minor, on the periphery of the city. The Welsh Office does not have the information given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, about that being available for housing for a period of five years only. It is possible also to identify other sites within the existing boundaries in accordance with Cardiff's local plan. As for sites for employment, they are available in the Cardiff Bay area and the Wentloog area. The development of transport also means that facilities can be found in Pentwyn and elsewhere on the city's periphery.
For those reasons, the Government believe that there is enough land available for expansion of Cardiff for the foreseeable future within its existing boundaries. The Government believe that the proposal is therefore unnecessary on the terms on which it is presented and would be bitterly resented by the population of the Vale of Glamorgan. It is not desired by either the Cardiff City Council or the Glamorgan Borough Council. For those reasons the Government cannot accept the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will understand that his comments will be received in Cardiff with great disappointment. I assume that that applies too to a number of Members of the Committee who have spoken in favour of the amendment. There is no need for me to state the case because it has been put extremely well, and a good wine needs no bush. I must say, however, that the plans which exist for Cardiff and the development which is now taking place are of great benefit not only to Cardiff but to all the contiguous areas and to Wales as a whole.
I too have had the privilege of seeing the architectural plan for the proposed new Welsh National Opera House. There is no need for me to say in this Chamber that the Welsh National Opera is of international fame. I do not say that in a parochial way, because the opera company is recognised throughout the world as being remarkable

373
and of outstanding ability. If the competition produces the expected results, it is to be housed in what I hope will be a splendid building.
That will be of benefit not only to Cardiff but to Penarth, Barry, Peterston Super Ely and to the other areas which join in the cultural and sporting activities in Cardiff. During the 50 years that I have known the area those districts have become one. There used to be separate boundaries but the districts which I have mentioned are now almost part of Cardiff. The area is becoming a whole. I say with reluctance that it is not sufficiently convincing to say that, because the local inhabitants are opposed to this—and the noble and learned Lord is probably right in saying that—the future of Cardiff as a great international city should be set on one side.
I have known the area for many years and I have never known a time when the local inhabitants on the borders of Cardiff and surrounding Cardiff have not been opposed to absorption by Cardiff. I doubt whether there is any city where that is not true. To be fair, some of the local communities have first-class local institutions; urban and rural district councils, parish councils and so on. But, frankly, that time has now passed.
Although we are always telling the Government to listen to the people, surely there must come moments in the history of a nation—and we are speaking of the capital city of that nation—when its interests as a whole should be placed first. One might compare the constriction of the areas around Cardiff—it is almost like a surgical neck brace—with other cities. I have seen maps of some cities but not, I regret to say, of Edinburgh. I only wish I had—
Baroness White: It has far more than Cardiff.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: As always, my noble friend is better informed than I am. She first interviewed me in 1942 when I wanted to become the candidate for Cardiff South and asked me the most pertinent questions. She has done so ever since and has been putting me right. I am sure that my noble friend is right in her comment. I wish to make the point that the constriction is more severe around Cardiff than around any other capital city that I saw in the series of maps that was produced to me.
I strongly urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate not to rely only on the argument that there is well-found opposition among some local authorities on the border; that is to say, parish councils, rural councils and so forth. There is well-found opposition, but the noble and learned Lord should look at the interests of the nation as a whole and of its capital city. I have no doubt that in any objective context it will be said that Cardiff should have an opportunity to breath. It does not have that opportunity at present.
I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord a question and perhaps he will be good enough to rise to his feet again. Will he examine that argument before Report stage? Will he ask the Secretary of State whether the department has looked at the matter from this point of view? It may recognise that there is an objection from local people, but will it ask whether that should be the
374
final argument? If the noble and learned Lord will do so, many of us will be given a great deal of hope. We shall work closely with him to see what can be done to achieve a proper solution.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My noble friend Lord Callaghan addressed the opposition which comes from perhaps a majority of the people in the Vale of Glamorgan. I shall say nothing about that, except that in local government terms the favourite word of the Vale of Glamorgan District Council is no. It says no to everything. Successive Secretaries of State, not necessarily of my party, will tell the Committee that the local authority of the Vale of Glamorgan is not the most accommodating when it comes to innovation and development.
As leader of South Glamorgan County Council I had the most tremendous problems in attracting one of the most welcome industrial developments in Wales. The Bosch company approached the council and said, as footloose companies do, "That is where we want to go". That was in the Vale of Glamorgan. Thankfully the land belonged to South Glamorgan and it was able to give itself planning permission. But the day after the announcement all hell broke loose. There we were trying to get first-class jobs into the area but the Vale of Glamorgan District Council opposed us. That will be the pattern in the future.
I am trying to ensure that one local authority is created for that area so that those tensions will not exist. If a local authority is created along the lines which I am suggesting it will protect the rural part of the vale. There are economic growth points in the Vale of Glamorgan which the district council has done little or nothing about since reorganisation. Barry is virtually in a time warp; nothing has happened. Whenever the county council has approached the Vale of Glamorgan District Council in order to get something done it has been unable to get anything off the ground.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies stated that he has received letters from the Vale of Glamorgan District Council and the Cardiff City Council. I am sure that he has had letters from other organisations too in support of what I have said. My noble friend nods his head in agreement. The Vale of Glamorgan District Council has not written to me, nor has the leader of Cardiff City Council. Ironically, the member would be the district councillor of the ward in which I live. However, he has not been in touch with me and perhaps I am not surprised. The Vale of Glamorgan District Council would write such a letter, and I am sure that it has written many others of the kind. One can expect no other response.
Many members of the Cardiff City Council, certainly those of the controlling Labour group, were convinced by their officers that on an appointed day the council would take over the responsibilities currently carried out by South Glamorgan County Council. Since that, they have learnt that that is not the case and that, as with the 1972 reorganisation, ward boundaries have to be drawn; ward parties must meet to choose their candidates, and many may not be councillors in the new authorities. The same applies to the present county councils. But that did

375
not occur to them until later. I assure my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and the Committee that there are members of the Cardiff City Council who have since changed their minds. Whereas the Vale of Glamorgan may or may not be unanimous in its view, Cardiff City Council is not unanimous in its view.
There are members of the city council who will say that they did not have the opportunity to study the evidence putting forward the Cardiff case, which was sent to the Welsh Office. The case was given to them in documentary form; they were addressed; and it was immediately taken away from them. At least when I was leader of the county council, members of all parties were informed stage by stage of the approach that was being taken.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appears to have thrown cold water on what I seek. However, I do not believe that the door is yet closed. I believe that there is still time to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales that this is the opportunity to create a Cardiff of the kind that I seek. If it is not done today, it will have to be done fairly shortly and we shall have the agony all over again. In that light, and to give us more time to impress the Secretary of State, I shall not press the amendment.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate wishes to speak again.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I have noted what Members of the Committee, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, have said. It would be wrong for me to say that I shall not convey that to the Secretary of State. But it would also be wrong for me to raise any hopes by doing so. This case is different from the others because there is a distinct body of opposition in the Vale of Glamorgan. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said about that; but that opposition exists, and it must be borne in mind. Therefore, I do not wish to raise any hopes. I shall draw what Members of the Committee have said to the attention of the Secretary of State, and I can go no further than that.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 49, line 20, column 2, leave out ("Llanelli").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19, which is, in every sense, consequential upon it. In doing so, I must point out that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List in that in Amendment No. 19 Llanelli should be spelt with an "i" and not with a "y". That is not merely a matter of Welsh susceptibilities. There are two places with the same name but one is spelt with an "i"; and one is spelt with a "y". I am talking about the one spelt with an "i".
The purpose of the amendment is to establish Llanelli as a single unitary authority. That would correct another
376
anomaly in Schedule 1. The first major anomaly is one on which we have already had an interesting debate—that is, the question of Mid Wales. At that time I was beginning to fear that the Government were proceeding upon the familiar precept: "My mind is made up. Pray do not confuse me with the facts". However, since then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has indicated that he is willing to take back some of these matters to his right honourable friend. If he is prepared to do that, he will find that in most cases the amendments are unlikely to be pressed to a Division.
The issue as regards the amendment is the identity, integrity and local autonomy of Llanelli, which I was beginning to think had become something of a lost town. When I first looked at Schedule 1, I saw Cardiff and Swansea among the counties, and Bridgend, Newport and Neath among the county boroughs; but I saw no sign whatever of Llanelli. Indeed, there is no sign of it until one looks at the "small print" and the districts of Carmarthenshire. There Llanelli is shown in small print and is given very much the same kind of status as Gwyddelwern or Blaenau Gwent or any of the other smaller units in Wales.
and yet Llanelli has a population of between 75,000 and 80,000. That is well above the lower limit of viability set out for Welsh unitary authorities. It is at least worthy to be treated on a level with Caerphilly, Bridgend and Wrexham, all of which are to be county boroughs.
But the argument here is not merely one of size and importance. I understand entirely the thrust of the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on size and the other factors which must be built into the calculations and considerations about the establishment of unitary authorities. Therefore, I am not making much of an argument as regards size in this case, although I believe Llanelli to be in every way sufficiently large and important to create a viable local unitary authority of its own.
The important fact is that the Bill provides that Llanelli is to be part of a unitary authority in Carmarthenshire with Carmarthen. That would cover another large area of South Wales—nearly 1,000 square miles of South Wales. That is nothing like as large as Mid Wales, but it is still sufficiently large and widespread to present difficult and expensive administrative problems.
Even that is not really the crux of the argument. The real issue is one which I might call synergy. I know that "synergy" has become a buzzword in business and political science but it has a real meaning. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means the combined or correlated action of a group of organisms. If that is taken to be the definition of synergy, there is no synergy between Llanelli and Carmarthen. Economically, socially and culturally, they are entirely different communities. They are organisms in which combined and correlated action is unlikely, if not impossible.
I do not take sides as between Carmarthen and Llanelli. It would be quite wrong for me to do so. I have a great affection for Carmarthen, which is the cradle of so much Welsh history. Indeed, some 20 years ago in

377
Carmarthen, at the time of the national eisteddfod, I unveiled a memorial window to Iolo Morganwg. Iolo might not be everybody's cup of tea but he was a Welshman whom many held in great esteem. Those familiar with Welsh history will know that Iolo Morganwg first integrated the Gorsedd of Bards into the national eisteddfod in that great eisteddfod also held in Carmarthen in 1819. I do not suppose that any Members of the Committee will remember that, but those who know the history of Wales will know that little titbit.
I also have an enormous affection for Llanelli if only because for many years I have been vice-president of the Scarlets, Llanelli Rugby Club. Indeed, I could almost claim that my spiritual home is at Stradey Park.
Several remarks have been made with the utmost delicacy about the tragedy which befell Scotland in Cardiff on Saturday. I shall not dwell on those events in deference to the susceptibilities of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I merely point out that of the 15 heroes who ran onto the field at Cardiff Arms Park, eight came from the Llanelli Rugby Club. I do not put that forward as any qualification for the status of the unitary authority. but It is not a matter to be treated lightly.
To be somewhat more down to earth and serious about this, there is a fundamental difference between the cultures and the economies of the town of Llanelli and Carmarthen and Carmarthenshire as a whole. Carmarthenshire is predominantly rural and agricultural, It has some industry. Morgan Marine and Albion are situated in the county of Carmarthenshire but the industry of Carmarthen accounts for only 7 per cent. of its whole workforce. In Llanelli 31 per cent. of the workforce are engaged in industry in such great industrial concerns as British Steel and the Delta Group. The difference is enormous. In Llanelli the borough council has put large sums of money—some from the Welsh Development Agency and some from the European Union—into a carefully co-ordinated and planned infrastructure designed to develop the industry in the town.
In 1993 the capital expenditure was something of the order of £14 million. That was a much larger sum than the capital expenditure in Carmarthen. This is a springboard for some exciting and dynamic projects in Llanelli. There is a business park, a country park at Pembrey where the ordnance factory used to be, a motor sports centre and the imaginative and exciting plans for the town centre itself. I suspect that, if the present scheme is implemented and if Llanelli is absorbed into the unitary authority of Carmarthenshire, a local government authority based in Carmarthen is unlikely to pursue with sufficient vigour this kind of development strategy.
The other point which has been made on several occasions in this debate—it is equally true in this case—is that we seem to be running counter to the professed aim of the Bill, which is to bring local government nearer to the people. We shall again have a large area—not anything like as large as Mid Wales, but large enough—and there is a real feeling that this will take away from the people of Llanelli the sense of being governed by people who know their interests,
378
aspirations, economic plans and ambitions. I think there will also be—if this plan as it is at present set out goes forward—a certain amount of hostility and resentment, as there was when Pembrokeshire was obliged to be amalgamated into Dyfed. Many of my noble friends in this Chamber will remember the effects of that. I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—I ask him to ask his right honourable friend to reconsider this—that it would be better both for Carmarthen and for Llanelli if they were two smaller unitary authorities. Neither would be too small and each would be well over the lower limit which is generally accepted as the smallest size for the viability of a unitary authority. Several proposed authorities in the Bill at the moment are considerably smaller than either Carmarthen or Llanelli standing on its own.
I wish to make a final point in the context of many things that have been said in this debate. Some Members of the Committee have put forward as a reason for rejecting or accepting an amendment the feeling, support or opposition, of the local people. In this case there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever and no equivocation. Right across the political spectrum in Llanelli, in business and everywhere else, there is support for this wish to be separated and for Llanelli to become a unitary authority on its own. It would be a tragedy if a forced marriage of incompatibles were allowed to discourage and damage the vibrant sense of enterprise that everyone finds now on even a brief visit to Llanelli. It is in that context that I move the amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may be surprised to find Aberavon coming to the rescue of Llanelli. I rise to my feet—I am only just within the margins of the rules of order—to inform the Committee that Amendments Nos. 26 to 30, which stand in my name, are designed to save the integrity of the borough of Port Talbot in the same way as the noble Lord has sought to save the integrity of Llanelli. Unhappily I shall shortly have to preside over an Anglo-Japanese dinner which has been transplanted to London. However, it is a good cause. Therefore I fear I shall not be able to speak to my amendments tonight, although I hope I shall have an opportunity to return to them on Report.
The case for Port Talbot was presented on Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. He and I are two freemen of the same borough of Port Talbot. Yet another who was born in the same borough is to be made a freeman next month—Sir Anthony Hopkins. There is therefore quite an army of distinguished citizens from that borough who I am sure would wish to support me now in speaking up for Llanelli. That is the only reason I am able to rise to my feet at this moment.
I believe the question of synergy is important in all these cases. Having started my life as a relatively radical Conservative I am becoming increasingly conservative with the passage of time and I am becoming increasingly hostile to the upheaval of local authorities for the sake of principled tidiness. I believe there is a great deal to be said for preserving those which have

379
worked well and which have a distinct sense of identity. There is no doubt that Llanelli has a powerful sense of identity. Port Talbot and Neath are situated in separate valleys and constitute quite separate communities. They would make uneasy bedfellows. I hope I may be allowed to trespass that far on the goodwill of the Committee and commend the amendment that I shall not be able to speak to as being at least as valuable as those which have been so eloquently commended by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Hooson: My late lamented friend, the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would never have forgiven me if I did not support this amendment, because much of the knowledge I have of Llanelli is based on stories that Elwyn used to relate to me. Everyone who knows Llanelli knows that its background is very different from that of Carmarthen. Carmarthen is a rural area and has rural values, whereas Llanelli was a thriving industrial town. Much of the emigration which took place from Montgomeryshire to the United States of America in the early part of the 19th century was from Llanelli. The Committee will be surprised to learn that in those days Llanelli was a thriving port. The silting up of the port has spoilt that these days.
I believe Llanelli needs to make good the ravages of the industrial revolution. It needs to maintain its industrial background. Carmarthen, however, is a totally different place. I know Carmarthen rather better than I know Llanelli. I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has a great deal of sense in its favour. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Howe, appear at this late stage. He should have told the Government of the importance of synergy at an earlier stage. I am sure his comments on Llanelli, Port Talbot and Aberavon are absolutely correct. I am pleased to support this amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Despite what has been said, the proposed restoration of the pre-1974 county of Carmarthenshire has been much welcomed by residents in the county, by businesses and public bodies. It will have a fairly large population base of 170,000 and therefore will provide a basis for social, economic and tourism development in that part of Wales.
Perhaps despite the presence of the eight Llanelli heroes, I acknowledge what has been said about the fact that Llanelli is in many ways different from the surrounding areas. Above all, it has been stressed that it has an industrial character. However, although the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that the proposal to give Llanelli unitary status has received a wide measure of support it is also true to say that it has received some measure of hostility, precisely because it would sweep up into that area localities which are not industrial but are outlying rural communities. People in those areas are not supportive of the proposal.
I do not want to go over the same ground as with the other amendments, but I point out again in connection with Llanelli that its peculiar characteristics could be
380
taken into account by the establishment, if that seemed appropriate, of an area committee to discharge the functions which such bodies can discharge for that type of area.
My noble friend Lord Howe of Aberavon spoke in support of the amendment. At the same time he drew attention to his own later amendment relating to Port Talbot. If he is not present when we reach that amendment perhaps we may hear him speak on the subject at Report stage.
On the particular matter of Llanelli, the Government do not accept the amendment. However, I am prepared to draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to what has been said and ask that he considers these matters and what is said on the same matters in another place.
Lord Chalfont: The response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not surprising, although it is disappointing. I recognise that, as in the case of the arguments that were put forward regarding the Vale of Glamorgan, there will be those outside Llanelli who will welcome the absorption of Llanelli into the larger unitary authority. My purpose in moving the amendment was to put forward the case of Llanelli as a unitary authority and to propose that it is large enough, strong enough and sufficiently industrialised to form a strong and powerful unitary authority of its own. It was also to advance the proposition that it is just possible that, if the larger unitary authority comes into being, some of the dynamism which is at present evident in Llanelli may be diluted. I shall not rehearse all the arguments again.
I hope that, when the Bill is further considered in another place and the Lord Advocate's right honourable friend comes to reconsider what has been said in your Lordships' House, there may be some room for changes and that the door is not entirely closed on the aspirations of the people of Llanelli.
In that context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. As a courtesy to the Committee, I mention that I shall not, of course, move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Licensing of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was originally introduced by David Hinchliffe in another place, and I pay a warm tribute to him for his initiative in bringing forward this important measure. Sick and disabled people receiving domiciliary care are currently at risk. This Bill would give them

