HL Deb 03 June 1998 vol 590 cc438-62

(". Where the Assembly proposes to make relevant Welsh subordinate legislation other than Assembly general subordinate legislation in the form of guidance to local planning authorities, the subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for securing that an appraisal is carried out comparing the proposed guidance with any similar guidance in force or proposed for England, and for the appraisal to be published before the Assembly makes a decision whether to issue the guidance.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment returns to the thorny problem of subordinate legislation. The Bill makes provision for the handling by the assembly of assembly general subordinate legislation; that is to say, legislation required to be made by statutory instrument.

However, the Bill makes no minimum requirements for other subordinate legislation, such as circulars, guidance or directions. Thus, it would be possible, for example, for the assembly to go against the drafting of planning circulars to the relevant assembly secretaries. Town and country planning legislation operates in such a way that that guidance for Ministers has been very important in creating the conditions in which the law operates. Welsh farmers must not be disadvantaged by planning guidance which, for example, would make it more difficult for them to obtain consent for diversified farm enterprises as compared with their counterparts in England. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an appraisal is carried out comparing proposed planning guidance for Wales with any similar guidance in force or proposed for England, such appraisal to be published before the assembly proceeds to issue the guidance.

Perhaps this amendment should have been grouped with my Amendment No. 64, which dealt with the problem of who should adjudicate in planning appeals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replied that such a job will be transferred to the assembly and said: I dare say in due time the assembly will wish to give careful attention".—[Official Report, 2/6/98; col. 225.]

I suspect that the Minister will reply in a similar manner to Amendment No. 197A. That gives rise to the question as to whether the Committee can make any suggestions as to how to improve the Bill by making it more definitive. I hope that the Minister and the Committee might be a little more definitive on this matter. After all, guidelines for planning appeals, and so on, have an overall UK significance. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

This is a difficult subject. Planning appeals, in particular, are highly contentious. Much of the material for planning appeals revolves around the guidance and how it is interpreted by the local planning authority, and so on. I think I know what the answer will be because the amendment is similar to amendments moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in an attempt to ensure that nothing should be done in Wales which disadvantaged Welsh business against English business. This amendment could be said to be similar, relating to a position where someone in Wales who wants to undertake some business venture finds it more difficult to obtain planning permission than does his competitor just over the border in England under the same primary legislative planning laws.

If the primary legislation is the same, are we sure that it will be "safe" from legal challenge if it ends up, having gone through the Welsh assembly and come out as guidance, different in some degree from what has gone through the UK Parliament and has come out as English guidance? Will there be some tracking back up one tree and down another by the clever lawyers who make their living out of planning inquiries? They are a pretty astute bunch, it has to be said. The Minister, who is equally astute, will have to be absolutely certain that in the future people will not be able to play planning guidelines on one side of the border against planning guidelines on the other side of the border, when both derive from the same primary legislation.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

Those last points are well considered and are well taken. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said. The primary legislation will remain common to both jurisdictions. The assembly will not have the capacity to amend it. However, within that framework the assembly needs proper room for manoeuvre in adjusting planning policies to Welsh circumstances. We do not believe that a formal requirement of the type envisaged by the proposed new clause would assist that process.

The position is not the same in Wales and in England at present. Unlike the position in England, planning policy guidance to Welsh authorities is embodied in two self-standing documents which are supplemented by a series of technical advice notes. In England the system is different, where there is a series of planning policy guidance notes, which some of us happily recognise as having sustained us over the past years as PPGs.

The Welsh documents cover much of the same ground as the English documents. But they are not the same and are differently presented. I therefore recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said and the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. However, the primary legislation remains the same. There is no opportunity for amendment of the legislation. There is the same area of manoeuvre as is generally available to the Secretary of State at the moment. Of course it is the Secretary of State's functions which are devolved to the assembly.

