HL Deb 17 January 1994 vol 551 cc388-429

House again in Committee on Schedule 1.

[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]

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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 14: Page 50, line 29, after ("Bedwas") insert ("Trethomas").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 34: 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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". 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: [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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 52: After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule:

("SCHEDULE 9A