381
protection. However, so far the Government have refused to enact the necessary legislation and I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming this evening with something far more constructive than we have heard so far.
The need for registration and inspection of some care services has been recognised by Parliament with the Registered Homes Act 1984. The stringent requirements of that Act include the registration of all establishments —and I emphasise establishments—providing care and the naming of a qualified person to be legally responsible for the operation of an establishment. Homes can be inspected by the local registration and inspection unit and where necessary registration can be cancelled. That is a powerful sanction.
It is a remarkable anomaly that those important legislative safeguards are not afforded to sick and disabled people receiving domiciliary care in their own homes. Such people can be relatively isolated, with little or no company, and they can be far more vulnerable than people in residential or nursing homes. They have no company. They have no one to chat to. They have no one to keep an eye on them. That makes them all the more vulnerable.
The Government can only offer a feeble excuse for refusing protection to those people. Ministers excuse their inaction by claiming that the contracting and purchasing arrangements provided by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are sufficient safeguards. I hope that the Minister will not peddle that weak line this evening because it simply will not do. In fact, the so-called safeguards in that Act are grossly inadequate.
It is true that local authorities contract with agencies for the provision of services in people's homes, but it is nonsense to imply that busy social service departments make regular inspections, a task which they are not currently required to undertake. To claim that incapacitated and sometimes confused people receive protection from contracting arrangements is misleading.
In addition, a growing number of people purchase these services privately without any form of local authority involvement. There is absolutely no protection for them.
Some voluntary registration schemes have been set up, but while they are welcome they are no substitute for legislation. There is no way of enforcing voluntary arrangements, and it is the good not the bad agencies which will voluntarily register.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society, together with many other organisations, strongly supports the Bill. People with that disease are particularly vulnerable and the society is very anxious that all providers of these services should be registered and independently inspected. It wants staff to be subject to police checks, to have initial and in-service training and proper supervision and monitoring. I believe that that is a sensible and sound list of proposals and it is an absolute minimum for providing proper care for vulnerable people.
The Government are not only unaware of the importance of the supervision of care; they have even called on care home proprietors to see whether
382
inspections could be reduced. Fancy that, my Lords. Will the Minister explain why the Government are calling for those inspections to be reduced? That is exactly what is not needed. Sick and disabled people living in their own homes need inspections of care.
The Government should bear in mind that it is an issue which will not go away. It is being supported by an increasing number of individuals and organisations that feel deeply about the need for effective legislation. Without it there is a risk of disaster.
The Bill is a modest, reasonable measure, badly needed by a group of very vulnerable people. They are entitled to precisely the same protection, if not more, than those living in institutions. I hope that the Minister will reflect on those needs and offer to take on this necessary and important Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to support the Second Reading of this Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I am very pleased that he has brought it before the House. I should declare an interest. The organisation for which I work, the John Grooms Association for Disabled People, is in the process of setting up domiciliary care agencies. However, despite that, the association welcomes the Bill. It would very much like to see such agencies regulated. Regulation and control are needed to ensure that the Government' s aim of care in the community progresses satisfactorily and meets people's needs for personal care arid support in their own homes.
The cost of regulation and of administering the regulations will be a great deal cheaper than the cost of keeping a number of those people in hospitals or registered homes. Local authorities are expected to provide increasing home care services through a market mechanism using independent providers rather than providing direct services themselves. Targets have been set by the Government towards that end and the Department of Health has allocated special funds, as I understand it, to stimulate the development of independent agencies providing those services.
At present such agencies are entirely unregulated. Only agencies providing nursing care have a duty to register with the local authority. Therefore where the ministry helps with funding, it may not have a proper check on the spending of those funds if domiciliary care agencies are not properly regulated.
People, especially those in need of personal care and support services, are vulnerable in their own homes. Agency staff, unlike staff of residential homes, are not constantly and directly supervised. Regulation is required to afford some measure of protection to the public and to ensure that minimum standards are obtained.
The Government, and in turn local authorities, are anxious to develop value for money but at the same time quality of service. Thus regulation is quite appropriate to provide an operational minimum standard and to declare to the market clearly the levels and quality of service that are being sought.

383
It is clearly accepted that other forms of personal care and support provision are regulated; that is, residential care homes. Inspection is thus not a large economic or logistic difficulty. I can see no reason why the Government should not support the Bill.
It is only a short time since the Government agreed that taxi drivers should be properly monitored. Many Members of this House took part in debates on that subject, I think two years ago. People who take taxis probably spend only a short time with any one driver. Most of them are not vulnerable individuals. But we insist that the driver is properly vetted to ensure the safety of his passengers. How much greater then is the need to licence domiciliary care agencies when those for whom care is provided are by the nature of things all vulnerable, as attested by their very need for care. I hope that the Government will support the Bill and give it time not only in this House but in another place.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to support the Bill. Not having given notice that I wished to speak today, my contribution will be brief.
I speak because of concerns that have been expressed to me not only by officers of social services departments in the city council where I am a councillor but also by some of my constituents who are worried about the provision for those people who will receive domiciliary care in their own homes.
There are two significant changes which will affect the provision of domiciliary care. The first—it is one that I believe everyone would hope for—is an extension of the provisions to provide support for people to stay in their own homes rather than to become institutionalised and therefore for the individual to receive more expensive, but less satisfactory, care. Therefore the first point relates to the massive expansion of provision.
My second point refers to the commercialisation, if I may so refer to it, of provision. It is generally accepted that the vast majority of current provision is through local authorities or the National Health Service. Over the next few years we shall probably see the development of private contractors who do not have the same controls. They will be private companies predominantly run for profit. I am sure that there will be some non-profit-making organisations, but predominantly businesses will enter the field of community care in the way that we have seen a growth in the provision of residential homes over the past few years.
Effectively the people undertaking the task will be commercial contractors doing the job for the money. We shall not have the controls that exist in public service. I refer not only to the democratic controls from the top but to that ethos of public service that characterises the work of home helps and nurses throughout the country. I fear that we shall have a new breed of domiciliary care assistant who will do the job just for the money. That will be sad because I believe that those caring professionals contribute enormously in the way that they look after vulnerable people in their own homes.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill, the purpose of which has been clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, to whom we are grateful. It has also been ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lord Monkswell.
When the Bill was introduced under the Ten Minute Rule in March last year in another place by my honourable friend David Hinchliffe, Member of Parliament for Wakefield, it was given support in the Lobbies by both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat Parties, but so far as I can see almost no Government supporters entered the Lobbies. However, at least the Government did not choose to vote against the Bill but decided rather to allow it to die by not finding parliamentary time for it, as is the fate of most Ten Minute Rule Bills.
That was regrettable—I should not go quite so far as to say reprehensible—because the Bill has the support of the national bodies which are most concerned with domiciliary care in the community. My noble friend has not spelt out those organisations and it would be worth putting them on the record. The Bill is supported by the United Kingdom Home Care Association, which represents more than 300 voluntary and private agencies, the Joint Advisory Group of Domiciliary Care Associations, the British Association of Domiciliary Care Officers, the National Association of Inspection and Registration Officers, the British Association of Social Workers and the Social Care Association. It is also supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services, Age Concern and other interested organisations. It is important, so far as the Government are concerned, that the Social Services Inspectorate has, I gather, drawn Ministers' attention to the need for such a measure.
It is just as necessary, if not more so, for agencies which provide domiciliary care to be licensed and scrutinised as it is for those which provide residential care. Although, of course, care on the whole is good even under the present unlicensed system, whether it be provided by the private or the public sector, there are, unfortunately, always backsliders. They are probably equally divided between those who have fallen on bad times and are therefore cutting corners to avoid expense, and those who are running an agency where profit rather than service comes first, despite undoubtedly impressive and soothing words on their brochures.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out that market mechanisms are increasing and that there will be a number of entrepreneurs coming forth to provide services. My noble friend Lord Monkswell put it a little less politely and said that they would be in it for the money.
Experience, both before the National Health Service and Community Care Act came into operation in April of this year and subsequently, has revealed the urgent need for a Bill such as this. I do not intend to go into details of cases to support those words, but I should be willing to do so if the noble Baroness wishes to ask me about them.

385
My honourable friend, David Hinchliffe, said in the other place:
"I would not be at all offended if the Government took the Bill off my hands and implemented it themselves". [Official Report, Commons, 24/3/93; col. 925.]
I do not think that my noble friend wants the noble Baroness literally to take the Bill off his hands, but I very much hope that she will view it favourably and help to give it a rapid passage through this House.
7.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, when I learned that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, had brought this Bill before your Lordships' House, my expectation was that the noble Lord and other noble Lords would show both compassion and knowledge—compassion for the needs of elderly, disabled and vulnerable people and knowledge of the services and the commitment of the people who work in those services. These expectations have been entirely fulfilled.
The reform of community care, while not altering the basic need for services, has quite deliberately given an extra emphasis to their development and expansion, so that people who continue to choose to live in their own homes in spite of increasing frailty may be able to do so. The reforms are intended to encourage and increase the supply and type of support by expanding domiciliary services through a wider variety of providers and stimulating suppliers from both the voluntary and private sectors. Until now the public sector, through local authority social services departments, has been the pre-eminent supplier. A study of home help and home care services organised for social services clients shows that only a tiny proportion of service is purchased from the voluntary or private sectors. The Government want to see the public sector using a greater range of providers who will supply in turn a wider range of services. To help in this development, the department has funded a special initiative to assist 15 social services authorities in England to find new ways to stimulate activity in the independent sector by working alongside actual and potential suppliers. The early results of this work are already being disseminated throughout the country by newsletters and conferences.
The current size of the independent sector, measured by the number of agencies, is not easy to establish. Up to 3,000 care agencies are licensed by the Department of Employment in Great Britain, but these include agencies supplying medical and nursing staff and are not confined to domiciliary-based services. Perhaps half this total would come within the term "domiciliary care agencies". What is undoubtedly true is that there is a recent increase, and the Government are pleased to welcome this. At the same time we recognise the fragility of these small businesses and the need to avoid the risk of stifling them by over-zealous regulation.
The noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Rea and Lord Monkswell, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen drew the attention of your Lordships' House to the statutory inspection of residential and nursing homes. It can be argued that people who move into residential care are more vulnerable and open to exploitation compared
386
with those who remain in their own homes. Those in residential care are potentially or actually reliant on their carers for every aspect of their daily lives. This is, except in the rarest instances, untrue of people who remain in their own homes, with neighbours, friends or relatives nearby or at least easy to contact and external carers not in a position of complete control. This is not to deny the risk but to place it in perspective.
I want to emphasise that the Government not only sympathise with but share the underlying objective of the noble Lord's Bill. We also want to protect vulnerable people from exploitation by the unscrupulous who masquerade as providers of essential domiciliary services, but we consider that there are methods, short of a specialised licensing requirement, to provide such protection. The Government have been encouraged by national organisations which have developed codes of practice for their members, such as the United Kingdom Home Care Association and the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. In particular we are aware of the work being done by the United Kingdom Home Care Association, alongside many local authorities and directors of social services. They use an agreed code of practice as a basis for ensuring standards of service delivery and in some areas local voluntary licensing schemes. It is the quality of service, whether specified in a contract between purchaser and provider or by a commitment to adhere to the code of practice of a national organisation, that will ensure that service users get the quality they are entitled to expect.
The Government's sympathy with the objective already extends beyond mere rhetoric. Our first priority is to develop standards for domiciliary services. 'The Social Services Inspectorate published last October a first report, Developing Quality Standards for Home Support Services, which was sent to all social services authorities and made available to independent providers.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen, who works for an organisation which I greatly respect, will be interested to know that the umbrella organisation, the United Kingdom Home Care Association, described the report as very impressive, with the emphasis it puts on outcomes and the focus on users and carers. The inspectorate itself will be carrying out a programme of inspection this year, using this report as one of the key documents, and will report on the requirements for more explicit guidance.
Local social services authorities already have quality control levers which they should use. Effective contract specification and contract monitoring are the key to ensuring that their service users get the standard of service they have the right to expect. Additionally, some authorities have been establishing local standards and accreditation schemes, in many cases working alongside the UK Home Care Association. They are developing on a voluntary basis local registration schemes and are extending the role of their inspection units to independent home support agencies. This is being led by the Association of Directors of Social Services. These local initiatives are welcomed, and are part of the

387
flexible range of responses which the Government prefer at this stage. Not all local authorities or all agencies have reached this stage of development and it would not be appropriate at this time to impose a statutory requirement.
It would be ingenuous in this debate not to touch on the issue of resources, already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to operate the licensing system proposed in the Bill. Although the Government have not undertaken a detailed study, there will undoubtedly be an additional cost to public funds beyond that which can be recouped from fees. As a minimum, there will be the costs of work with potential agencies which do not result in the license application and the costs of operating the system for considering representation that is set out in Clause 3.
I hope that I have been able to make clear the reasons why, although the Government share the main objective of the Bill, this is not the appropriate time for such a measure. I regret that the Government are unable to support it. I realise that there will be disappointment, especially since the noble Lord has sought what may seem a sound basis by using the Employment Agencies Act 1973 as a framework for this Bill. Although the Government are unable to give their support to the noble Lord tonight, they are, however, prepared to undertake a review of the situation, including whether there might be a national scheme of regulation incorporating requirements proportionate to risks when they review social services inspection arrangements in 1995. I hope that that will afford a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord and to other Members of this House who have debated the Bill, although I recognise that it will in no way satisfy them.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Minister is, as always, typically understanding and constructive. We appreciate her comment that she sympathises with the Bill and shares the objectives. I am sorry that she could not go further and accept it. I believe that it is a very valuable Bill and one which will eventually be enacted.
The noble Baroness spoke about "over-zealous" regulations. That is the last danger in the world. The main danger lies in the lack of regulations. There is no point in worrying about "over-zealous" regulations. When this Bill in enacted we shall be very careful not to make the regulations over-zealous but lay them down in order to protect very vulnerable people.
The noble Baroness mentioned voluntary schemes. I agree that such schemes are welcome and are worth while. But they are simply inadequate and are no substitute for legislation. As a Minister, the noble Baroness must mention costs. But there is no astronomical cost. The Chancellor will not be broken, nor will the budget of the Secretary of State, simply by monitoring and ensuring that those sick and disabled people are protected. The review that she mentioned, although it is not sufficient, will be welcome. But why cannot the Government initiate that review immediately, pending Parliament's discussion of this Bill? I would like that to be done by the Minister, if possible.
388
I conclude by saying that when this Bill is enacted—and enacted it will be sooner or later because it is necessary —I hope that it will become known as the David Hinchliffe Act. I hope that the Bill will be accepted. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: 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 7.35 to 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 50, line 21, column 2, leave out ("but excluding the communities of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny").
The noble Lord said: There is very clear evidence that the overwhelming majority of the parishioners of the three small communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick do not want to be part of the proposed new authority, the Vale of Glamorgan, but want to be part of the new county of Bridgend. They are against being included in the proposed county of Vale of Glamorgan. They are very small, integrated communities. Their electorate is small, Ewenny being 1,051, St. Bride's Major 1,676 and Wick 543. But they are on the doorstep of Bridgend. The principal officers of the Council of Bridgend will be located in Bridgend.
I might mention that Ewenny is two miles from Bridgend, St. Bride's Major is three and a half miles from Bridgend and Wick is six miles from Bridgend. For centuries those villages or parishes have looked to the market town of Bridgend as their nearest urban centre. If they are transferred to the Vale of Glamorgan, the principal officers of the Vale of Glamorgan will be 13 or 15 miles away from the villages.
Earlier in the day we heard that there are many references in the White Paper to the importance of preserving existing community loyalties. I shall pick up just one of those references, although I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate by now is weary of hearing such references quoted. I should like to quote paragraph 3.1 in the following terms:
"local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties".
There can be no shadow of doubt about the view of the local people in Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major. They are very strongly opposed to the Welsh Office proposal. In June last year the Electoral Reform Society conducted a poll which produced convincing results, which are known to the Welsh Office. On a turnout of 78.9 per cent. in Ewenny, 89.7 per cent. voted against the transfer; on a turnout of 74.9 per cent. in St. Bride's Major, 87.8 per cent. voted against the transfer, and on a turnout of 74.6 per cent. in Wick, 81.2 per cent. voted against the transfer. One can therefore say that there is