I have taken a little trouble to tease out the situation. At the end of the day there is not much difference between the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and myself on the general approach.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

It was not just planning that I had in mind; I was thinking also of other guidance notes. It is late in the evening, but I am surprised that the planning guidance lines are different in Wales from England. The few odd guidance lines that I have come across—one particularly, needless to say, was in relation to wind farms—were the same in the two countries. However, I shall look at the matter again.

My noble friend Lord Mackay raises a real problem. I shall consider what the Minister said, because there may still be an issue in this regard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 [Disapplication of procedural requirements]:

[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 [Financial initiative]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 199:

Page 35, line 38, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201:

Page 35, line 42, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 70 [Preservation of order]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201A:

Page 36, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—

("( ) In particular, standing orders made for preserving order in such proceedings must include provision for—

  1. (a) preventing conduct which would constitute a criminal offence, and
  2. (b) a sub judice rule, and may include").

The noble Lord said: Within this group of amendments are an important number of matters. Essentially, they relate to the conduct of the assembly's public proceedings in plenary session or in committee.

Amendment No. 201A brings this Bill into line on this point with the Scotland Bill by requiring, rather than permitting, the assembly's standing orders to include provision preventing criminal acts in the course of proceedings, and also requiring the assembly to adopt a sub judice rule in respect of its debates. Standing orders could then, if the assembly wished, also include provision for excluding members from proceedings and for withdrawing their rights and privileges. Amendments Nos. 201B, 202B and 202C are then designed to secure consistency of language in reference to the proceedings of the assembly or its committees.

The amendments proposed to Clause 73—Amendments Nos. 202D to 202J—are mainly to improve the drafting. But Members of the Committee should particularly note Amendment No. 202F. As drafted, the clause is concerned with preventing or restricting a member's participation in assembly plenary or committee proceedings if he or she has a registrable interest. Amendment No. 202F, however, adds a new element: standing orders may include provisions preventing or restricting a member of the executive committee from exercising a function if he or she has a registrable interest in any matter to which the function relates. This reflects the fact that, following adoption of the amendments to permit a cabinet system to operate, decisions will frequently be taken by individual assembly secretaries rather than by committees. Standing orders may make similar provision in respect of the chairman or other authorised person who is permitted to act for the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee under subsection (6) of Clause 60.

Amendments Nos. 202K and 203A seek to make drafting improvements, but Amendment No. 204A is a little more important. This amendment has been tabled following an undertaking given to Opposition Conservative spokesmen in another place that we would seek to clarify the scope of absolute privilege afforded to assembly members in assembly proceedings. The amplification provided by proposed new subsection (2) to Clause 78 is entirely modelled on the provisions in the Defamation Act 1996. In particular paragraph (2)(e) allows absolute privilege to be claimed in respect of a statement and any communication about registration of interests. That is taken from the 1996 Act. It is important to ensure that individuals who are concerned that assembly members have not followed the rules about registration of interests should be able to communicate that to the proper persons without fear of incurring liability and defamation.

Amendment No. 204B is a drafting amendment designed to secure consistency of language in references to assembly, plenary or committee proceedings—in this case in relation to liability for contempt of court. Amendment No. 212B is simply a consequential amendment flowing from the changes proposed to Clause 78.

In a sense this is a technical set of amendments, but they are important to facilitate proper standards of integrity on the part of members of the executive committee and to protect freedom of speech in the assembly through the changes to Clause 78. At this stage, therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 201 A.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

I thank the Minister for taking us through these very important amendments, which we welcome. They help to allay concerns that were expressed earlier about actions or failures on the part of the assembly, assembly members and its officials. We respect the fact that they are intended to maintain high levels of integrity and, at the same time, safeguard freedom of speech.

