COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 30 June 1994)

§ Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
My Lords, I beg to move mat the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56.
A similar amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, at Third Reading in this House. I think at mat time I was able to indicate to the House that the Government welcomed that proposal in principle but wished to take it away to consider the drafting with a view to returning with their own proposal.
The clause which is before your Lordships is the product of that consideration. In drawing it up, the Government consulted with the Public Record Office. I hope that it meets the anxieties of those who expressed a great deal of interest in the matter when it came before your Lordships. As your Lordships will see, the new clause requires authorities to draw up schemes setting out their arrangements for the care, preservation and management of their records. The schemes are required to describe any shared arrangements which an authority may have entered into regarding custody of its records, and the schemes must make provision for the authorities holding custody of the records to allow the owning authority to inspect its own records and to take copies of them.
Before making—or indeed before modifying—a scheme, an authority will be required to consult the Secretary of State and he will wish to consider whether the arrangements described in the scheme are 892 satisfactory and comply with any statutory requirements. As your Lordships will see, the authorities will be required to have regard to any advice which he may give.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhes
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his constructive and helpful remarks.
Throughout every stage of the Bill in this House we have had a great deal of discussion about the need to safeguard the records which are now in the care of the county repositories. I remember that your Lordships were very patient with me when I spoke in support of the three different amendments which I tabled at the different stages. Your Lordships were also supportive of the general case which I sought to make.
The amendment to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and which I moved at Third Reading, had been carefully drafted in the light of the best advice which was available to me at that time. It was based on the precedent in the Scottish local authority Bill which is now in Committee. It had the support of Lords Lieutenant in Wales —who have a responsibility for some of the public records —historians and the professional bodies with a special interest in archives. The Secretary of State for Wales confirmed to me mat the amendment was acceptable, subject to advice from the draftsman. So the matter was left on the basis tint the Government would table their own amendment which would reflect the principles of the amendment which was before the House at Third Reading.
The Government have now produced that amendment, as they promised they would do—I appreciate that very much—and it has of course been passed in another place. I must confess one dung; namely, mat I and those who have been advising me would have preferred the more precise text of the amendment which was tabled at Third Reading. But I believe that this achieves the same end. I would nevertheless ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he can confirm that Amendment No. 56 achieves the same end as the amendment tabled at Third Reading.

§ Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
My Lords, I am happy to confirm that. I think to some extent the difference between the two texts is accounted for by the fact—I believe I referred to this on the previous occasion—that, for example, whereas the Scottish Bill requires local authorities to make proper arrangements for the; preservation and management of their records, that provision is inserted because there is no equivalent, provision elsewhere in the legislation for Scotland, whereas, even now, there is, in Section 224 of the local government Act applying to Wales, a provision that authorities should indeed make proper arrangements with respect to documents. Therefore, although there are slight differences between the two texts, the amendment has the effect which the noble Lord's amendment had.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord.

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, I welcome this amendment. It at least inserts into the Bill a clause on archives. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given my noble friend Lord Cledwyn the assurance that he has asked for—that this amendment will achieve the same end as the amendment tabled at Third Reading. There is just one other point that I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to confirm. In practice will the Secretary of State, when exercising his powers under this amendment, be consulting with the Lord Chancellor or the Public Record Office before he issues advice under subsection (4) of the amendment? Finally, I am sure that I must place on the record the appreciation of Welsh historians and archivists for the tremendous effort which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has made on their behalf, and for what he has successfully achieved.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, I think we would all wish to echo—

Viscount Ullwater
My Lords, I believe the noble Lord and now the noble Baroness are out of order. This is consideration of Commons amendments and I think it is not considered proper to speak after the Minister has spoken.