389
overwhelming evidence from the three parishes that they should not be pressed into the new Vale of Glamorgan council. Indeed there are both Conservative and Labour councillors from the three parishes in Westminster today. They have been here since midday lobbying against being pressed against their will into the new Vale of Glamorgan authority.
If the preservation of existing community loyalties is a guiding principle, then it should apply in Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major beyond peradventure. The decision of the Welsh Office in that respect is quite wrong. I was greatly impressed by the case prepared by the borough council and presented to the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State. I should like to quote from a paragraph written by David Pearce, the local historian, vice-president of the Bridgend local history society, a former commanding officer of the local ATC and a man whom the community recognises as being a pillar of its society. After describing the emergence of the three parishes and their close relationship after 1425 with Bridgend, Mr Pearce offers the Secretary of State his opinion of the proposal in these terms:
"To alter this orientation would, in the considered view of the writer, be irresponsible, if not utterly mad".
He goes on to say,
"I write as a local historian and as one who grew up in the parish of St. Bride's Major and whose family connections were centered in the parish for over 250 years".
Lawyers present will recognise that that is extremely good, and probably the best, evidence. My hope is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will listen to the evidence of the parishioners, Mr. Pearce, the Electoral Reform Society and the Ogwr Borough Council, and that the Welsh Office will not proceed to build an administrative boundary between those parishes, those communities and Bridgend.
Earlier in the day we discussed large counties, vast areas of rural Wales. I believe that the Committee now has a good opportunity to prevent a mischief to small communities. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, who has a high reputation in legal and academic circles in Bridgend, will see that there is merit in the case. If he cannot accept the amendment, perhaps he will at least strongly recommend to the Secretary of State that he looks afresh at the evidence. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Your Lordships will be aware that in the White Paper the original proposal included Coychurch Lower in the Vale of Glamorgan. The Committee will also be aware that as a result of further consideration in the light of consultation, the Secretary of State announced the change and decided to restore Coychurch Lower to Bridgend. It is that which now appears in the Bill.
Therefore it is not right to say that the Secretary of State did not give the most careful consideration to the problem. The thinking behind the proposal which appears in the Bill is that the three communities are predominantly rural and agricultural, and that they have more in common with the neighbouring areas in the Vale of Glamorgan than with those areas which
390
comprise Bridgend, which is made up of the town of Bridgend itself, the seaside resort of Porthcawl and the industrial valley communities to the north of Bridgend.
That is the thinking behind the proposal which appears in the Bill. There will be an opportunity to consider any minor anomalies. In particular the Secretary of State recognises that the boundary between Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan as proposed in the Bill will include some areas in the Ewenny community which are physically part of Bridgend. Accordingly the Secretary of State will be asking the local government boundary commission to consider that boundary extremely carefully when it undertakes its post-reorganisation review of the new authorities in order that anomalies can be identified and corrected.
Looking more widely I say what I have said on a number of occasions. The Government do not accept the amendment as tabled. But. I understand what has been said. The Secretary of State will wish to reflect upon what was said here and what may be said in another place. With that assurance, perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment tonight.
Lord Prys-Davies: The last sentence was a soothing and comforting sentence but it was not convincing, for a number of reasons. Let me say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for not attempting to argue the case for pressing these communities into the Vale of Glamorgan on the grounds of democracy. I readily agree that originally there were four villages protesting against being included in the Vale of Glamorgan and that the Secretary of State decided that Coychurch Lower should not be included. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us why the Secretary of State agreed that Coychurch Lower should not be included but that the other three communities should?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Because, when one looks at it, Coychurch Lower contains industrial estate areas whereas the other communities, including Ewenny, although that contains an area. which goes into Bridgend, are, in a way in which Coychurch Lower is not, predominantly rural.
Lord Prys-Davies: Can the Lord Advocate tell the Committee where in the White Paper, in the consultative paper, there is authority for the view that a distinction should be drawn on the grounds that one is rural and the other industrial although they are within two miles of one another?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The point made is quite simply that the rural or industrial nature of the community affects the nature of the community. That is the kind of thing taken into account when considering what is the best boundary to draw.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble and learned Lord did not answer my question. Where in the White Paper is the authority for the view that he is now propounding?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: At this short notice I do not think I can give chapter and verse for that precise criterion. What I can say is that matters such as the geographical nature, the social nature and so on are taken into account.
Lord Prys-Davies: Yes, "taken into account", but the guiding principle in paragraph 3.1 of the White Paper is that,
"local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties".
The local parishes have called in aid the Electoral Reform Society and we have the evidence that it is almost wholeheartedly against this movement of being pressed into the Vale of Glamorgan.
I am unable to follow the argument of the Welsh Office. I would again plead with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to take this back to the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Lord has suggested or hinted that this may be an issue that ought to go to the boundary commission so that it can adjudicate. Assuming that one goes down that route, when will the boundary commission take the evidence? How long will it take to consider the evidence? Will its recommendations be binding on the Secretary of State?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I would need notice of all the detail of those questions. In broad terms one could not lay down a timetable for the Boundary Commission because it is an independent body. But obviously this is a matter which it would be asked to consider by the Secretary of State and therefore would presumably consider it as quickly as possible. I think I am right in saying that in that situation the Secretary of State is not bound by the recommendations but of course would take them into account.
Lord Prys-Davies: Can the noble and learned Lord assure me that the Secretary of State's decision will be taken before the next general election?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is hard for me to predict the date of the next general election. But assuming that all goes well, there must be, I hope, every prospect that it would be taken before then.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have asked me what is the significance of the general election. This is what the people of the villages are saying. As far as I know—I am not misleading the Committee—not a single public body has supported the transfer of these three villages to the Vale of Glamorgan. To the best of knowledge, apart from the present Conservative Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, not a single public figure has supported the transfer of these villages to the Vale of Glamorgan. I have to say to the Lord Advocate that the general impression is that this has nothing to do with the choice of people. It has something to do with political considerations.
I shall ask the noble and learned Lord no more questions, but I should be grateful if he would impress on his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that there is deep concern about the proposed transfer of these communities to the Vale of Glamorgan. I should have thought that this is a case where the Committee would have an opportunity to prevent great injury and mischief being caused to a very small community. If there are no assurances at least I shall reserve the right to return to the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 50, line 28, after ("Penyrheol") insert ("Trecenydd and Energlyn").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 correct the names of two communities mentioned in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which are in that part of the existing district of Rhymney Valley which is included in the Caerphilly unitary authority. The corrections are required because the two communities concerned changed their names following the drafting of the Bill. The Committee will note that there is no increase in the number of communities. It is purely a change of name and is technical to that extent. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are happy to go along with the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 50, line 29, after ("Bedwas") insert ("Trethomas").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 50, line 30, at end insert:

("Cynon Valley Cwm Cynon

The district of Cynon Valley.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20 to 22. The effect of this amendment would be to divide the present unitary authority proposed in the Bill to be known as Rhondda, Cynon, Taff into two separate unitary authorities—one Rhondda-Taff and the other Cynon Valley.
I spent most of my speech at Second Reading telling your Lordships how I could foresee difficulties in this amalgamation and in particular suggesting that Cynon Valley should be a unitary authority on its own. I shall not weary the Committee by going through all that I said on that occasion, but in summary I was trying to persuade your Lordships that there is undoubtedly a very strong sense of community feeling within Cynon Valley, but there is almost a total lack of communication between the Rhondda Valley and the Cynon Valley for very natural geographical reasons.
I believe that a combined authority not based on a strong sense of community would lack local support and indeed might well result in friction. But having said that I particularly re-emphasise what I drew attention to on the sequence of events that took place over the three years 1991 to 1993. First, in June 1991 we had the Welsh Office consultation paper, The Structure of Local Government in Wales. That foreshadowed 24 unitary authorities which would include one—an amalgamation of the Rhondda and Cynon Valley. A lot of consultation took place after that paper and in March 1992 the then Secretary of State, Mr. David Hunt, came to the Principality and announced his conclusions after the consultations.

393
The conclusions amounted to 23 unitary authorities, including two separate ones—one, Rhondda and Taff-Ely and another, Cynon Valley. That was accepted by most people as being the preferred solution put forward by the Secretary of State just as in the case of Montgomeryshire. However, to our great surprise, a year later, in March 1993, when the White Paper, A Charter for the Future, was published, everything had changed—21 unitary authorities only were foreshadowed, including a group there described as Glamorgan Valleys—of the Rhondda, Cynon Valley and Taff-Ely rolled into one.
At Second Reading I asked the reason for this apparent U-turn. I did not expect my noble and learned friend to be able to give a particular reason to me because he was asked a great many questions. But I studied what he said in summing up and I should like to quote it:
"The Government have had to balance the desirability of having a local area which is resonant with local feeling with what is needed to have a base for viable local government".
Indeed my noble friend has repeated that proposition today in more or less the same words. I believe that instead of the words "viable local government", he used the words "capable of delivering services". I want to suggest to my noble friend, with great respect, that he has got the balance wrong. On one side of the scales there is a very heavy weight in terms of what he described as,
"a local area … resonant with local feeling".
I am quite sure that I can reassure the Committee, even if Members do not know the Cynon Valley, that it is resonant with local feeling. On the other side of the scale are considerations of size which in my opinion are not of the same weight.
As far as population is concerned, the unitary authority proposed in the Bill would cover nearly a quarter of a million people and that is at the very top of the range. That is more even than Swansea and considerably more than Newport and Bridgend. Even if Cynon Valley were on its own, it would still be comparable to other authorities in the Bill such as Anglesey, Cardiganshire and Monmouthshire. So I do not see that there is a great argument on questions of size.
As to the viability of a unitary Cynon Valley to take on increased responsibility for the present services of the county such as education and social services, the Cynon Valley Council commissioned an independent report from the School of Advanced Urban Studies at the University of Bristol, who saw no difficulty.
The White Paper of 1993 itself said,
"Individual schools are increasingly responsible for their own affairs".
That is undoubtedly true. They now work through their governors and indeed also further education colleges are no longer administered by local government. So Cynon Valley would feel perfectly confident in being an education authority. The White Paper also draws attention to the need for co-operation between the new authorities in the provision of the more specialised educational services; for example, the provision of speech therapists. That would also apply to Cynon Valley. I would like to point out that before 1974
394
educational functions were administered efficiently by small county borough authorities such as Merthyr Tydfil. I have no doubt that the reduced educational functions now required would be perfectly well tackled by an authority of the size of Cynon Valley.
As regards social services, the new unitary proposals would enable the same authority to administer both housing and social service functions. This is an ideal opportunity to bring together a care-in-the-community strategy. It would be a considerable improvement on the present system of separate authorities dealing with the social services and housing and would ensure better lines of communication co-ordinated by a director of housing and social services. Cynon Valley runs housing efficiently at present and could certainly take on board inter-related social service provisions. At the same time specialist services—for example, places in approved schools—could be brought in, as indeed is now done by some county councils, big as they are.
Another argument which has been advanced by my noble friend is the fact that only a large authority can attract good staff. That was the same argument which I was briefed to put forward in 1972. It was then for the large county councils and I do not believe that that argument really stands, as has already been argued this afternoon by other Members of the Committee.
That leads me to the conclusion that the weight of a local area resonant with local feeling outweighs the administrative reasons for a larger area. In fact, the larger area has all the drawbacks of the present local authority system. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will convert his U-turn of March 1993 into a W-turn in 1994 and allow Cynon Valley to take its place as an independent unitary authority. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: I very much support the amendment. When I first read through the White Paper proposals it seemed to me that the Government were building in friction. We know of the enormous frictions which existed after the 1972 Act. It was no use thinking that they would go away, because they did not. They will not go away as a result of this Bill.
It appeared to me that there were about three examples in the industrial areas—I know less about them than I do about the rural areas—but Cynon Valley was an obvious one. Merthyr and Llanelli occur to me as others which were not being properly dealt with. It is no use building into local government what was called in Dyfed the "Pembrokeshire factor" Pembrokeshire was an area which did not want to be in Dyfed. It resented being in it and made no bones about it throughout the time that the Dyfed authority was there.
Here, for geographical and social reasons, Cynon Valley and the Rhondda Valley, are separate entities. To the superficial observer one can argue that they have a great deal in common. But the people who know the areas know of the pride of feeling in the Rhondda and that in Cynon Valley. Why on earth should government lump them together? I have heard the kind of argument put forward by the Government in this case, making the comparison with business, where one needs to have large organisations and large authorities But in my

395
experience, by and large, such amalgamations do not work. They sometimes do but often they are an enormous mistake and also a financial mistake.
Perhaps I may now deal with an argument which has been put forward, I believe quite wrongly: namely, that small authorities are unable to attract quality staff. I have seen some staff in large authorities who have stayed there for years and years. I have seen very bright staff with smaller authorities who could have taken their places with aplomb at a very much earlier stage. For example, in Montgomeryshire in the old days the quality of staff was at least as high, if not higher, than anything the Powys County Council ever had.
Therefore the argument put forward by the Government will not bear examination in years to come. I said at Second Reading and I say now, that the Government are building in trouble for themselves for the future in no uncertain way. There are about four or five examples in this Bill which, if the Government only listened and made changes, would produce a much more acceptable Bill. They will not listen—so far, anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, with his great experience and wisdom, which is greatly appreciated in this House, was responsible for the 1972 Bill in this House. I am sure that at times his instructions conflicted with his instincts. But nevertheless I am sure that he observed what was happening. He has observed what has happened since. He speaks words of wisdom today when he proposes that there should be two unitary authorities here. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As I have said on other occasions—and it is true of this case as of others—the Secretary of State acknowledges that, in this case as in others, there is a strong case of community identity as well as other ties which make the people of the Cynon Valley into a community. It is because of that that amendments have been tabled in all such cases. However, having considered the matter, the population and demographic trends here have led the Secretary of State to the conclusion that the area of the Cynon Valley alone does not have a strong enough base to be an effective unitary authority which can co-ordinate and provide delivery of the full range of services. That is because if the amendment were carried, we would have a unitary authority with a population of only 66,000 which, as the noble Lord will appreciate, would make it one of the smaller authorities.
I have already given—I do not think that it will greatly assist the Committee if I repeat them in this context—the kind of considerations which have led the Secretary of State, when considering all these various proposals, to the conclusion that in this case, as in some others, the balance favours a larger authority rather than opting for a Cynon Valley authority which might correspond more closely with the sense of community in that area. It is not that there is a lack of sensitivity to that identity. The Secretary of State showed such sensitivity when he changed the name of the authority between the White Paper and the Bill. That was a recognition of the nature of the various communities. However, ultimately, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the
396
proposals in the Bill would provide viable local authorities. Again, I point out that much of what is said about local identities can be accommodated within the scheme for decentralisation which is available under the Bill. I have already explained that in other contexts.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that the Government will not listen on these matters. The Government are listening. I have listened and I say again on this matter that although the Government do not accept the amendments, I shall of course report to the Secretary of State what has been said on this matter as on others. I am sure that he will wish to reflect on that and on what may be said in another place on this matter.
Lord Hooson: I should not like the noble and learned Lord to think for a moment that I am suggesting he is not listening. He certainly is listening with great courtesy to everything that we are saying. If he will forgive me for saying so, however, we regard him in the guise of a conduit pipe to the Secretary of State. What we fear is that when the message comes out at the other side from the noble and learned Lord, the Secretary of State will not be listening.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that I am not such an obscure and choked conduit pipe that the message will not come out, and that the Secretary of State can hear it at the other end. I shall certainly try to ensure that he hears it; and I am sure that when he hears it, he will listen.
Lord Aberdare: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I am sure he is right that it is a matter of balance. The point is the Secretary of State thinks that the balance goes one way, and I think that it goes the other; but there we are.
Surely in 1992 when the former Secretary of State made his statement to the House of Commons and determined that Cynon Valley should be a unitary authority on its own he took into account the fact that he wanted a viable authority. The Secretary of State could not have made that announcement based only on the fact that it was resonant with local feeling. He must have taken into account also the fact that he thought that such an authority would be viable. Therefore, it seems strange to me that now we seem to be in a position where it is thought by the Welsh Office that Cynon Valley would not be a viable unitary authority. I think that it would be viable and I think that the balance is wrong. However, at this hour, after these discussions, and on the undertaking that my noble and learned friend has said that he will draw this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 50, line 30, at end insert:

("Merthyr Tydfil

The district of Merthyr Tydfil, together with (from the district of Rhymney Valley) the communities of Rhymney, Darren Valley and New Tredegar.")

The noble Lord said: The Labour Party attaches the greatest importance to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which relate to the proposed community borough of Heads of the Valleys. If the proposal is implemented as published, the new authority would be the fifth biggest unitary authority in Wales. However, the effect of the two amendments would be to set up two separate county boroughs: the Heads of the Valley and Merthyr Tydfil; each with a population of between 65,000 and 70,000 or possibly more instead of the single authority that is proposed by the Welsh Office. We are satisfied that each would be an efficient and effective unitary authority.
What struck me with force when I first read the proposal of the Welsh Office as set out in the Bill was that it ran contrary to the basic facts of geography, landscape, tradition and existing loyalties. It seems to me that the authors of that proposal have yet to learn that history and existing loyalties cannot be bypassed just like that.
Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil each have a strong sense of community and purpose. Those have developed because of their history and geography. There are no administrative linkages between the two communities. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is strong and widespread opposition to the proposal in both communities. If the proposal is implemented, it would be a shotgun marriage between two reluctant parties. The Welsh Office has received advice about shotgun marriages and this reorganisation from its own accountants, Touche Ross, which advised and warned the Welsh Office that such a union is unlikely to be in the long-term interests of either the Welsh Office or local government. Therefore, I emphasise the point that the western valleys of Monmouth are not the eastern adjunct of Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Rhymney—and neither is Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Rhymney the western adjunct of the western valleys.
Merthyr Tydfil is within the old county of Glamorgan. Indeed, it is the first Welsh urban experience of any note and the people of Merthyr know that and are proud of it. A century-and-a-half ago—perhaps even a century-and-three-quarters ago—its great ironworks made Merthyr Tydfil the iron capital of the world. Until 1972 it was one of only four county boroughs in Wales. It exercised a full range of local government functions to meet local needs. Sadly, in that year the status of Merthyr Tydfil was demoted to that of a district authority although I believe that it was allowed to retain its library service.
Blaenau Gwent comprises the western valleys of the old county of Monmouth. That authority was created in 1972 when the townships of Tredegar, Ebbw Vale, Nantyglo, Abertillery, Brynmawr and Blaenau were combined. A tremendous and successful effort has gone into building up in Blaenau Gwent an efficient, decentralised district administration, possibly more decentralised than that of Merthyr Tydfil. But both authorities have efficient administrations. Both councils are vigorously and constantly pursuing policies to arrest population decline, and it is hoped that that may now be on a plateau. Both are urgently pursuing policies to attract inward investment and to regenerate their communities.
398
The proposed new authority, if it is set up—our hope is that it will not be set up—will inherit two different patterns of administration and management. There will be no inherited sense of common purpose. There is another feature that causes the Labour Party great concern. It is that there will be no coterminosity of boundaries with the health authority, even though the new authority will embrace a part of Wales where the demand on the health service is great indeed. It is possibly higher than in any other part of Wales. But for health care, the western part of the catchment area will look to Merthyr Tydfil District Hospital, while the eastern part will look to Abergavenny District Hospital, because those two authorities are managed by two different health authorities with their different priorities and different investment programmes. Similarly, the general practitioners are answerable to two different authorities and to different policies. So it appears to us in the Labour Party that when it suits the Welsh Office to argue for coterminosity, it does so effectively; when it does not want to argue for coterminosity, the doctrine disappears.
So I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to tell the Committee why coterminosity with the health authorities is not seen as vital for the people of those valleys where there is so much chronic sickness and disability. I wonder whether the Welsh Office Bill team has access to the waiting list and disability figures. Thousands are waiting for more than six months for their first outpatient appointment. In many parts of the country, that would not be tolerated. By abandoning the principle of coterminosity with the health service in this area, the Welsh Office is taking an unwarranted risk. I put it as high as that: it is an unwarranted risk.
Looking at amendments to which we will come, I see that we are going to discuss the need for statutory provision for an area child protection committee. The Head of the Valleys Council will be lacking in coterminosity with any of the other three services involved with child care and protection: health, probation and social services. Parliament should not be imposing that structure upon the children, the young people, their parents and relatives. The children and young people of that area are entitled to something better than that. Here of course we are in the heart of Aneurin Bevan country. I do not know whether the Welsh Office is aware of that. The significance of saying that one is in the heart of Aneurin Bevan country is that its people have been brought up to expect equality of access to services and equality of services. They are entitled to know why they are not receiving the best that can be provided.
I mentioned Aneurin Bevan. Both communities have made a profound contribution to the life of Wales and beyond. Aneurin Bevan always claimed that the NHS was inspired by the Tredegar Medical Aid Society which was founded in 1890 and which made the cost of sickness a communal burden. On the other hand, it was on the historic ground of Dowlais and Merthyr that Keir Hardie, founder of the Labour Party, delivered some of his most powerful speeches. We on these Benches have to be loyal to that tradition when the Government are seeking to thrust this model on that area.