Lord Hooson

We regard these amendments as essential for the good working of the assembly. It is difficult to see them slightly out of context, but we think that they meet the requirements. If we have any reservations we can come back with them on Report.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

If any of your Lordships have reservations, and you felt able to communicate them to me, then if there were any difficulties in drafting I would be more than happy to meet those matters.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 71 [Openness]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201B:

Page 36, line 33, leave out from ("any") to first ("to") in line 35 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee) which have taken place, or are to take place,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202:

Page 36, line 38, leave out ("alleging maladministration by the Assembly") and insert ("about actions or failures on the part of the Assembly and for dealing with reports by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and the Health Service Commissioner for Wales of investigations pursuant to complaints relating to the Assembly").

The noble Lord said: This is a new group of amendments starting at Amendment No. 202 and ending eventually at Amendment No. 273. Amendment No. 202 relates to Clause 71 by inserting references to the new office of Welsh administration ombudsman and the existing office of Health Service Commissioner for Wales. I said earlier that we have listened with some care to observations put forward in another place about whether or not we should have a Welsh administration ombudsman, and I think that this new view has been generally welcomed. In speaking to Amendment No. 202, I shall, with the Committee's leave, speak to the new schedules, which it is proposed should be inserted into the Bill, relating to both these offices and also to consequential amendments.

In the White Paper we indicated that we wanted to extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to cover the work of the assembly. At that time we were going to follow the precedent of the Wales Act 1978. However, the parliamentary commissioner himself suggested a different approach; that is, the creation of a new office of Welsh administration ombudsman. We gave that very careful thought. Having done that, it involved a quite significant change of direction as far as concerns the drafting of the Bill. If any of your Lordships chide me that there is a good deal of re-amendment to be done, I accept that charge. But I plead guilty on the basis that the cause is worthy. It is only now that we can come forward with the extensive amendments necessary. We are persuaded that the parliamentary commissioner's approach is right.

The principal considerations leading us to that conclusion were the inappropriateness of an officer of Parliament, as the commissioner is treated, having dealings with, and reporting to, members of another elected body; and difficulties connected with the remedial process where maladministration was found, given that no Minister would be accountable to Parliament for the assembly's performance of its functions and any remedies offered.

The detail is set out in Part I of the first new schedule. Appointments, remuneration and so forth are closely modelled on the 1967 Act which established the parliamentary commissioner. On remuneration, your Lordships may wish to look at paragraph 4(2) of the schedule. That provides for no remuneration to be payable if the Welsh ombudsman is simultaneously the parliamentary commissioner. It is possible for the two offices to be held simultaneously by the same person. That refers back to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about abatements of salary if two posts are held.

The expenses of the Welsh ombudsman will be met by the assembly, to which he will report. Presently, the parliamentary commissioner's costs come from a Cabinet Office Vote. Discussions are proceeding for an element of that Vote, representing the Welsh component of the parliamentary commissioner's costs, to be transferred to the Welsh block to enable the assembly to meet the Welsh ombudsman's costs.

The new ombudsman's jurisdiction is set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the first new schedule. It goes beyond that of the assembly itself. At the moment the parliamentary commissioner has jurisdiction over the Welsh Office and a number of Welsh non-departmental public bodies. But it is not always clear, certainly to me, why some bodies are inside the jurisdiction and others are not. The Development Board for Rural Wales is within the jurisdiction but the WDA is not. We are dealing specifically with that by making the new WDA subject to the new ombudsman's jurisdiction. We also propose that the assembly be given power to revise the list of bodies subject to that jurisdiction. That power would be limited. The assembly could only add a public body to the list if it had functions exercisable in Wales in a field in which the assembly itself has functions. So it would offer scope in due course for rationalisation of jurisdiction, which is a very important matter, particularly when domestic politics in Wales have been plagued either by corruption, or allegations of corruption, or, often just as mischievous, suspicions of corruption.

On re-viewing matters we have come to the conclusion that the definition of a body which may be added to the list was drawn rather wider than intended. If your Lordships are content to accept the amendments as they stand, we shall need to bring back some further amendments at Report to make clear that the bodies which can be added to the list cannot include government departments, as paragraph 14(5) envisages. The ombudsman can investigate allegations of maladministration by any of the bodies subject to his jurisdiction.