399
During this century that part of Wales has experienced the full flood of industrial growth, but, sadly, also of distress. But its people have had the capacity and the drive to rebuild and survive. They have rebuilt the economic basis of their community three times this century: after the long depression of 1925; after the loss of the steel works; and now of course after the loss of the pits. We say that they should be allowed to get on, for the third time in a century, with the task of promoting and rebuilding the economic basis of the community without the profound and unnecessary changes envisaged by the Bill.
The Labour Party believes that of all the proposals in the Bill—we have heard powerful arguments today—this is the one which most threatens existing standards and services for most people and which will lead to unequal standards of provision. This is not a case where the argument for change is in doubt; where we rely merely on historical loyalties. The case of the Welsh Office, leaving aside historical loyalties, fails any fair test of the services to be delivered to people.
I trust and hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—we have been impressed by his fairness—will advise his ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office to rethink.
The last point I wish to make is that the two councils know little about the origins of this proposal. I do not know who thought of it. It has not been discussed with Blaenau Gwent; it has not been discussed with Merthyr. The two authorities know of no research upon which it is based. The only thing the two councils know about the proposal is that its author does not know what he is talking about. For those reasons, we believe that it would be wrong for the proposal to remain in the Bill. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I think that I might say, without fear of successful contradiction, that I am the only Welshman in the Committee tonight who has actually lived for several years in Merthyr Tydfil.
Baroness White: Do not forget Rhymney!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have never lived in Rhymney; I have lived in Merthyr Tydfil. Admittedly that was during the 1940s and times have changed greatly between Pentre-bach and Dowlais. Yet from personal knowledge I can say that the proposal to merge Blaenau Gwent with the northern part of the Rhymney Valley and Merthyr Tydfil to form this thing called the Heads of the Valleys Unitary Authority is unlikely to lead to the creation of strong and happy local government.
The proposal contradicts the fundamental aims of the reorganisation of local government as laid down in the consultation and in the White Paper, which stated that local government should be close to the people and based on a strong sense of community identity. The people of both Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil have firmly rejected the proposal. An independent survey commissioned by University College Swansea showed that, of those who expressed a view, 94 per cent. in
400
Blaenau Gwent supported a unitary structure based on Blaenau Gwent alone, with only 6 per cent. favouring the proposed merger. Those figures were similar to others in a poll carried out in the Merthyr Tydfil area.
There are no common historical, political or social links between Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil. The two areas are part of separate county administrations. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, police and fire authorities are different, as are health and ambulance trusts and community health councils. Travel-to-work patterns differ among residents of the two areas, as do shopping and socially-based patterns. There are thumping great mountains in between; one has to go round, and that is very difficult, especially in bad weather.
The proposed authority would be the fifth largest in Wales in terms of total population. However, there would be no natural centre; there would be no heart to it. Such an authority would not be based on any sense of community identity and would certainly fail to enjoy strong local support. The proposed authority would cross five valleys, causing immense problems for residents wishing to visit its headquarters, wherever those happened to be. If, for example, they were in Ebbw Vale, those living in the southern parts of what is now Merthyr Borough would have great problems. If the headquarters were in Merthyr Tydfil, residents of Abertillery Valley would find it almost impossible to get there. Bus journey times are a minimum of four hours for the return journey from Soffryd to Merthyr. I need hardly remind the Committee that the area is considerably below the national average for Rolls Royces per citizen.
Merthyr Tydfil is essential a one-town borough. Its development is concentrated in the town of Merthyr Tydfil itself. Blaenau Gwent is a borough of five towns in the industrial rural community of Llanelli. In the words of Shakespeare, one cannot bring this Troilus to this Cressida. They are oil and water; they cannot mix. This hydra-headed monster, the Heads of the Valleys Authority, should be instantly slain. The proposal is doomed to disaster.
Baroness White: I declare that I have a certain interest in the matter because my title is Baroness White, of Rhymney. I am grateful to my noble friends on the Front Bench for their comments about the proposal to put Merthyr and the Upper Rhymney Valley together with Blaenau Gwent. No one in their senses would have thought of that. How anyone in the Welsh Office could have thought that there could be a compatible union of such different communities passes any sensible comprehension.
What is the concept of Heads of the Valleys? That is probably the most dangerous road in South Wales. It has three lanes and one should never drive on it in the dark. Furthermore, there is no community between the upper part of the Rhymney Valley—Merthyr Tydfil being the major partner —and Blaenau Gwent and its valleys. After all, the valleys in this area do not run from east to west; they run from north to south. That is a fairly simple matter to comprehend.

401
It appears that there has been no adequate discussion of the proposal for this impossible marriage. I see that the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench are looking at one another. I can assure them that one could not possibly have made such a proposal if one had had experience in any depth of the two units which are being brought together. I do not want to labour the point because the time is getting on and we do not want to be here too late tonight. I merely repeat that no one in their senses could have thought of putting these two areas together.
Lord Hooson: While listening to the debate I reflected that "back to basics" was going a little too far because here one has a forced marriage between Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent. There is no case for that because both have done extremely well as separate authorities.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I have never lived in Merthyr Tydfil. However, many years ago I had the honour of being Recorder for that area. I was not sacked but was later beckoned to Swansea. During the short time that I was there I was tremendously impressed by their enormous pride in their county borough status. The first thing that the authority did on my appointment as Recorder was to send me books on the history of Merthyr in order that I would know what it was all about. I remember the tremendous pride that existed in the background of Blaenau Gwent.
It is odd, therefore, that it takes a Liberal from the Liberal Democrat Benches to say that to a Conservative Government. I thought that the Government always laid stress on feelings of belonging, pride, loyalty and so forth. When one puts together two incompatibles—for instance, Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil—one is without any doubt building up trouble for the future. It seems to me that there may be only four or five points in the whole Bill which need change, and this is one of them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I feel deeply depressed when I consider the problem which is before us at this time. On Second Reading and again today I have indicated the mistake which I believe the Government made when they failed to have adequate consultation with the local authorities in Wales. Indeed, they made a greater mistake when they failed to set up a commission which would have led to detailed consideration of all the implications of the combinations that we are now discussing.
As the Committee will know, I come from the furthermost northern part of Wales. However, my experience over the years has extended into the quite extraordinary valleys of South Wales. Those valleys have made an enormous contribution not only to the life of Wales but also to the life of the United Kingdom. I need refer only to the distinguished father of my noble friend Lady White, Dr. Tom Jones of Rhymney.
This situation shows an entire failure to understand the nature of this community. It is enough to turn a Welshman mad that I should be confronted by such arguments from people who have no idea of what goes
402
on in Wales and who have no concept of the difference between Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil. I must sit down before I go further.
There is no point in the noble and learned Lord, who comes from Scotland, coming here with messages from an English Secretary of State for Wales to tell us what should happen in Wales. That must come to an end. It is no use the noble and learned Lord saying that he will go back and talk about it. I plead with him to tell the Secretary of State for Wales that we must look again at this matter. Otherwise, we shall be doing Wales a great disservice.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My noble and learned friend should go to the Secretary of State to ask him to have another look at this matter. Otherwise, the Government will be making a major mistake.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Of course, I have listened with great care to what Members of the Committee have said. The Committee must not think that these proposals have been brought forward without an awareness of the nature of both Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent. It is not only Members on that side of the Committee who are aware of the history of those communities or who know in which direction the valleys run. Those matters were all considered. This proposal has not been brought forward without an awareness of precisely those factors which Members of the Committee have mentioned. Those matters are apparent. But the question is whether what is required in this area to enable it to have a viable local government authority accords with this proposal.
The proposal is not made in ignorance or without an awareness of those factors. It is put forward taking them into account. Nobody is trying to inflict an intentional wound on Wales and the proposal is not put forward with a sense of carelessness. It has been considered carefully in the light of the consultation that has taken place. It takes into account all those factors which I have mentioned on earlier occasions.
The Government are well aware of the difficulties which may exist in travelling by public transport between one area of the authority and another. I assume that those charged with the local government of that area will be equally well aware of the problems and will take them into account when deciding, for example, where various offices of the local authority are to be situated. There is no need for the local authority to have all its offices in one area and not to have local offices available to the communities in other areas. Local information points can be made available so that people can obtain information on services.
In particular, Members of the Committee are aware—I have stressed it on many occasions—that there is available within the legislation a provision for decentralisation and area authorities. It is in the light of those factors and of the need to provide a local government authority area which can make available the services which are required that the proposal is brought forward.
Various things were said—I shall not go over them all—about the health service and other matters, Members of the Committee are aware that under the

403
reforms of the health service it is possible for GP fund holders to obtain services, where these are available, from various trusts and other bodies. The significance of local health authorities in the provision of services may not be now what it once was.
I shall, of course, report to the Secretary of State the tenor of the debate. However, it would be a mistake for the Committee to think that these proposals have been rushed or have been arrived at in an unthinking way. I shall of course report what the Committee has said and the Secretary of State will undoubtedly take that into account. He will undoubtedly take into account anything that may be said on other occasions when he makes his final decision on this matter in the context of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his response. I should have pointed out that there is an error in the wording of the amendment. We should throughout have referred to Merthyr Tydfil and the Upper Rhymney Valley. My noble friend Lady White reminded us of that mistake.
I am unsure how to respond to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Those words were pretty amazing. We were given a lecture on decentralised management. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that Blaenau Gwent has established a pattern of decentralised management and it needs no lecture on that. The noble and learned Lord was soothing as regards the health services for that area, but in practice there will be no coterminosity and the Bill and the setting up of the new authority will add to the difficulties in that area. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord failed to deal with the need for coterminosity of boundaries in that particular part of Wales. We would give that a high priority.
However, the noble and learned Lord acknowledged that he would convey to his right honourable friend the tenor of the debate. I believe that this is the first time that he has used that expression. We should be grateful if he would tell his right honourable friend that the Labour Party feels that its members must do all in their power to ensure that this proposal does not remain in the Bill. We reserve the right to return to this amendment on Report unless the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can meanwhile give us assurances. If it would be helpful for us to have discussions with the noble and learned Lord or with officials from the Welsh Office, we would be happy to meet them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 33 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Establishment of Principal Councils]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 34:
404
Page 55, line 21, leave out ("on which the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 was passed") and insert ("on which notice is given of elections to the new principal councils").
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings us into calmer waters and on to less controversial matters. The purpose of the amendment is simply to shorten the period in which casual vacancies in these councils must remain unfilled. I believe that the Committee will agree that the months after this Bill is passed will be busy and difficult for all local authorities. Every ship in Wales will need a full and well trained crew. We on these Benches cannot see any vital necessity for a compulsory long stretch of no man's land which could cause great problems if, for example, the chairperson of some key committee were to fall under a bus.
As it stands at present, the Bill could lead to casual vacancies in the elected membership of existing councils being unfilled for a period, I think I am right in saying, of up to 21 months. That would leave communities unrepresented and could lead to the political balance of councils being arbitrarily changed.
Our amendment is a compromise position which would lead to unfilled vacancies probably lasting no more than about 13 months. That is more than long enough, and we believe that a longer period could be quite perilous. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment as a positive contribution to improving the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: The Government are prepared to consider a later cut-off date for elections to existing authorities but believe that to refer to the date on which the notice of elections is given would cause problems since returning officers have a certain amount of discretion in setting the date. They are required to give not less than 25 days' notice, so there may be many different dates in different parts of the country. The Government believe that in the interests of administrative consistency there should be a single cut-off date. If the Committee will allow me to reflect on this matter I shall return with our conclusions at Report stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for what has been the best news on this Bill so far. With thanks to him and Her Majesty's Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Rules to be observed in considering electoral arrangements]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 35
Page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("the").
The noble Lord said: I do not suppose that I shall do so well with this amendment. It is intended to transfer a power from the Secretary of State to the Welsh Commission. The philosophical concept on which it stands is that much misused principle of subsidiarity, a note sounded so melodiously this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by which I understand that decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level.

405
We believe that there is no necessity for the Secretary of State to be involved in the matter of multi-member electoral divisions and every reason why he should keep out of that very sensitive area, which is all the more sensitive at present, especially in view of the alleged gerrymandering in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Bill as drafted creates a presumption in favour of single-member electoral divisions. It then gives the Secretary of State the power to vary the presumption in designated parts of the country—probably in dense, urban areas where single-member divisions might break up local ties. The amendment retains the presumption in favour of single-member divisions but leaves the power to vary the presumption with the Welsh Commission. We argue that decisions on the nature of electoral divisions in particular areas are best made by a relatively independent commission rather than by a Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: These amendments concern the level of discretion afforded the Local Government Boundary Commission in drawing up its proposals for dividing Wales into electoral divisions for the purposes of elections following the first elections to the new authorities. The Government believe that the majority of divisions should be single member since these provide for a much closer relationship between member and electorate and consequently are more clearly un-derstandable and accountable.
The Government acknowledge, however, that in some areas multi-member divisions may be more appropriate—primarily in densely-populated urban areas where there are recognisable communities which cannot readily be split into single-member divisions. The provision of sub-paragraph (3) of the new paragraph 1A as drafted would require the Local Government Boundary Commission to provide multimember divisions in areas specified in a direction by the Secretary of State. This does not correctly reflect the Government's intention, which is that the direction should simply be that the commission should consider the desirability of providing multi-member divisions. The provisions of the government amendment reflect that intention, but in not amending sub-paragraph (2), the commission would still be required to draw up single-member divisions in all areas not specified. The Secretary of State's involvement in the process is designed to ensure that multi-member divisions should only be considered in exceptional circumstances and that the general pattern of electoral areas would be one of single-member divisions.
The opposition amendments would allow the commission a much wider discretion in terms of providing for single or multi-member divisions in that no geographic limitation is imposed. The Government feel that such a limitation is important so that the pre-disposition towards single-member division is maintained for the reasons I have outlined.
I would respectfully ask the Committee to accept the government amendment in preference to that of the Opposition.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am profoundly grateful to the noble Viscount for his response, although I cannot say that I am in any way convinced by any of the arguments that he has put forward.
The Welsh Commission, as I say again, is an independent body in so far as any quango in this country is. But it can only make multi-member divisions when it is commanded to do so. That seems to me to be the basis of a very bad relationship indeed. The Welsh Commission is pretty firmly under the control of the Secretary of State. As we consider Schedule 12, we learn that,
"The Commission shall consist of not less than 4 and not more than 7 members, at least one of whom shall be Welsh-speaking".
What a relief it is that there is a slight mention in the entirety of the Bill to the Welsh language. The schedule continues:
"The members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
"The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members to be chairman".
It seems to me that the Secretary of State still has enormous control—unwarranted control, in our view—over the Welsh Commission. I should have thought that it would be possible, and I would hope that the noble Viscount would take back to his right honourable friend the suggestion that it might be sensible, to trust the Welsh Commission a little further than the Bill currently does.
However, with that pious hope in mind, and with the resolve that we shall return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("provide") and insert ("consider the desirability of providing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Community meetings and continuation of community councils]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("five years") and insert ("six months").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment which seeks to ensure that the naming of community councils in both the Welsh and English languages should take place within a period of six months rather than the five-year period specified in new Section 27(4).
The effect will be to ensure that both names are decided upon at an early stage and become familiar to the communities concerned. I believe that principle ensures that the Bill pursues the spirit of the 1993 Welsh Language Act in treating both languages on a basis of equality. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the amendment. It seems to me that to give a council a period of five years from April 1996 to secure that there is both an English and a Welsh name for a community council sends out the wrong signal to the local authorities. We think that

407
this small reform ought not to be left outstanding for five years from April 1996, so we support the thrust of the amendment.
I have a few questions for the Minister and I am happy for him to reply in writing unless he has already been briefed. Subsection (4) states that the principal council:
"shall … take such steps as may be prescribed".
Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this subsection? If so, are those regulations in draft form? When are the regulations likely to see the light of day?
My next anxiety is this. It seems to me that subsection (4) must be read in conjunction with subsection (3). Am I correct in interpreting the combined effect of those two subsections to mean that there may well be cases where there will not be separate Welsh and English names for a community council?
My other question is this. Assuming that there is an alternative form of a name or an alternative name, but that the community council fails to comply with the requirement of the principal council, will there be a sanction? I should be grateful if the Minister could give guidance on those two questions. If there is a sanction, precisely what will it be?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It would be better if I were to write to the noble Lord in reply to those questions so that I make sure I get the answers correct. The overall thrust of the clause is that there should be names in both English and Welsh.
Turning to the general point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in moving the amendment and by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I think that on behalf of the Government I may accept that five years may seem over-generous for the working out of the alternative names. On the other hand, whether six months is a little too short may be a matter for reflection. Perhaps it is best that a little time should go by so that people may select the most appropriate names. In the light of that, perhaps the Committee will allow me to reflect upon the matter and return with the Government's conclusions at Report stage.
Lord Elis-Thomas: After that major victory which follows on from Saturday, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Establishment, dissolution and grouping etc. of community councils]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert:
("(9) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection of (1), where a Community Council have made a request to the Welsh Commission not later than 31st December 1995, for the alternative of a local government area resulting in the transfer of the community from one new principal area to another new principal area the Commission shall consider such a request and report to the Secretary of State within two years of the date on which the request was made.").
The noble Lord said: The building blocks of unitary authorities are the community councils. The amendment
408
should have referred specifically to Section 55 (1) of the Local Government Act 1972 but somehow I managed not to place it at the top. The amendment refers to the situation where a community council has made a request to the Welsh Commission for a transfer of that community from one principal area to another and it seeks to ensure a response from the Welsh Office.
The proposal refers specifically to certain micro areas of the unitary authority, certain community councils which might prefer to be part of one unitary authority rather than another. In the case of parts of Clwyd, there have already been transfers within the lifetime of the consultations on this legislation. A number of communities have already been transferred between proposed unitary authorities and others. Other authorities have indicated that they might wish to be transferred—border authorities that might wish to be part of one principal council rather than another. It makes sense to ensure that there is a timescale for that to take place and some notice can be taken of the views of local communities in specific cases such as this.
It is my view that as set out in the consultation document in 1991 the Local Government Boundary Commission should have a role in redrawing the boundaries of the principal councils in a way that ensures that the views of local communities are taken into account. I beg leave to move the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: Again, I support the thrust of this amendment because it places a duty on the Welsh Commission to consider the request from the community council for the alteration of the local government area.
However, if the principle is acceptable to the Government, I wonder whether or not the amendment needs to be spelt out in a little more detail. For example, in considering the request, will the commission be required to follow the usual statutory procedures: publishing a notice of consideration; publishing its draft report; consideration of observations on the draft report in the light of the responses; and the publication of the final report? Or will there be a shortened procedure which will apply until December 1997? My second question is: will the Secretary of State have a discretion to accept or reject the report of the commission? I ask these questions for clarification only.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales already possesses wide powers to conduct the reviews of local government areas under the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Those powers already contain provision whereby a community council can indeed require the commission to consider principal area boundary changes. In the Government's view it follows that there is no need to incorporate this particular amendment in order to ensure that the Local Government Boundary Commission can be required to consider these matters. In addition, the Secretary of State has already signalled his intention of using the existing powers to ask the commission to look at the boundaries of certain new authorities, to identify and