Paragraph 16(4) of the new schedule is of interest because it requires a complainant to exhaust any internal remedies provided by the body complained against before the ombudsman can take up the case. However, the ombudsman has discretion to waive that requirement if he does not feel it reasonable in the particular circumstances for that to have happened. That is an important balance. One ought to exhaust internal remedies in the same way as one has to on judicial review. But there is the exception available in the ombudsman's discretion if he believes that it is not appropriate. This is a more flexible mechanism than the usual judicial review.

Paragraph 17 of the new schedule deals with complaint-making. Again, we are taking up a suggestion made by the parliamentary commissioner. It was pressed on us by CBI Wales. It will be open for an individual to go directly to the ombudsman without the need for such complaints to go via the complainant's assembly member. That is different from the Westminster situation, but it is consistent with the current arrangements for the Health Service Commissioner and the local government ombudsman. We believe that that is the right way for the new office. It will certainly make it more readily accessible to individual complainants.

I draw the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the new schedule. They deal with reports and action taken. If the ombudsman investigates and finds maladministration, the body responsible, which includes the assembly, will be given three months to decide how to respond. If it fails within that time or its proposed form of action was not satisfactory, a further report would be issued setting out the action which the ombudsman considered necessary to meet the case. If the assembly itself had been guilty of maladministration, the assembly's first secretary would be required to move that the assembly approved the ombudsman's recommendations as to the form of redress. These are novel provisions and they are intended to be such. They have been the subject of discussion with the parliamentary commissioner. I can tell the Committee that they have his warm support.

These are important matters and I deal more briefly perhaps with other amendments. The amendments relating to the Health Service Commissioner look to three objectives: first, to amend the commissioner's jurisdiction to enable him to investigate complaints about the performance of health service bodies, including performance by the assembly itself in the exercise of an assembly health service function. That may be the sort of function that the Secretary of State performs now in relation to the health service, but it might, if the assembly exercises the power given to it by Clause 28 of the Bill, also be concerned with service provision. Secondly, they make provision parallel to that proposed for the Welsh administration ombudsman in relation to reports of investigations and action taken in response. That is in paragraph 11 of the new schedule proposed for the Health Service Commissioner. Again, there is a time limit of three months.

Thirdly, the opportunity is taken to put the Health Service Commissioner on the same formal basis as the Welsh administration ombudsman. The expenses of the office will be met by the assembly following the appropriate transfer, as may be, from a Cabinet Office Vote. There is no bar to the same person holding at the same time the office of Health Service Commissioner for Wales and the Welsh administration ombudsman as well as parliamentary commissioner, but only one salary would be payable.

The remaining set of amendments are consequential. I believe that all I need to say is that the bodies subject to investigation by the Welsh administration ombudsman would not generally be subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner. Various ombudsmen or women are enjoined to consult and co-operate one with another to ensure that complainants obtain effective and efficient handling of their complaints.

These are important amendments. They took a lot of thinking through and we have not got the final, perfect and definitive form. But I believe I reflect a good deal of feeling in Wales that sometimes in the past there has been a tendency for obscurantist, defensive responses to proper complaints from the public. We believe that it is very important to have this defined, disciplined scheme whereby a particular time limit is set so that a report must be made and, failing that, sanctions will follow. I believe that in some ways this new regime might be a model for other parliamentary institutions. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

We welcome the new schedule as a major improvement to the Bill. If we as a revising Chamber have been able to do nothing at all other than include this new schedule in the Bill, we shall have performed a very useful service.

As the schedule is based largely on the 1967 Act, we are fairly certain that the Government have got it right. However, there are extensions to, and developments of, the replicated provisions of that Act because not only do we have a Welsh ombudsman who will be responsible for answering complaints of maladministration in the area of responsibility of the assembly, but we also have an extension of that responsibility to the Health Service Commissioner. I am sure that direct approaches on the part of consumers of services to the Welsh ombudsman and the Health Service Commissioner will be very much welcomed, just as the services of the parliamentary commissioner have always been welcomed in Wales. Just as the development of that service has been welcomed—so that there can be a direct approach on the part of electors where permissable—I am sure that this development will be welcomed also.

We shall, of course, study the schedule between now and Report stage. If we can in any way help to improve it, we shall certainly put forward amendments for consideration, as the Minister suggested.

Lord Hooson

I am sure that the Minister will extend to this matter his invitation with regard to previous matters. I know that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will want to study the provision and that he may return to the Minister with points of detail. Generally, however, we very much appreciate, and approve of, what has been done. The Minister is correct to suggest that this provides a model which may be copied elsewhere. Based on experience of what at times have been ineffective procedures, this provision seeks to tighten the complaints procedures and those for responding to complaints. That is most acceptable.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

We want the best that we can possibly get, not least by way of drafting. I am more than happy to accept proposals put to me either in correspondence or in personal meetings with officials.

The Earl of Balfour

I welcome this opportunity to ask one or two questions. Perhaps I may ask your Lordships to look at today's Marshalled List and particularly at Amendment No. 245, which introduces the new schedule. I refer particularly to page 28 of the Marshalled List and to paragraph 15(2), which states: A body falls within this sub-paragraph if and to sub-paragraph (b) which then states: at least half of its expenditure on the exercise of functions in relation to Wales … is met directly from payments made by the Assembly". As the assembly, as I understand it, will not have its own fund-raising powers, I wonder whether the schedule is not being rather restrictive in asking the assembly to provide 50 per cent. of the funds. I should have thought that one-third would be quite satisfactory in this case.

My next question arises in relation to page 36. In paragraph 24(1)(b) one sees the words, for the purposes of any proceedings for … an offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989". I believe that there is an inconsistency here between this group of amendments and Amendments Nos. 119A and 254A which we discussed almost at the beginning of the proceedings. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I believe his earlier amendments are correct and that reference should be made to the Official Secrets Act 1989. If I remember correctly, that Act covers all the enactments between 1911 and 1989. I believe that there is an inconsistency here and it is worth raising a question upon it at this stage.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I am not aware of any inconsistency but I shall research the matter and respond in the usual way to the noble Earl's question. As to his question as regards page 28, the assembly itself has no tax-raising power but it will be in receipt of significant funds—the overwhelming part of the £7 billion that is presently under the control of the Secretary of State. We believe that to take a half rather than a third is perfectly reasonable, but we shall similarly reflect on the noble Earl's point. Referring to the Official Secrets Act, I believe that this new provision is correct. However, I shall look at it again. As to funding, a number of examples can be given.

The Earl of Balfour

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I do not intend to criticise the drafting. I believe that the provisions are perfectly correct. I merely refer to the difference in wording between the amendments moved earlier today and the amendment now being moved with reference to the Official Secrets Act.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I shall check and check again and write to the noble Earl.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 202A not moved.]

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 [Accountability]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202B:

Page 36, line 44, leave out ("meetings") and insert ("proceedings").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202C:

Page 37, line 3, leave out from ("any") to first ("to") in line 5 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee) which have taken place, or are to take place,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 [Integrity]:

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 202CA:

Page 37, leave out lines 15 to 17.

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to remove the requirement to declare a non-financial interest. No one can object to the requirement to declare financial interests, which obviously should include the financial interests of family and friends. Although the latter obligation may result in a few borderline cases, on the whole the financial interest requirement is straightforward and free from ambiguities and grey areas.