409
correct any new anomalies which may have arisen as a result of the creation of the new authorities, using the existing community areas as the building blocks.
The amendment would seek to put in a timetable; namely, that the request should be made not later than 31st December 1995 and the commission should then report within two years. The commission will have much work to do as it conducts its electoral review of Wales. This particular amendment would put a straitjacket on the commission by forcing it to conduct those further reviews on a somewhat arbitrary timescale. In the Government's view that is not necessary; the existing powers are adequate, and it would therefore not be necessary for this amendment to be incorporated in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked a number of questions related to the text of this amendment but since the Government do not accept it, I do not think that I can go into them.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the indication of support for the principle in the amendment, if not the timescale, and the fact that we have confirmation that it is within the existing powers of the commissioner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [General provision for transfer of functions]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
We now embark on a different part of the Bill; namely, Part II. Clause 17 specifies the general provision for the transfer of functions. It is quite obvious that in a Bill of this nature there must be a general clause transferring functions from existing authorities to the authorities that will be set up. My difficulty with the clause is represented by the amendments to which I speak.
The amendment that I now move on subsection (3) is designed to elicit from the Government an explanation of what on earth that subsection means. The drafting seems to me to be very complex. I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord, when he comes to explain it in very clear English, as I am sure he will, could tell the Committee precisely what it means. I recognise that I imperfectly understand the drafting, but it seems to me that as it stands it gives the Secretary of State the power to vary by instrument any aspect of the current legislation. If I am wrong, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will tell me so. I should be grateful if he would elucidate the matter.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 again concern the powers of the Secretary of State to vary the general transfer of powers in the clause. Again I have difficulty in understanding precisely the meaning of those subsections. For instance—I quote from the text of the Bill—subsection (6) states:
410
"Where a question arises, in relation to any relevant legislative provision, as to which is the appropriate new principal area for the purposes of this section, that question shall be determined by order".
If this Bill is enacted in its present form, does the Secretary of State have the right to vary by simple order whatever provision may be made? Furthermore, under subsection (7) (b), he may:
"make such amendments or other modifications of the provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act".
Is that a blanket power for the Secretary of State to vary the provisions of the legislation?
These amendments are simply designed to elucidate what the Government have in mind and to see whether, at a future stage, we wish to probe even further and possibly oppose the powers that are being given to the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to satisfy the Committee on the meaning of what is contained in the Bill as presently drafted. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As the noble Lord said, the clause has the effect of adapting provisions which currently apply to the exercise by local government of the functions for which it is responsible so that all functions for which the existing district and county councils are responsible on 31st March 1996 will transfer in full to the new principal councils with effect from 1st April that year. There will be no diminution in the functions of local authorities arising from implementation of the new structure.
I recognise that Amendment No. 42 is a probing amendment. But it would leave out the recognition that specific provision for the transfer of functions is made elsewhere in the Bill; for example, Clause 21 and the schedules. It would also remove a reference to the provisions for statutory instruments.
The powers given to the Secretary of State under the Bill with respect to the making of provision by statutory instrument in relation to the transfer of functions are fully precedented in the provision made in the 1972 Act in relation to that reorganisation. It is important to note that the powers are exercisable solely in the context of the transfer of existing county and district council functions to the new councils as provided for under the Bill. The Committee will see that Clause 52(1) defines the powers as being,
"for the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act or in consequence of any of its provisions or for giving full effect to it"—
the purpose of the Act being, of course, the transfer of functions.
Amendment No. 42 would seek to remove subsection (6) from the clause. The purpose of subsection (6) is to enable the Secretary of State, should it become necessary, to make an order to resolve any doubts which might arise as to which is the "appropriate new principal area" for specific purposes. It is a power which it should not be necessary to use because it should always be possible to detect which is the correct area. It was included in the Bill as a failsafe in case such a need for clarification should arise. The point to emphasise is that it is not a power that could enable the Secretary of State

411
to take a responsibility away from local government but merely to adjudicate should a dispute arise as to which unitary authority should exercise the power.
Subsection (7) provides that in applying subsections (4) and (5) to existing local government legislation so as to transfer local government functions the existing legislation —that which is being amended, changed or removed—is to be construed, subject to any necessary modifications, to ensure that the transfer works properly. That seems to be an eminently sensible provision which tells the courts or others who are concerned with the interpretation of the Acts in question how they are to approach the matter in the new situation after reorganisation.
The provision in paragraph (b) is simply to be seen as an extension of this and would allow the Secretary of State to make amendments or modifications to a provision. But again that seems sensible so that the transfer works properly and is not in effect botched. In particular, it is thought that in some cases under the existing provisions functions are constituted in terms which relate to an interrelationship between the district authority and the county authority. This amendment would deal in those circumstances with the power of the Secretary of State to make an order amending or modifying such references to take account of the single-tier structure. That is what the provision is designed to do. Such a power is needed in order to remove doubts or uncertainties which might otherwise exist as to how this kind of provision was to apply in Wales after reorganisation.
The purpose of these provisions is simply to allow the courts to be guided as to how to construe the Act and where necessary in order to fulfil the purpose of transfer for this kind of order to be made by the Secretary of State. I hope that that assists the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But can the noble and learned Lord tell me how this is designed to help the courts construe the Act, as it will become on Royal Assent, before such an order is made by the Secretary of State? Clearly the courts, if there is a challenge in the courts, will have to depend on what is on the face of the Bill at the moment, assuming that it is enacted, before they can decide. It is only subsequently that the Secretary of State may make an order under any of the provisions that we are discussing. I am reserving my final remarks on this until I have heard what the noble and learned Lord has to say.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The point I was making—I apologise if I made it unclearly —is that the purpose of subsection (7)(a) is to be a guide to the courts when they are construing the existing legislation which is then to be applied in accordance with subsections (4) and (5) to the new authorities. When they are faced with a provision which, as the Committee will appreciate, will not have been written or designed for the new authorities, the guidance given by subsection (7)(a) is that it is to be construed,
"subject to any modifications necessary to give full effect to the provision".
412
So when they are faced with that after a transfer they can see that they are to approach it in the spirit that it is to be applied in order to give effect to the transfer after the Act. But where that cannot be done—it might not be possible to construe it across by just reading it in a reasonable way—there may be situations where it will be necessary for minor amendments to be made. That is what is provided for in paragraph (b). It is said there that the Secretary of State,
"may by order make such amendments or other modifications … as he considers necessary … in consequence of any provision".
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I had not quite followed his argument about the construction of subsection (7). Subsection (7)(a), if I may follow the noble and learned Lord's argument just for the moment, simply says that relevant legislative provision shall be construed by the courts,
"subject to any modifications necessary to give full effect to the provision".
It is a circular argument. The courts are instructed by Parliament to construe what is in Clause 17 subject to any modifications. It is the modifications under subsection (7) (b) that I am worried about. I am not worried about subsection (7) (a) and I accept the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of that subsection.
Perhaps I may go back to subsection (3), which is the object of my first amendment. I agree that we are now having a preview of Clause 52(1). When we get to Clause 52(1) we shall have a lot of argument about the powers that are available to the Secretary of State under that clause. I am still uncertain about the drafting of subsection (3). I think I now understand, after the noble and learned Lord's explanation, what it really means. But I am not sure that I do wholly. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could have a look at the drafting before we go to the next stage simply to see whether my doubts are such as to worry any court or lawyer—or indeed the noble and learned Lord—trying to interpret this.
Amendment No. 43 refers to subsection (6). I accept that that is a failsafe, as I believe the noble and learned Lord quite honestly said. It is very odd to have a failsafe in a Bill or an Act. It means that one is not safe and therefore one has to have a failsafe. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord will have another look at that and see whether it is really necessary to put these rather random subsections in the Bill when it is not entirely certain that the Bill will have the effect expected of it. Having had the discussion with the noble and learned Lord—I am grateful for his response—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Joint and special planning boards in Wales]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the complicated matter of the provisions to be made for the national parks. I must first declare an interest as one of

413
the vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks. I am moving what is essentially a probing amendment at this stage. I shall probably want to revisit this subject at a later stage of this Bill's progress, depending largely on the degree of satisfaction that I can wrest from the Government's response tonight. I need not remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the Government's promise to create independent authorities for all the national parks is a manifesto commitment and the Welsh Office will be well aware that I have been inquiring about the fulfilment of that promise for quite some time.
But am I correct in thinking that, apart from the pressure of business, there is no further impediment to the fulfilment of that pledge and that the general thrust of Clause 19 of the Bill, in so far as it relates to national parks, is to remove all barriers which might impede the upgrading of national park committees into independent boards? If that be so, do the Government have any substantial objection to the public inquiry procedure or do they simply think that an inquiry would be otiose? It might be argued that people have the right to know and these matters too often get slipped through without public knowledge and that a public inquiry could do no possible harm and might do some good.
Finally, what is the significance of the date "31st March 1997", which appears at page 15, line 35? Suspicious souls, amongst whom of course I would not number myself, might think that the words,
"if the board constituted by the order is to come into existence before 31st March 1997",
implies that not very much is going to happen on this front before about February 1997. I hope that that is not going to be the case. I would welcome the Government's reassurance on this and the other points I have raised. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: The amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Prys-Davies, would introduce a local inquiry requirement for joint planning boards in relation to the establishment of those boards for national parks before 31st March 1997. The amendment would make it impossible to create the boards at the same time as local government reorganisation. An inquiry could only be held after the shadow councils had been set up and three separate inquiries would he needed—one for each park—which would have very serious resource implications. At a minimum, the process would delay the creation of the boards by a year and would therefore require the creation of national park committees for the interim period. The new boards must be in a position to issue their levies before 15th February 1996 and would therefore have to be in existence before then.
By dispensing with the need for an inquiry, the possibility of boards being established for national parks in Wales can be debated in the context of this Bill. The 1997 time limit ensures that the dispensation applies only to boards set up in relation to the reorganisation. There are no proposals to change the number of parks or
414
any of their other arrangements, and I am sure that the Committee would agree that there is no need for public inquiries in these circumstances.
Your Lordships are, of course, aware of the Bill that my noble friend Lord Norrie proposes to introduce, which would have the effect of creating independent national park authorities. Were this to receive the approval of Parliament, the Government would not utilise the provisions of Clause 19 to create joint park boards.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am deeply obliged to the noble Viscount for that reply, which partially relieves some of my anxieties. On the question of the public inquiry, I do not want to push him very much further and since the brief from which he read so eloquently was not aware of the other questions that I asked, perhaps I am asking a lot if I ask him to find answers to them on his feet. However, I would be much obliged if he could take a look at Hansard tomorrow and, if he finds that there is anything further on which he would like to comment in relation to the questions that I have asked him which he could not answer, perhaps he will write to me. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Unitary Development Plans in Wales]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.46:
Page 61, line 22, leave out ("which") and insert ("to the extent that it").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Paragraph 1(5) of the new Part 1A inserted into Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act defines an "existing plan" for the purposes of the continuation of structure, local and old development plans. This is a clarifying amendment to recognise that, by virtue of a direction under paragraph 45(6) of Schedule 4 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, it is possible for an old plan to be continued in force to a limited extent only. This is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transfer of other specific functions]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.47:
Page 17, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule 9A makes provision for the transfer to the new principal councils of functions in relation to water, land drainage and coast protection.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 47 introduces a new schedule, which is set out in Amendment No. 52. The schedule contains consequential amendments to legislation relating to water, land drainage and coast protection. All the amendments are solely for the purpose of carrying forward existing county and district functions to the new councils.
The Committee will appreciate that it would have been possible to achieve this purpose through the general provision for the transfer of functions in Clause

415
17 of the Bill. However, as with other functions covered in the Bill, it is considered more helpful for those who use the relevant legislation to have express amendments in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee why the schedule was not included in the Bill in the first place? Can he also say why there is no similar schedule dealing with education and fire services?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The schedule was not included in the Bill as originally prepared for and presented to this place because it was simply not ready. The Committee will appreciate that detailed work had to be done in looking out all the references. This schedule was not ready. It will be helpful for practitioners to have this kind of schedule rather than to have to rely on the general provisions. There are some areas where it is not necessary because the way in which statutes are defined make it unnecessary to have this kind of minute amendment in the Bill. Due to the way Education Bills are drafted, it is not necessary for this kind of minute amendment to be put in. That is why in the case of these functions the amendment has been brought forward.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for saying that the Bill was not ready when it was presented to this place on First Reading. I always understood that the Government had some sort of duty—one never knows what duty the present Government have—to present Bills to this place which are ready and are not to be added to as we go through them—at an early stage or on the first day of Committee. Perhaps we shall have more schedules as we go along. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how many other schedules are in draft and waiting for presentation when they are ready? When will we receive the final Bill which we can then discuss?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I cannot say whether there are any others which will be presented. What I can say is that properly parliamentary counsel is always looking to see whether a Bill can be improved while it is proceeding through this place. I am sure that your Lordships would always wish that when a Bill emerges from consideration in this place and in another place, and when it comes to be operated, it is in the most complete and efficient form. The amendment is an improvement to the Bill. I make no apologies for bringing it forward.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand fully what the noble and learned Lord is saying. He said originally that this schedule was not in the Bill as presented to this place because it was not ready, unless I misheard him.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That is right.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am asking how many other schedules, clauses or whatever it may be are not ready? It is not a question of what might result from our discussions; it is other things that are not ready.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I may have used the words wrongly. What I was saying is that it is always sought to improve the Bill and to see whether it can be made more appropriate for practitioners by introducing a schedule like this. I cannot say whether parliamentary counsel will identify in that process ways in which the Bill can be further improved. If he can, I am sure that he will bring forward those amendments. I would hope that your Lordships would accept that they might improve the Bill.
These are technical matters, as I said. The Bill could go through and rely upon the general power in Clause 17. The amendment improves the Bill for practitioners not because the Bill, as originally introduced, would not have the effect of transferring the functions but because it would be more difficult for practitioners to use. A schedule like this makes the Bill more user friendly—to use the modern jargon—for those who have to operate the legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 17, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule [Combined Trading Standards Authority] makes provision for constituting combined trading standards authorities and transferring to them functions in relation to weights and measures, trading standards and related matters.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 48 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 53 which imports a new schedule into the Bill, and so I shall, with the Committee's leave, speak to both amendments. I regret that the schedule, although shorter than that introduced by my noble and learned friend, will require a little more explanation from me than did his.
I start by declaring an interest as a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. It is not a pecuniary interest, but it means that I have ready access to its information, which I shall use, and I was persuaded to one of its concerns. That is one reason why I have taken part in the Bill.
The other reason is that I was a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment responsible for taking through your Lordships' House the Bill which eventually became the Local Government Act 1985. That Bill, like this Bill, was designed to reduce the size, and therefore to increase the number, of certain local authorities. We have seen the consequences of what we did. Generally speaking, that has been beneficial or at worst neutral in its effect. But for the trading standards service the results have not been beneficial. In most areas they have been the reverse. That is bad news not just for the trading standards service but for its clientele. That means all the consumers, all the retailers and all the producers—and therefore all the population in the areas concerned.
Where one has to deliver a service of the complexity of that delivered by the trading standards service the size of the unit delivering the service becomes critical. There is a limit to the number of skills that one man can master and the number of visits that he can make in a given time. That size is dictated by the size of the population for which the unit is responsible. The effect of the 1985 Act was to break up the big metropolitan county authorities into a larger number of smaller authorities. It

417
gave them the power but crucially did not give them the duty to deliver specific services, including trading standards, through voluntary co-operative groups.
That is precisely what we are now proposing in this Bill. Eight years after we passed the Local Government Act only one such groups remains. Many of the successor bodies provide on their own a service that is either less effective or more expensive than that provided by its larger predecessor or by its co-operative predecessor. I believe that some provide services which are both less effective and more expensive.
I wish to remind your Lordships of two matters. First, in Wales the units were starting from an already smaller size than were the English metropolitan authorities or, indeed, units into which they were broken up. Secondly, the entire force of the trading standards service in Wales amounts to 120 officers. If we make the same mistakes again the consequences are likely to be a great deal worse. Indeed, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration argues that if all the new Welsh local authorities ended up trying to deliver the service single handed, they would average only five professional staff and some would have only one or two. One is trying to apply 70 Acts of Parliament and the subordinate legislation.
In that event the institute may have understated its case because what happened after the abolition of the metropolitan counties was that no less than 30 per cent. of the trading standard officers disappeared. I strongly believe that we must put in place provisions to ensure that the new authorities combine effectively to provide the service to units of population of a sufficient size to make them efficient and that having combined they stay combined and do not fly apart, as almost all the metropolitan ones have done under the centrifugal pressures of local government politics and finance.
The trading standards service is not well known in this country and the importance of its work is not generally understood. I remind the Committee that it is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of 70 Acts of Parliament and many hundreds of orders and regulations under those. Its list of duties is therefore long and at every point they are designed to protect the welfare and often the lives of the consumer. They range from weights and measures to mortgages, from trades descriptions to product counterfeiting and, more dramatically, from the control of explosives to vehicle safety. If the service fails the result may be merely that motorists receive only 98 per cent. of the litre of fuel that they pay for or that couch potatoes watch pirated video tapes instead of legal ones. However, it can mean that motorists drive cars with lethal defects, that children buy violent and pornographic video tapes or that housewives cook meat contaminated with mad cow disease. If that were to become generally known, there would be a high level of public interest and anxiety.
The service provided by those 120 officers is of very great importance not only to the comfort but also to the safety of everyone in Wales. In Wales a great many people are not only producers but also consumers. It is on them and their colleagues in the United Kingdom that the prosperity of the Principality and this country depends. Therefore, let us remember that while much of
418
the mass of legislation which those people implement bears on distributors, almost all of it bears on producers It bears extremely heavily, and it will bear even more heavily if we do not get this matter right.
For example, it will nearly treble the number of trading standards contact points that suppliers supplying throughout the Principality will have to deal with. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury would have made that Pont had he been able to be here. The manufacturing and commercial sectors are acutely aware of the importance of the issue. In a letter to local authorities, the CBI pointed out,
"the work carried out by trading standards departments is absolutely essential, in terms of the protection of individuals and businesses alike from unfair trading practices; … no local government department has a greater role to play in our well being and our safety than the trading standards department."
Those sectors are concerned also about the question of maintaining a viable size of unit. The British Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent. of British retailers, wrote to the Secretary of State last year and again last week to say that it is concerned that the considerable reduction in the size of operational units would make it impossible to provide the level of expertise necessary to provide a full trading standards service. It added that multiple retailers are also concerned that the regulations should be enforced consistently throughout the country since the inconsistent enforcement of regulations makes life very much more difficult.
The institute has received similar representations—I shall not quote them all—from the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Bankers Association, the Country Landowners' Association, the Industry Anti-Counterfeiting Group, the Consumer Credit Trade Association, the Finance and Leasing Association, the Retail Credit Group, the Market Law Advisory Service, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and the Federation Against Software Theft.
I have a good deal more to say in support of the amendments but the hour is late and if I can persuade my noble friend by saying that much, I shall be content to turn to the question of the actual supportable size.
That is an extremely difficult point. INLOGOV—which is not a retired Russian general but the Institute of Local Government Studies, based at Birmingham University—says that the effective minimum size of authority for the effective administration of the service should be a 750,000 population. That is not achievable; but under the Bill as it came to us, the average was 137,000; 15 authorities have under 150,000; four are below 100,000; and even Cardiff, the largest, has only just over a third of what is recommended.
It is not only non-governmental organisations which hold those views. The Ministry of Agriculture is of the view that the minimum size of authority to discharge that function should have a population of 350,000. If that is not enough for my noble and learned friend, I draw his attention to the submission of the Department of Trade and Industry to the Welsh Office during its review, part of the introduction of the Bill arid, therefore, prior to his involvement with the Welsh Office. It said that a structure of 23 independent trading

419
standards departments in unitary authorities is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory and consistent level of service across Wales, even with the advantages of amalgamation with and support from other unitary authority departments. In particular, such a structure would encounter problems as regards manning departments with adequate numbers of personnel, there being shortages even under the current arrangements.
With that weight of opinion as regards the minimum size of unit necessary, we must provide more than the entirely voluntary solution set out in the Bill which has been proved by the 1985 Act not to work.
Sir Bryan Carsberg, the Director General of Fair Trading, wrote to the Secretary of State last week to express his doubts that an effective trading standards service providing a high and expert level of service in the interests of consumers:
"would be the result, if a large number of much smaller authorities were to emerge unless special arrangements were made for the service".
My amendment provides an example of what those special arrangements might be. I do not propose to detail it. If Members of the Committee read it, they will see it is a probing amendment which sets out quite clearly what is intended. If the Committee has further questions, I shall of course be delighted to answer them. I hope the Minister will now feel that there is such a battery of opinion in favour of an amendment on these lines that he will be content at least to take it away and consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. As a past president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, I came to know about the enormous variety of its activities, which are added to virtually every month by new legislation which is either introduced in our Parliament here or emanates from Brussels. But, more importantly, I began to understand the increasing sophistication and the high technology of the work, particularly as regards such issues as counterfeit trading, which has shown a massive increase.
I wish to emphasise the fact that the recognition accorded to the trading standards organisations in this country by those who deal with them—I refer particularly to trading organisations such as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has mentioned—is paralleled by the recognition and the commendations that they receive from abroad. I was present at a meeting in Brussels a year or so ago where I met Commissioner Van Miert, who was then responsible for consumer protection. He was full of praise for the work of the trading standards organisations in this country, particularly for the effectiveness of their enforcement methods, which far surpassed those of many other countries in the European Union.
I have here a copy of a letter sent by the director of the corporate security department of a large American multinational to the President of the Board of Trade in which he too speaks highly of the trading standards organisation here with which he works closely in the performance of his duties. He expressed the gravest
420
concern about what might happen to the effectiveness of the organisation if its unit size were further diminished. That is the issue we have before us.
The reasons for the reorganisation of local government in Wales have been fully explored during our debates this afternoon and indeed some Members of the Committee have put forward amendments which would introduce even more units of local government. However, it was also recognised, not least by my noble friend Lord Hooson, that there may well be certain functions which smaller units of local government could not adequately perform and therefore that these should be performed in common. It is precisely that proposition which is before the Committee at the present time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has pointed out, it is a possibility under existing arrangements for trading standards organisations to be combined. Many such combined collective arrangements were put in hand but only two now survive: one in West Yorkshire and one in London. The likelihood of these arrangements surviving in Wales is poor, judging by past experience. It is for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has moved this amendment and I support it strongly.
If it is the Government's intention to make absolutely sure that the mass of legislation intended to safeguard consumers is in place and to ensure that food is of adequate substance and that goods described for sale are properly so described and to carry out the manifold functions which the trading standards organisations now have to perform and will have to perform increasingly in the future, and if those tasks are to be performed effectively, I believe that the Government must recognise that the units in which that work is done will have to be of sufficient size to enable the necessary technology and sophistication to be available. The more they are fragmented, the less effective will be their work. Those who will suffer most are individual consumers and trading organisations. For example, the big multiples are extremely concerned by the variability of performance of the fragmented trading standards organisations. They want a trading standards organisation which is efficient, well run and uniform throughout the country. Fragmentation would lead in the opposite direction. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will take the amendment very seriously.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: As one of the vice-presidents of the trading standards institute I should like to add to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the pressure of opinion among the varying client groups which contact the trading standards administration. Those include many retail organisations and national organisations. They see the problems which result from dealing with small trading standards units which are perhaps not effective.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the trading standards service has a direct impact upon electors and consumers. They have rights under the Welsh Bill as they would have under any English Bill. As electors they should be safeguarded from rackets carried on by certain types of traders. The awareness of consumers

421
locally is important in ensuring that government legislation is complied with and, when they see that it is not, in making reports to local trading standards officers so that they can take the necessary action.
The matter is not only important for local consumers. It is also important for trade. With the deregulation that is taking place we are finding increasingly that trade has more problems. The British Retail Consortium has added its support for larger trading standards units. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Bill will fragment the services which already exist in Wales.
It is important that the Government take note of the Audit Commission's reports. In the Audit Commission's report, Safer Foods—Local Authorities and the Food Safety Act, the point is made for us. It says that
"Many small authorities have neither the resources nor the relevant expertise to cope with the increasing complexity of enforcing standards on food producers".
Perhaps on some occasions the Audit Commission's remarks have not been taken as seriously as they are taken at present. Therefore, I hope that when he answers the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us some information on that aspect.
We also have to consider the tremendous amount of work which trading standards officers have to undertake in the form of detective work. That is primarily aimed at ensuring that customers are not ripped off and cheated by less reputable traders.
The less reputable traders are defrauding the legitimate businesses. We all know about counterfeiting; it is becoming a serious issue in this country. One can obtain videos, car parts, and parts for everything. There is the counterfeiting of perfumes which is upsetting large organisations not only in this country but elsewhere.
Last year 8,700 summonses were issued in the United Kingdom, involving the seizure of goods valued in excess of £8.7 million. However, if one looks at those who made the seizures, over 6,000 of the 8,700 summonses were issued by the large county and regional trading standards departments, because those departments have the large, comprehensive services with enforcing officers, investigating officers and the variety of the skills required.
On the issue of animal health, the panel of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated:
"Small unitary authorities as proposed for Wales would not be able to provide the level of service required to deal effectively and efficiently with all aspects of animal health and welfare enforcement".
Therefore we have the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—one of the Government's many departments—saying exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. In their various ways, government departments are stating that one needs adequate size for trading standards departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made valid points in support of the amendment. The submission before the Committee is clear. We shall achieve the excellent service already given by trading standards departments in the larger authorities in future only if we state that small units are not satisfactory because they do not contain the breadth of experience for the various tasks
422
which trading standards officers are called upon to perform. I urge the Minister to listen carefully and to digest the arguments put forward in support of the amendment.
The position has been argued successfully. There needs to be recognition of what constitutes a reasonably sized authority for enforcement of government legislation. The trading standards officers enforce government regulations as well as giving general information to the trade and consumers. Those officers can only perform that duty with adequate, trained personnel.
The anxieties expressed to the Committee indicate conclusively that a reduction of services will take place automatically in Wales unless a minimum size of authority is defined. When the Minister replies, will he give guidance on what he considers to be a reasonably sized population to support an authority? What would he consider to be the number to ensure that we are, following the Government's wish, if there is to be an adequate service to carry out the legislation?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I fully accept the argument that trading standards need to be conducted by authorities which have appropriate financial back up and an appropriate financial spread. I also accept the argument that the unitary authorities being set up by the Bill, if it is enacted, may well, in some cases, not be of the appropriate size to have a fully fledged trading standards section and be able to finance it properly so that the consumer is protected.
I have difficulty with the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. First, I should have thought that if we are to have a body which,
"shall … cover the whole of Wales",
to quote paragraph 3 of the proposed schedule, it should properly be the Principality of Wales. But as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not agree with us that there should be a principality of Wales which should be a local government authority. Therefore, to my mind, that somewhat undermines his case.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. He is misreading paragraph 3. It says that the total of all the areas produced by the process:
"shall between them cover the whole of Wales"
It does not say that Wales shall itself be a single area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord; I was just coming to the point that he anticipated. If we say that there is no such thing as the Principality of Wales, the view which I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, took in the Division Lobby this afternoon; if we say that we do not want that—and maybe the noble Lord voted in our Lobby this afternoon, but I thought he voted against it—
Lord Elton: There was no question of abolishing the Principality of Wales; it was a question of whether Wales itself should have an authority which should cover the whole of Wales. That is an option here. I think that the minimum number would be three. As a former Home Office Minister, it would be convenient to hang

423
the whole thing, for example, on the joint fire authorities. We are not laying down what the Secretary of State should decide, we are giving him an open card to write his own messages.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There again, I come back to my problem with the noble Lord. I could understand it if he had said that there should be something called the Principality of Wales which should be elected.
Lord Elton: Not an assembly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The original amendment concerned the Principality of Wales, if I may remind the noble Lord. If there should also be an assembly which should be elected, then I could quite understand that there should be a trading standards authority which should cover the whole of Wales. My problem with the noble Lord's amendment is that he seeks to give the Secretary of State powers to determine where, how and in what geographical order there should be authorities for trading standards. In other words, they are removed from the local government provision; they are removed from what I would have preferred, the Principality of Wales, and put in the hands of the Secretary of State who shall, according to paragraph 1 of the noble Lord's schedule,
"by order establish such number of bodies as he considers to be appropriate".
I am afraid that I have great difficulty with that. I believe trading standards authorities should be subject to democratic authority. So I join the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in saying that I have major doubts about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, I accept the noble Lord's primary thesis that the unitary authorities envisaged by the Government under the Bill are perhaps not strong enough in financial terms and all the rest of it, to support a proper trading standards authority. I should be very happy to hear the noble and learned Lord's response to my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal. Exactly what do the Government consider is a sensible size of authority to support a trading standards activity?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as has been clear, the effect of the amendments would be to provide for the creation of an unspecified number of combined trading standards authorities in Wales with responsibility for weights and measures, trading standards and related matters.
The Government's opposition begins from the point that such joint arrangements would not in effect provide the same degree of local accountability as would exist if—and this is consistent with the underlying policy of the Act—as the Government would prefer, individual local authorities, democratically elected, retain the responsibility for trading standards.
Much was said in the course of the discussion about consumers. Various noble Lords quoted communications that they had received. In that context, perhaps I may be permitted to quote from a letter which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State received today from Mr. Derek Prentice, the assistant director of the Consumers' Association, in which he says:
424
"[The] Consumers' Association's opposition to this amendment is fundamental".
He goes on to say that,
"one of the strengths of trading standards services in this country, as compared with the rest of Europe, is that being more localised, they are considerably more accessible to the businesses and consumers they are there to serve. … the trading standards service should be customer led. It should be based on analysis of inquiries and complaints from customers, so revealing the particular concerns of the local community. For that reason if no other, it follows that the service should be fully accessible to local inquiries and complaints".
That is what the representative of the Consumers' Association has to say on this amendment. Therefore, when it is said that the amendment favours the consumers, in my submission that provides a very clear steer on the matter. When the Government say that these matters should, so far as possible, be dealt with on a local basis, then that is not only good within the context of this Bill, but it is also good for consumers.
There is no reason why trading standards services cannot be satisfactorily delivered by 21 unitary authorities, not necessarily of course acting in isolation. Where necessary, the new authorities will indeed be able to enter into a range of voluntary collaborative arrangements to deliver particular services or particular kinds of services, and to ensure that the full range of specialisms is available for a particular area. That could result in the development of centres of excellence, the creation of a "lead authority" in particular matters, or it could result from the use of the trading power provided under the legislation.
For that reason, because it would in the end be a matter for the various local authorities to determine what is best for the particular services, I would not think it right to try to lay down or to prescribe for local government what would be the particular size of authority which was necessary to provide a particular type of service. I would expect those charged with that responsibility in local government to come in the particular area to the correct solution on that matter.
It is the Government's intention that all 21 trading standards authorities should be supported by technical advice and guidance supplied, for example, by the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards, the Institute of Trading Standards Administrators and the professional network which is already largely in place in Wales. We have always accepted that the increased number of authorities delivering the service as a result of the reorganisation will demand better co-ordination. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already invited the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body to take on an enhanced advisory and co-ordinating role after reorganisation.
I have to say that to the Government there seems an obvious parallel to be drawn with the environmental health service, which enforces national standards over 37 authorities at present. Local arrangements already operate for environmental health, and there have emerged liaison bodies to achieve the kind of co-ordination, co-operation and uniformity of standards which are required in order that the legislation should be

425
properly enforced. There is no reason why after reorganisation similar arrangements should not work for trading standards.
The Government believe that it is right, therefore, to let the new unitary authorities retain responsibility for individual services, wherever possible. They recognise that, for the reasons which have been given, in the case of the trading standards service some joint arrangements will be required in certain areas. But, as I have stressed, in the Government's view such arrangements should be allowed to emerge after reorganisation through local consultation and not through central prescription by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot agree to the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him, after listening to the debates this afternoon and the arguments from all the local authorities represented by various Members of the Committee who put forward their particular cases, whether he believes that there will be the co-operation of which he spoke? I thought that various speakers were all batting on their own wickets. I could not see them making a very good team, whoever they were playing for. Is he confident that co-operation can be achieved between all the authorities?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am confident that, when the organisation is in place and the local authorities elected, and therefore responsible for providing the proper services for the people whom they serve, they will look around and decide whether it is necessary for them to obtain services from elsewhere. They will obtain them in appropriate cases from other local authorities. I am satisfied that, once the authority is in position, these arrangements will work, despite the apparent fragility of relations between certain communities.
Lord Ezra: The noble and learned Lord seemed to attach considerable weight to a letter received from an official of the Consumers' Association. But I wonder whether he has seen all the other letters quoted by his noble friend Lord Elton from the leading retail organisations of the country, the CBI and all the big organisations concerned with trading standards. They are extremely concerned that the break-up and fragmentation of this service could prove very harmful to their efforts. These things need to be put together.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to comprehend why, in the case of the police and the fire service, the Government apparently decided that the esteemed local connection need not be maintained. They seem to feel that if any authority is taken out from the local level, local contact will not be maintained. Are they suggesting that the police will no longer have local contact with the inhabitants of the areas that they serve because they will be re-formed in three groups? Obviously that is not the case. It would not be the case for trading standards if they too were re-formed into three groups. The benefit would be that they could be of sufficient strength as units to carry out the highly
426
sophisticated tasks that they have to perform in tracking down counterfeiting and all the other activities to which reference has been made.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I have seen a number of the letters referred to but I cannot say that I have seen them all. I am aware of the kinds of points made in the letters. I did not quote the letter because it was the be-all and end-all but simply because it was a letter which put a different point of view; more particularly, it put the point of view of consumers, which was being represented as different from what the Consumers' Association was saying that it was.
With regard to the other points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of course the position of the police and fire services is different. By the nature of those services they have to be delivered in a different way. In the case of the services of trading standards, they can be delivered properly in the manner which I suggested, and that that can be done is suggested by the parallel of the environmental health service, which is delivered perfectly satisfactorily by a large number of authorities at present.
Lord Elton: On the question of consumers, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not think that the Consumers' Association is the only voice in the field. I believe I am right in saying that both the National Consumer Council and the. Consumer Council for Wales take the view that I advanced, and I shall take care to confirm that to my noble and learned friend between now and Report stage because this is a large and serious issue.
On the question of the proper size which will serve to render an effective service, it is important that my noble and learned friend answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I understand that the Secretary of State will be in a position to stand at long stop, and if he feels that arrangements are not satisfactory he will be able to intervene. The machinery for that at present is defective and I hope that a later amendment will show its defects. But, if it is to be operated, it is important to know on what criteria it will be operated. Therefore perhaps my noble and learned friend can say what is a sufficient minimum size that his right honourable friend would regard as viable.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I did not fail to answer the question, although I may have given an answer which was not satisfactory to my noble friend. My position is that there should be arrangements which deliver the service satisfactorily. It is in the situation where the arrangements have not worked satisfactorily—to use one of the tests in one of the later clauses—that the Secretary of State may intervene. Among other tests, the test is whether the arrangements are working satisfactorily.
I have not prescribed and do not purport to prescribe what would be the necessary size of authority to deliver a satisfactory service. The question is whether the service delivered is a satisfactory service.
Lord Elton: If the test is to be retrospective, it will be operating after the damage is done, possibly with