The same cannot be said of non-financial interests. Even the word "interest" in a non-financial context is peculiar when one comes to think about it. For example, there are some who take the view that if one's third cousin twice removed was mugged five years previously one should declare that fact before speaking in support of a Bill, in this place or another place, the aim of which is to increase maximum sentences for crimes of violence. There are others—the majority, I would hope—who contend that that is being preposterously pernickety and way over the top.

The trouble is that no one is sure where the line should be drawn where non-financial interests are concerned. If someone misjudges the precise location of that line in this place or the other place, nothing remotely serious is likely to occur. Indeed, in nearly all cases nothing is likely to occur. But things will be very different where the Welsh assembly is concerned. Clause 73(5) permits the total exclusion from the assembly, and any of its committees, and sub-committees, of anyone who fails to declare a non-financial interest, plus the withdrawal of all rights and privileges for the time being.

Clause 73(6) goes even further, and allows for the prosecution of such an individual, which can result in a fine of up to £5,000 being imposed upon him or her. For a minor transgression which involves not a whiff of financial corruption those penalties seem ridiculously disproportionate. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

It seems to me that the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are directed at two matters. The first is whether there should be an offence relating to non-financial interests; and the second is what should be the consequences by way of sanction.

It is important to recognise that many interests of significance need not necessarily be financial. Indeed, yesterday, we spent what was not the happy hour, but certainly a happy hour, with a number of us declaring various interests to do with the University of Wales, none of which, I am happy to say, had anything to do with financial interests of any sort. We were dealing, for instance, with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about HEFCW and the funding of the university. He, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and others all declared interests in the fact that they are connected with the university or, in some cases, had been. That is the proper thing to do, not because our own judgment or our own vote would be affected but because there might be the thought outside that it could have been.

There are other interests which are non-financial. They should be declared and properly registered on these occasions. If there is a trivial oversight, which is likely to happen to all of us, because we may have forgotten that 10 years ago we were the trustee of a society for which we had no remuneration, it is open to the assembly to take its own sensible course. It might be to take no action; it might be to reprimand: it might be in a gross case that a prosecution would be instituted. The sanction range is there. It would be used with discretion. Particularly these days, when there are significant suspicions about what motivates men and women in public life, to limit the requirement to financial matter would be too restrictive. The range of sanctions is there to be used discreetly.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that more Members of the Committee did not join in, because I think that it is an important topic. I seem to have drawn the short straw again in the timing of my amendment, but there it is. The noble Lord summed up accurately the aims of the amendment. The trouble is that there is a philosophical gulf here. I have always taken the view that unless there is positive corruption it is a waste of time and effort declaring a non-financial interest. The idea, for example, that someone declares that he is secretary of a bridge club before speaking on a proposal to encourage the teaching of bridge among sixth-formers is preposterous. However, I acknowledge that other people feel differently about it. I appear to be a minority at present. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 202D to 202J:

Page 37, line 21, leave out ("Standing orders made in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2)") and insert ("The standing orders").

Page 37, line 25, leave out ("with") and insert ("if he has").

Page 37, line 26, at end insert (", and (b) for preventing or restricting the exercise of a function by a member of the executive committee, or the exercise of a function by an Assembly member by virtue of section 60(6), if he has a registrable interest, or an interest mentioned in subsection (2), in any matter to which the function relates").

Page 37, line 27, at beginning insert ("The").

Page 37, line 36, at beginning insert ("The").

Page 38, line 2, leave out ("subsections (1) to (3),") and insert ("subsection (1), (2) or (3)(a). ( ) exercises any function in contravention of any provision included in the standing orders in pursuance of subsection (3)(b),").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 74 [Publication]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202K:

Page 38, line I after ("remakes") insert ("the").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Bodies and offices covered by section 75]:

Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 202L:

Page 83, line 17, at end insert—

(" . The British Council.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add to the list of bodies in Schedule 4, with reference to Section 75 which deals with the power to require attendance and production of documents. Yesterday, at col. 210 of the Official Report, the Minister indicated some progress on Schedule 2 whereby it was intended that the assembly should be involved in the nomination processes for members of the CRE, the National Disability Council and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

We are moving closer towards relationships between nominated bodies and NDPBs—which were creatures of the Welsh Office under the previous system—and those UK bodies which have a strong impact on the population within Wales. The reason that various bodies are added will be clear to those with an involvement.