427
explosives and possibly with mad cow disease. That would be regrettable. However, we must not protract this matter too long this evening.
I am not uncomfortable at being in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, because I am used to it. But I am encouraged that he sees that there is a problem which may need a solution. I hope that when he looks again at our amendment he will see that it is a probing amendment showing a draft scheme and the question of the existence or not of the Principality of Wales does not arise.
I shall read with great care what was said by my noble and learned friend to see whether I can extract from it any more elements of persuasion than I was able to extract when I was listening to it. While I sympathise with his position, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, put his finger on the point when he pointed out that forming three or more co-operative groups does not take anything away from a local authority; indeed, it is precisely what is intended to happen under the Bill as drafted. The only difference is that we are asking the Secretary of State to ensure that it happens by some means; a specific means that we have illustrated in general terms in the amendment.
I had hoped that my noble and learned friend's response would be to find a different means by which the Secretary of State could ensure it which would be less offensive to him and possibly also to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I may therefore return at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Highways, Road Traffic and Transport]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 79, line 29, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the consent of).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 49 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. I also welcome the corrections to the grammar in these amendments which have appeared miraculously between their first appearance in print and their second. It adds a pleasing touch of literacy to our proceedings.
This amendment is intended to test the extent to which it is desirable or necessary for the Secretary of State to delegate specific functions under the Highways Act 1980 and what the relative responsibilities of different local authorities should be. What necessity is there for any such provision to be made, and made in such guarded terms?
"The Minister shall not delegate functions… except after consultation".
That means surely that after some form of consultation has been gone through the Secretary of State can do what he likes. It is a very considerable power. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether subsection (1) (b) sets right some existing anomaly. Does it fulfil some deeply felt need? Surely no council should be compelled to take on a highways function
428
against its will. Nor should a council cede the power to do something in its area to another council unless it is happy to do so.
May we also ask the noble and learned Lord whether this is really a large issue or a small one? Is it likely to be used frequently, or indeed is it ever likely to be used at all? Perhaps he could be obliging enough to explain to the Committee in what circumstances it is envisaged that the power to delegate a function to a council to do something to a highway in an area not its own against the wishes of the council in whose area its function is to be exercised is ever likely to be required. It is because we prefer consent to consultation, which is a very shifting sand of a word, even in abstruse and abstract and rarefied conditions like these, that we put forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Amendment No. 49 and Amendment No. 50 which is consequential upon it modify the amendments made in Schedule 7 to the Bill to Section 6 of the Highways Act 1980. Section 6 contains the power whereby the Secretary of State, as the highways authority for trunk roads, can delegate to local highway authorities performance of his maintenance and improvement functions. To use local highways authorities as agents in this matter is something which the Secretary of State is in the habit of doing.
At present, if it is desired to delegate such functions to a local highway authority in respect of trunk roads outside its area, this can only be done with the consent of the local highway authority within whose area the trunk road lies. The amendments to the Highways Act made in Schedule 7 remove the consent requirement and substitute a consultation requirement. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to maintain the consent requirement.
At present the Secretary of State has only eight agents—the eight counties. It follows, since all the eight counties act as his agents in this matter, that it would be very rare for it to be necessary for one highway authority to act outside its area because the Secretary of State, if he wished work done in another area, would simply use the agency of the neighbouring county authority. But in future there will be a much larger number of authorities not all of which would be used as agents of the Secretary of State for this matter after reorganisation. Therefore, in that situation the problem would arise more frequently that a local authority might be called on, when acting as the agent of the Secretary of State, to work in another local authority area. If one were in that situation, to maintain the consent provision the result would be to introduce the possibility of uncertainty and delay in getting this kind of work done.
I can add that the use of the consultation test is a reflection of what is already the position in relation to metropolitan counties and has been since 1985. Therefore, to that extent we are reflecting a practice under other legislation.
Similar considerations apply to Amendment No. 51 which also applies to Section 6 of the Highways Act 1980. Subsection 6(A), as amended by paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 7, will allow a Secretary of State's agent authority to sub-contract to another Welsh council in

429
respect of a trunk road outside the sub-contractor's area after consultation with the council in whose area the trunk road lies. Again, the amendment would substitute consent. However, again the Secretary of State believes that it is important that there should be the maximum flexibility to allow the best local authority expertise to be used in these circumstances. For that reason the matter of consultation again arises.
I hope that explains the matter to the Committee and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: Can the noble and learned Lord help us a little further? Of the 21 new authorities, how many are likely to be appointed agents of the Secretary of State for highway purposes?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The matter has not been decided. I have asked that very question. I understand that it is likely to be fewer than the eight authorities which do it at the moment. The exact number has not yet been decided on.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I believe that I find it helpful in so far as I have partially, tangentially and fleetingly understood it. Nevertheless, I feel somehow inexplicably relieved by what he has said, especially in answer to my noble friend's particular question. Reserving my right to come back to it at a later stage if I am not happy with what I read tomorrow in Hansard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos, 50 and 51 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 52:
After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 9A

WATER

  The Reservoirs Act 1975 (c. 23)
  1. In, section 2 of the Reservoirs Act 1975 (functions of local authorities), in subsection (1) —

  (a) omit "and Wales"; and

  (b) after "London boroughs" insert ", in Wales, the councils of counties and county boroughs".

  The Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)
  2. — (1) In section 191 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (duties to make recreational facilities available when building reservoirs in Wales), in subsection (2) (b), for "district" substitute "county or county borough".
  (2) In section 219 of that Act (interpretation), in subsection (1), 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 Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57)
  3.—

  (1) In section 10 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (composition of regional flood defence committees), in subsection (5), after "county," insert "county borough,".

  (2) In section 13 of that Act (composition of local flood defence committees), in subsection (7), after "county," insert "county borough,".

  (3) In section 140 of that Act (appeals relating to contributions from internal drainage boards), in subsection (1) (b), after "county" insert ", county borough".

  430

  (4) In section 167 of that Act (power to dispose of spoil in connection with flood defence works), in subsection (3), after "London borough" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".

  (5) In section 184 of that Act (duties to make recreational facilities available when building reservoirs in Wales), in subsection (2) (b), for "district" substitute "county or county borough".

  (6) In section 221 of that Act (general interpretadon), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), after "county," insert "county borough,".

  (7) In Schedule 8 to that Act (proceedings on applications for drought orders), in the Table in paragraph 1(2), for "a county" in each place substitute "an English county".

  (8) In Schedule 14 to that Act (orders transferring main river functions to the Authority), in paragraph 2(2) (a), after "county council" insert ", county borough council".

  (9) In Schedule 15 to that Act (drainage charges), in paragraph 13(4), after "London borough" in each place insert "or Welsh county or county borough".

  (10) In Schedule 16 to that Act (schemes imposing special drainage charges) —

  (a) in paragraph 1(2) (a) (i), after "county," insert "county borough,"; and

  (b) in paragraph 3(2) (a), after "county council" insert ', county borough council".

  (11) In Schedule 19 to that Act (orders conferring compulsory works powers), in paragraph 1(3) (a), for "a county" substitute "an English county".

LAND DRAINAGE
  The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (c. 50)
  4. In section 8 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (improvement of ways over fen-lands), in subsection (3), after "county" insert "or county borough".

  The Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59)
  5.—(1) In section 10 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (exercise of default powers by local authorities), in subsection (1), after "county," insert "county borough,".
  (2) In section 14 of that Act (general cliainage powers of boards and local authorities), in subsection (4) (b), for "a county" substitute "an English county".
  (3) In section 15 of that Act (disposal of spoil by boards and local authorities), in subsection (5), for "London borough," substitute "London borough or Welsh county or county borough,".
  (4) In section 16 of that Act (exercise of local authority powers under sections 14 and 15), in subsection (1), for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (3) and (3A)", in subsection (2), after "borough council" insert "or Welsh county council or county borough council", and at the end add—
  "(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to powers conferred on a Welsh county council or county borough council."
  (5) In section 18 of that Act (drainage of small areas), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) Subsection (1) above has effect in relation to land in Wales with the omission of the words "other than a district council"."
  (6) In section 20 of that Act (arrangements with other persons for carrying out drainage works), at the end add—
  "(5) Subsection (2) above has effect in relation to Wales with the omission of "other than the council of a non-metropolitan district"
  (7) In section 55 of that Act (powers to borrow), in subsection (2), after "county" insert ", county borough".
  (8) In section 57 of that Act (contributions by the NRA to expenses of internal drainage boards), in subsection (4) (b), after "county" insert ", county borough".
  (9) In section 58 of that Act (allocation of NRA revenue for its functions as an internal drainage board), in subsection (4), after "county" insert ", county borough".
  (10) In section 62 of that Act (powers to acquire land), in subsection (2), after "London borough" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".
  (11) In section 66 of that Act (powers to make byelaws), in subsections (1) and (2), for "a county" in each place substitute "an English county".
  (12) In section 72 of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), after "county," insert "county borough,".
  (13) In Schedule 2 to that Act (expenses and proceedings etc of internal drainage boards), in paragraphs 4(1) (b) and 5(1) (b), after "county" in each place insert ", county borough".
  (14) In Schedule 3 to that Act (procedure with respect to certain orders), in paragraph 2(2) (a), after "county council", insert ", county borough council".
  (15) In Schedule 4 to that Act (schemes for small drainage works), in paragraph 3(2), after "county," insert "county borough,"

COAST PROTECTION

  The Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74)
  6.—(1) In section 2 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (constitution of coast protection boards), in subsection (2) (a), after "county" insert "(other than one in Wales)".
  (2) In section 20 of that Act (contributions towards expenses of coast protection)—

  (a) in subsection (1), omit "or Wales";

  (b) in subsection (4), omit "or Wales";

  (c) in subsection (5), for "or Wales" substitute ", the council of a county or county borough in Wales".

  (3) In section 21 of that Act (grants), in subsection (1) (b), after "county" insert "or county borough".
  (4) In section 22 of that Act (incidental use of land acquired for coast protection), in subsection (2), for "or Wales" substitute ", the council of a county or county borough in Wales".
  (5) In section 45 of that Act (service of notices and other documents), in subsection (1) (b), after "county," insert "county borough,".
  (6) In section 49 of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "maritime district", after second "district" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".
  (7) In Schedule 1 to that Act (orders), in paragraph 1(a), after "county," insert "county borough,".")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
  Clause 22 [Fire Services]:
  Lord Prys-Davies moved Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 17, line 30, after ("until") insert ("on or after").
  The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It is to obtain confirmation from the Lord Advocate that the Home Office is fully satisfied that the proposed three combined fire authorities will be wholly operational on 1st April 1996.
  Amendment No. 55 is rather worrying. The amendment seeks to retain the existing obligation in the Fire Services Act 1947 requiring the Home Secretary to hold a public local inquiry. Since the consultative document was published, we have appreciated that it was intended to reduce the number of fire authorities to three. The last sentence of paragraph 4.3(8) had been interpreted in Wales as meaning that one would be able to rely on the safeguard of a public inquiry. That last sentence reads:
  "The combined authorities will be established by means of existing powers under the Fire Services Act 1947".
  If one reads the Fire Services Act 1947, one sees that its procedures include provision for a inquiry. If it was never intended that the procedure of the inquiry should
  432
  be available, why was that not made clear in the White Paper? Why was it not said that, although a public inquiry could be set up under the 1947 Act, one would not be available? A public inquiry is, after all, the safeguard. It gives one an opportunity to explore the operational effectiveness of the new proposals. One is concerned that it was not made clear in the White Paper that the public inquiry would not be available. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: On the first point, I confirm that the Home Secretary is satisfied that the provisions should be in place by 1st April.
  On the second point, the intention was not to hold inquiries. The provisions do not state that there will be an inquiry. The proposal to restructure the fire service in Wales had been subject to a lengthy consultation and the proposal for three authorities was set out fairly in the White Paper. There were then discussions between my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office and a number of the existing fire authorities in Wales which particularly wished their views to be taken into account on this matter. It was only after that that on 14th December last year the Home Secretary announced the scheme for the three authorities. Accordingly, there has been a long period for people to consider the proposals to establish three combined fire authorities and for their views to be made known.
  The matter can be debated by the Committee and the Bill makes explicit provision for the Secretary of State to consider representations from the affected authorities. In all those circumstances, it appears to the Government that an inquiry would not be necessary. Indeed, if an inquiry became protracted in any way, it might put in jeopardy the starting of the services on the necessary date. That has to be seen against the background that there has been a full period for consultation on the proposals.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. However, can he confirm that the existing fire authorities as well as the new principal councils will be given an opportunity to comment on the arrangements for their own locality?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I think that I have indicated that they have already had discussions with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. It was only after that that the proposals were brought forward.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I do not wish to press the amendment any further and beg leave to withdraw it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Police]:
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 18, line 15, leave out ("combination") and insert ("amalgamation").
  The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. Amendment No. 57 is a simple drafting

  433
  point. Schemes in relation to police authorities are known as amalgamation schemes rather than combination schemes. That would be more appropriate in the context of Clause 23.
  Amendment No. 58 is designed to ensure that the arrangements which provide the conditions under which an amalgamation scheme may be established should be continued after 1996. With the Bill as drafted, they seem to stop after 1996. We should like to ensure that what in our view are sound conditions should apply after 1996.
  Amendment No. 59 is designed to remove subsections (5), (6) and (7) in order to reinstate a requirement to hold local inquiries where there is no agreement between police authorities on a proposed amalgamation. It should be noted that Clause 10 of the current Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill removes the local inquiry procedure throughout England and Wales. Of course that clause is opposed. There is no good reason, in our view, for this Bill to anticipate the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill in this place, and so we should prefer that those subsections should be omitted.
  Amendment No. 60 would ensure that existing police authorities can be consulted on any proposed amalgamations. Apart from the drafting amendment that I proposed in Amendment No. 57, these are, in essence, probing amendments, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider them sympathetically. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: On this matter, if I may say so, "it's a fair cop". The drafting is defective. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to that matter. I accept the amendment.
  Clause 23(4) makes provision for a shadow police authority to be set up before it takes on its full powers as a police authority on 1st April 1996 so that it can take any steps which it feels necessary as a preliminary to the exercise of its full powers. It may, for example, wish to appoint staff and make financial preparations. But there is no intention that it should take up its full powers on any date other than the date of local government reorganisation, and it appears to the Government that the amendment is unnecessary. The alternative proposed by the amendment would seem to leave the new Welsh local authorities as police authorities in their own right, to be combined at some later stage. That would not be in the interests of a smooth transition to the new structure nor of the operational efficiency of the police services in Wales.
  Two of the other amendments would, as the noble Lord pointed out, subject a proposed scheme to a public inquiry or require the Secretary of State to consider from local authorities that were not directly affected representations about a proposed scheme.
  The Home Secretary's proposals for reforming the police service are set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which will come before this place tomorrow. Clause 23 has been included in the Bill in recognition of the need to make provision for the transfer of responsibility for police functions in the context of local government reorganisation, but in the expectation that those provisions may in due course be
  434
  overtaken by the provisions in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. Of course, it would not be proper for the Government to seek to prejudge Parliament's consideration of that Bill.
  Clause 23(7) therefore makes explicit provision for the authorities affected to make representations about a proposed scheme and for those comments to be taken into account. The position is broadly analogous to that which currently exists in England as a result of a comparable provision in the Local Government Act 1992.
  New amalgamation schemes have to be made and the first amendment would introduce unnecessary delay into that process. A public inquiry would seem not relevant because the changes here would be minor, consequential on the local government changes in the Bill.
  The third amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, could result in an amalgamation scheme not being ready to come into effect on 1st April 1996, and that would be undesirable.
  I have no doubt that before my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary makes a scheme he will wish to take into account all relevant considerations. However, we are reluctant to spell out a specific duty to consider representations from any authority which may have no direct interest in the particular proposal. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will bear in mind that it is the duty of anyone in the position of Secretary of State to have regard to all relevant considerations when he is making a decision of this kind. In the circumstances, if a relevant representation were made from some other authority he would have to take it into account.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response to these amendments. I am not entirely happy about his response to Amendment No. 58 and would like to study his comments in Hansard tomorrow. Therefore, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. In the light of the noble and learned Lord's comments about Amendment No. 57, I commend it to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 not moved.]
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Provision of services by one new principal council for another]:
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 18, line 37, leave out ("services") and insert ("any activity or service").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 61 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 64. The amendment deals with a small point. In principle, the provisions of Clause 24(1) are welcomed by Members on this side of the Committee. We have no difficulties with them. New councils must be able to share specialist resources between each other through trading with each other. However, the amendment, which replicates wording in a piece of Scottish legislation, makes it clear

  435
  that trading agreements can relate to part of a service as an activity and not just to whole services. That would be an improvement.
  As regards Amendment No. 62, the subsections give the Secretary of State the power to restrict agreements between authorities in any way that he sees fit. We cannot understand the purpose of that provision. What is the point of such restrictions? Are the Government intending to exclude from agreements between authorities, for instance, all those services covered by compulsory competitive tendering? That would prevent a private supplier being tested against the best available local authority supply. Our amendment simply seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to restrict agreements. If the Government can provide justification for that power—and I shall look to the noble and learned Lord for that—we may produce a more limited amendment at a later stage.
  Amendment No. 64 is supported by the Assembly of Welsh Counties. Archives are a difficult matter in Wales. I speak personally because the archives in Powys are held by the county council in Llandrindod Wells and the council is extremely worried that the archives will be broken up and that a great deal of valuable material will be lost. We need to hear from the Government exactly how they intend to operate that subsection. It is a matter of concern and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to offer us some comfort in that regard. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The effect of Amendment No. 61 would be to insert the words: "any activity or service". In the context of this legislation, the term "services" appears to be sufficiently wide to cover any possibility, including the provision of specialist services.
  The noble Lord drew attention to a similar provision in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill which will come before the House in due course. As the noble Lord will have noted, the wording there is a little different because it talks about allowing an authority to:
  "carry out…any activity or service".
  The Committee will observe that there is a difference between the Scottish and Welsh Bills because the Scottish Bill deals with agreements for the carrying out of an activity or service whereas this Bill deals with agreements for the provision of services. Merely to substitute the words, "any activity or service" would not make the legislation run. Therefore, the difference comes from the wording chosen by the respective draftsmen of the two Bills. I believe that the width of service provided for in this Bill covers all that is required.
  Amendment No. 62 removes the power of the Secretary of State to restrict the scope for service agency agreements by regulation. The Government do not consider it necessary for local authorities to be able to compete for contracted-out contracts outside their areas. There is already an adequate market available within the private sector to meet authorities' needs in those areas
  436
  It is because it is thought proper to introduce private sector involvement in those activities that the legislation provides for such an approach.
  It seems to the Government to be undesirable to encourage other authorities to bid for the contracts or services in that area. The geographical restriction would also seem to be appropriate. For example, it would be undesirable to encourage Anglesey to buy services from an authority in South Wales, there being such a great distance between them. Therefore, in that situation it is thought that it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to impose a geographical restriction.
  Amendment No. 64 is not necessary because the Bill does nothing to remove the statutory responsibility from the contracting council. A private sector contract does not mean that the statutory responsibility transfers to the private contractor. Therefore, there is no reason why that should be so under a service agency agreement. So it does not seem that that is necessary. I think the noble Lord also spoke to the matter of archives in Amendment No. 63. The effect of this amendment would be to keep existing collections of archive—
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry. I did inadvertently also speak to Amendment No. 63, but I am sure my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos will wish to move it and speak to it himself when we reach it. I apologise if I misled the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I would not wish to trespass on that amendment. In that case I have concluded my remarks on the amendments.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am not entirely happy with his response to Amendment No. 62. I am reasonably satisfied with his response to Amendment No. 61, but I thought his remarks about restricting agreements between authorities smacked a little of the old Tory dogma against public enterprise and in favour of private enterprise which I thought we were gradually getting away from. However, if the Government wish to pursue that rather tortuous path they are entitled to do so. As regards Amendment No. 64, again I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said and I shall not move it when we reach it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 61.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 19, line 26, 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 existing archive repository empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, that council shall become responsible for the Archive Service in the area of the old authorities to which its existing collections relate.").
  The noble Lord said: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for referring to this. To ensure that I am in order I wish to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, that is Amendment No. 63.

  437
  As the Committee should know, there is a good deal of concern about the effect of the Bill as it stands upon local authorities" responsibilities for archives. The White Paper made a specific reference to archives but the Bill is silent on the subject and we are left without any guidance as to the list of archival services for which the proposed councils are to be responsible.
  I wish to quote from the White Paper to clarify the matter. Paragraph 4.21 states:
  "The new authorities will need to establish arrangements for the safeguarding of archives… It is likely to be necessary for at least some of the new authorities to establish co-operative arrangements to secure these services efficiently and effectively. The Government proposes transitional arrangements".
  But no transitional arrangements have been announced. Indeed it would seem that by virtue of paragraph 11 of the fourteenth schedule to the Bill every one of the 21 new principal councils will become an archives authority unless, of course, they enter into a Clause 24 arrangement.
  The position is therefore unclear. The danger is—and it must be avoided—that these valuable archive collections will be broken up and fragmented. The basic arid well understood principle of an archival collection is that any group or collection of documents originating from one organisation or individual should be maintained as a unit.
  I understand that the cost of a new records office would be in the region of £2 million and that the average running cost is about £250,000. As the Bill stands, there is the risk that the existing comprehensive unit could on transfer be dispersed between small, inadequately staffed and underfunded repositories. Incidentally, I doubt whether this would be acceptable—this is an important point—to the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with its responsibility for the care and preservation of the records of Quarter Sessions and magistrates' courts. It is unthinkable that the public records of centuries should be put at risk by this Bill or that they should no longer be available in Wales.
  The purpose of the amendment is to limit by statute the councils empowered to hold archives to those which are already so empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962. For all those reasons I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Teviot: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, does not mind if I speak before him. I heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in this amendment. He explained very well the present situation relating to archives.
  Perhaps I may go over the situation in Wales. There is an excellent record office in Glamorgan. Dyfed has three record offices in Carmarthen, Haverfordwest and Cardigan. Gwynnedd has two or three in the three counties. Clwyd also has record offices. In relation to Powys, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, it would be a tragedy if anything happened to the records held in Llandrindod Wells or if the responsibility was devolved.
  One could also say something about the archive heritage and the importance of keeping archives
  438
  together. An archivist is an important person. An archivist is not a librarian. It is a discipline. The conditions in which archives are stored are also important. The right humidity is very important.
  We are not only talking about the heritage. There is also the question of on-going accessions. There are all sorts of records which require instant retrieval. They have to be kept in the right way. It would be much better if there were a few centres. It should be possible to get together and agree to retain the present set-up rather than setting up archives in small unitary authorities which are not kept by specialists. Archivists are very much specialists.
  Lord Elton: Perhaps I may say a word about heritage archives or historical documents. They are of a peculiar nature. They relate to particular places. Historical researchers go to those places to look at them. The process of concentration makes the task easier because one goes to a single centre to cover a larger area. To break up a collection is crazy, because it has to be broken up to the areas from which it has come or else it has no meaning. It becomes irretrievable. That creates enormous damage to our historical heritage. Therefore, I hope that there is no question of that happening.
  I have to confess that I have only just looked at the matter. But having dealt with the question of archives in an earlier reorganisation, I warmly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, proposes.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Having jumped the gun recently on this matter, I have very little to add except to say that I wholly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I also bring the noble and learned Lord a message on this very matter from the Radnor Society, which approached me because I am a resident of Radnorshire. It is to the effect that the Powys records in Llandrindod Wells must not be broken up because otherwise many valuable records would undoubtedly be lost with the dispersion which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, would take place.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The effect of the proposed amendment would be to keep the existing collections of archive material together and also to keep the areas to which the collections relate intact.
  The amendment does not make any provision for any kind of agency arrangement. The result would therefore seem to be that, where an existing county was split into two or more new areas, the new council which covered the location where the archives were currently held would in effect inherit all the records and would therefore be solely responsible for the archive service which related to records which were concerned with the area of the old county. As a result, members elected for one area would have full and exclusive responsibility for this function in relation to another area or areas of the county—areas for which they were not elected. That does not seem to be a satisfactory arrangement.
  Of course, where one has custom-built buildings— as there are in various places in Wales—which are very satisfactory for the keeping of records, one would expect that local authorities would, as the White Paper suggests, come to arrangements among themselves for

  439
  the safekeeping of archives. One would expect that some authorities would need to establish co-operative arrangements to secure the delivery of those services efficiently and effectively. Members of the Committee have already drawn attention to the safeguard which is mentioned in the White Paper: that any arrangements made will continue to need the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to officially designated public records.
  I cannot accept an amendment which would prescribe lead authorities in this area for this purpose and which would in effect limit the freedom of the new authorities to make voluntary co-operative arrangements as would seem most suitable in the particular local circumstances. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I find myself in some difficulty, having listened to the noble and learned Lord. He made some important points. However, he failed to deal with the main thrust of my argument—it was supported by other noble Lords—namely, that archives should be preserved in their totality in the areas where they are currently deposited. If there are difficulties in the way, perhaps I may suggest to the noble and learned Lord that, if he sees flaws in my amendment, it is his duty and the duty of the Government to say that they will produce other amendments by Report stage to deal with the problem.
  The Minister has not disagreed with the position. Although he intended to be helpful, he has failed to be helpful. I plead with him to consider the issue again. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if he gives me an undertaking that by Report stage he will have considered the matter and will produce amendments which meet the point I seek to make.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am happy to consider further in detail what has been said. In the light of such consideration, if there appears to be an appropriate amendment to be made, I shall bring an amendment forward at that stage. I stress that it appears to us that the appropriate way forward on this matter is by co-operation among the local authorities concerned. However, I take on board the points which the noble Lord made.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may emphasise to the noble and learned Lord the importance of the problem. He seemed to imply in his reply that the new unitary authorities will voluntarily arrive at agreements about the depositing of archives. Perhaps he would like to talk to councillors of Montgomery, Radnor and Brecknock. He might come to a conclusion that it will be extremely difficult for them to arrive at an agreement and that it is up to the Government to ensure that the appropriate archives are stored in the appropriate places, with no loss.
  It is an important point. I hope that we can take the noble and learned Lord at his word when he states that he will reconsider the point and perhaps bring forward an amendment at Report.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I too may make a plea to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider carefully the amendment moved by my noble friend. Will the noble and learned Lord explain to the Committee the role and duty of the Lord Lieutenant, exercising his old office of Custos Rotulorum? What is his responsibility? Is it just a matter for the local authorities, or even the Lord Chancellor's Department? I am sure that we would seek assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that this is not to be left to the Secretary of State and the local authorities. We need an arrangement that will be acceptable to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the Lord Lieutenants.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I fear that I could not give the Committee a full exposition of the role of the Lord Lieutenant as custos rotulorum. However, the simple fact remains that, whatever arrangements are made, they must be satisfactory to the Lord Chancellor's officials. Therefore, whatever is required at the end of the day to satisfy them must be done. That seems, in my respectful submission, to be an important safeguard when we are considering all those matters.
  I have noted what Members of the Committee have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I shall reflect further upon it.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Service delivery plans]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 19, line 42, leave out ("31st March 1996") and insert ("30th September 1995").
  The noble Lord said: By way of background to this amendment, I remind the Committee that in our discussions on Amendments No. 48 and 53 my noble and learned friend said that his right honourable friend would act retrospectively only if shared services were not being properly delivered. I was not quick enough then, but it is relevant now to ask the Committee to look at Clause 29(1) on page 22 which states,
  "Where it appears to the Secretary of State … that particular functions",
  and then it continues,
  "(b) that satisfactory arrangements for the exercise of those functions will not be, or are unlikely to be, in force on or after 1st April 1996… he may, at any time before 31st March 1999, give a direction to the councils concerned".
  That is clearly both a preventive and a retrospective power.
  If we go back to Clause 25 on page 19, where my amendment strikes, we read that the new principal authorities are to be required to:
  "prepare and publish a plan ('a service delivery plan') … describing the manner in which they propose to perform their functions during the period beginning on 1st April 1996".
  But they are required to do it only by the specified date, which is 31st March 1996, a split second before the service has to be provided. That seems a quite extraordinary provision, since presumably one of the

  441
  purposes of producing a service delivery plan is to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether he wishes to use his preventive power under Clause 29.
  This is a probing amendment which moves that specified date forward six months so that there shall not just be a micro-second but at least a few months in which the Secretary of State can make up his mind. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps I may indicate that the Government see the force of my noble friend's observations. The Government's present thinking is that draft plans should be published in about October 1995 and the final plans in January 1996. It therefore seems that the idea of bringing forward the requirement to publish final plans by a full six months would be rather ambitious, but the point is taken that the date at present in the Bill is defective in the way in which my noble friend has pointed out. We shall consider the matter further and come back at Report stage.
  Lord Elton: Having received that unexpectedly encouraging reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 19, line 45, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
  It appears to us that there is an oddity in Clause 25. Subsection (3), which the amendment is designed to leave out —simply to have an argument to hang on; it is not meant to be an amendment in the true sense of the word—states that,
  "a council shall take into account any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to consultation, the contents of the plan and the manner of its publication".
  We then find in subsection (4) that the,
  "council's service delivery plan shall be published in such manner as the council consider likely to bring it to the attention of persons", etc., etc.
  It seems to us that subsection (4) would allow the council to decide to ignore the guidance of the Secretary of State and be entitled to do so by the words of the Bill. Either subsection (3) holds or subsection (4) holds. There seems to be inconsistency between the two. I beg to move.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I remind the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 67.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that there is no inconsistency between the two subsections. Subsection (4) is in the end the one which would rule, in the sense that it says that the plan will be published in the manner which,
  "the council consider likely to bring it to the attention of persons … who may be affected by the performance of their functions".
  Therefore, at the end of the day the council has to publish the plan, having considered how it is likely to bring it to the attention of persons who may be affected.
  442
  In considering that matter, the council would take into account—only take into account—any guidance which will be given inter alia on the manner of publication. So the Secretary of State could give guidance on this matter as to notifications, the way in which the plan might be published, and what intimations could be given which might be most likely to bring it to the attention of people. But at the end of the day how that is to be done, what manner of publication would in the particular circumstances of any particular council be most effective, would be for the council to decide, taking into account the guidance given by the Secretary of State.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Having taken in to account the guidance given by the Secretary of State, the council could ignore it. Is that the right answer?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is a matter of law that, where any body has to take account of advice, or whatever it may be, at the end of the day, if there is a power for it to do as in subsection (4), having taken it into account it could decide to do something different. But it would have to take the advice into account. If it does not take it into account, then it fails in its duty. But provided it takes such advice into account, at the end of the day it has to decide what in its own particular circumstances, having taken account of the guidance, is the best way to make the notification.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble and learned Lord give me a straight answer? Having taken into account the guidance of the Secretary of State, the council is then free to ignore it. It may take into account the guidance from the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Opposition Front Bench or anybody else, but it is free to ignore it, just as it is free to ignore the guidance of the Secretary of State. 'The only difference is that it is obliged to read what the Secretary of State has sent and take it into account. But a council can ignore it. Is the answer yes or no?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: A council can ignore it; it can go and do something else. But before it does that something else, it must have taken account of the guidance. That is quite a common kind of provision which is to be found in all sorts of legislation.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: It can ignore the guidance.
  My probing amendment to leave out subsection (3) becomes rather more substantive. I see no point in the Secretary of State, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Opposition Front Bench or anybody else giving guidance or advice if at the end of the day the council can say: "Thank you very much for your advice; we now ignore all that". The two notions are in contradiction. Nevertheless, if that is what the Government feel they want to put on the face of the Bill, at this hour of night I shall not rock the boat by pushing the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 19, line 47, at end insert ("and this shall include guidance to establish service delivery plans for children and young persons in each council area").
  The noble Lord said: I do not apologise for detaining the Committee for a little time this evening on what I regard as the most fundamental aspect of social policy; namely, services for children and young people.
  These amendments specify one particular service of social policy for the unitary authorities. I suspect that what the Government will say is that it is not necessary to specify this service more than any other. However, I suggest that this service in particular is one which requires strengthening at present in Wales and indeed in other parts of the UK and Europe. It is also a service which may suffer as a result of the transfer of responsibilities.
  I know that in the guidance which refers to the position of area committees there are specific references to social services. But I believe that it is essential for us to have from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate this evening some assurances about the position of children's services.
  There is no need for me to detain the Committee in specifying the negative side of this whole area. There is increased evidence of children being at risk and there has been substantial coverage of all these issues in the media. At the moment there are cases of major child abuse to which I shall not specifically refer but which are before the courts. There is grave concern in the professional area and among all those who are concerned for the welfare of children not only about the level of abuse which is now being identified but also about the way in which both the legal services, through the court systems, and the social services function in relation to prevention and in dealing with the whole issue of child abuse.
  Indeed, the Welsh Office itself has recognised the essential importance of a coherent approach to children's services by funding the Children in Wales Forum. Moreover, other major voluntary bodies working in the field have recently presented their views to the department. On Monday of last week the NSPCC organised a national conference in Wales, at Llandrindod Wells, at which the whole issue of how we should proceed on a strategy for children was debated. Representatives of local authorities and the specialists in the field were there.
  It seems to me that there is an opportunity in this Bill for the Welsh Office to further a strategic approach toward children's services on an all-Wales basis. I believe that such a strategy exists in draft form but has not been implemented. This also gives an opportunity for the local authorities to pursue policies and services which will lead not only to a reduction in child abuse but to the provision of services of child care both pre-school and after school, combining the need for education provision and day care provision with the preventive and child protection services which I set out in Amendment No. 68.
  I believe that the issue of the welfare of children and young people, seen as future citizens of our society, is absolutely fundamental at the moment to our approach
  444
  to social policy. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can indicate that that aspect of social policy provision is central to the Government's approach in this Bill and to Welsh Office policy. I beg to move.
  Lord Prys-Davies: The fact that these amendments were tabled reflects the anxiety felt generally in Wales about the future of the child protection services after reorganisation. I have received conflicting advice over the past few days regarding the merits of the amendments. I understand that they are fully supported by the NSPCC and by the Children in Wales Forum. The latter is making a great contribution to children and young people in Wales, particularly those who are too young to defend themselves. On the other hand, a senior social worker whom I consulted over the weekend found it difficult to give me a comprehensive view of the merits of the amendments.
  This is not the time of the evening to probe the merits of the amendments. The point being made by the senior social worker was that one ought to be pressing for a statutory commitment that each authority should have its own social services committee. I shall listen carefully to what the noble and learned Lord says. I shall be grateful if he can tell us—if he does not have the figures, that is fine—precisely how many children are on the child protection register in Wales, and how many children are in child care in Wales. That information may not be readily available. But if we are to return to this matter at Report stage, then it would be helpful for that information to be made available.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: In the end, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, anticipated my reply. In fact, the amendments are not necessary. That is not to say that the noble Lord has not touched on a topic which, as I am sure all Members of the Committee are aware, is one of great importance and has been given high profile over the past few years.
  The effect of Amendment No. 67 would be to impose on new authorities, in their shadow year, a duty to produce a separate plan for children's and young persons' services, in addition to any general service delivery plan. We believe that to be unnecessary because the general service delivery plans will make reference to all local government service functions and will therefore include coverage of social services within which must fall the services for children and young people. To separate off the children's services would detract in some way from the totality of the general plan which must of course apply equally to the delivery of services to other vulnerable groups such as the elderly. That is not in any way to underestimate the importance of the delivery of services to children; it is simply to stress that that will inevitably be part of the preparations for social services to be delivered by the new authority.
  I have more difficulty with Amendment No. 68. I am not sure what is intended. If it is intended in some way to create a separate committee of the council to deal with child protection matters, then that would be a breach of Section 2 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, which stipulates that a social services committee must be responsible for social

  445
  services matters, and that would therefore deal with child protection. It would therefore seem technically not to be in order.
  Again, the necessary type of committee is already in position. If it is not quite that but some other sort of committee that is required, then area child protection committees are already established throughout Wales in accordance with guidance published in the paper Working Together, and following on the report of the Cleveland inquiry. I cannot provide the noble Lord with the figures to which he referred. What I can say is that the guidance issued after Cleveland will continue to apply to the new authorities and therefore they will be expected to discharge their responsibilities in the light of that guidance.
  In that situation it seems to the Government that this kind of amendment is not necessary. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has indeed spotted the intention of Amendment No. 68, which is to draw out the whole question of the role of the area child protection committees post Cleveland. I am grateful for his
  446
  reassurance that that guidance will still apply to unitary authorities. I am still concerned about the question of the need for a comprehensive approach to children's services which applies not just to social services but to education services as well. In response to the crisis in child care and child protection which we are facing in Wales and other places at the moment, it seems to me that we need to look again at the way in which we deliver these services and to place clearer guidance on local authorities, not through the means of the service delivery proposals of the Bill but perhaps directly from the Welsh Office. With the reassurances from the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.