I shall not go through the list at this time of night. As it is at the top of the list, I acknowledge the importance of the partnership that now exists between various bodies in Wales and the British Council, in particular in recent years where reorganisation of that council has led to a more proactive partnership role in the promotion internationally of Welsh cultures and language through the British Council's activities.

I mention also the importance of the research councils. Those bodies expend substantial public money. When one refers to the need to develop the level of research at higher education institutions within Wales, the role of the research councils seems crucial. I should like an indication from the Minister of the rationale about the number of bodies listed in Schedule 4 to which Section 75 powers relate and the possibility of extending that list at a later date. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

The noble Lord asks two questions: first, what is the rationale; and, secondly, what is the basis for further additions to the list of bodies which could be summonsed. The assembly is free to invite any public body to give evidence. We have limited the power of summons. We thought that the principal point of difference was to specify public bodies only where they are working in areas where the assembly has its own responsibilities. In Schedule 4 there are references to many agricultural bodies and health bodies, both subject areas where the assembly has statutory functions.

The 17 additional public bodies have activities which cannot be directly related to the range of functions which the assembly would have. For instance, there is no functional remit on equal opportunities or race relations and therefore we do not see that the assembly ought to be able to summon the EOC or the CRE. For the same reason, we have left out industry regulators.

I turn to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because it is important for the future. Clause 76(5) allows the Secretary of State to add bodies to the list in Schedule 4. The Secretary of State has said many times that devolution is a process not an event. Certainly, subsection (5) is specifically included. I hope to deal with the kind of questions about the future and future relationships to which the noble Lord referred and I hope that that explanation is of assistance.

Lord Elis-Thomas

I am grateful to the Minister. After putting up the flag and taking it down, and with a view to putting it up again at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 202M to 202AC not moved.]

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 76 [Witnesses and documents: supplementary]:

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 202AD:

Page 39, line 37, leave out from ("scale") to end of line 38.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is to remove the power to imprison for up to three months any officer or employee of a public body who fails to turn up at the assembly when bidden to do so or fails to produce documents when bidden to do so. No doubt such disobedience if it occurs would cause considerable inconvenience and perhaps a level 5 fine—in other words, up to £5,000 is accordingly justified. However, I very much doubt whether the 75 per cent. of the Welsh electorate who failed to vote for the assembly believe the offence to be so heinous as to merit imprisonment for any period. Furthermore, I doubt whether the majority of the 25 per cent. who voted for the assembly believe so either.

Although their functions are not strictly comparable, the GLC, which was responsible for almost three times as many people as the Welsh assembly will be, did not have such powers. Theoretically, the House of Commons Select Committees have the power to send recalcitrant or disobedient witnesses to the Tower, but they are wary of ever doing so. They know that as a result of the imposition of disproportionate sentences—disproportionate in the eyes of the public—martyrdom can be created. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

Clause 75 allows the assembly to summon employees or members of a public body to give evidence or, just as important or more so in many cases, to produce documents. Clause 76 makes it a criminal offence to refuse to give evidence or to falsify or destroy documents. The falsification or destruction of documents strikes at the very heart of any proper inquiry that could be made into wrongdoing.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right in saying that Clause 76(3) gives a maximum penalty of up to three months. He made an analogy with the GLC and I offer another. The provision is replicated for the Scottish parliament in the Scotland Bill with exactly the same terms. Indeed, the power of imprisonment is a kind of statutory parallel to the House of Commons' power to imprison for contempt. I take his example to bolster my argument. He said that it is virtually theoretical and rarely if ever used. That is right, but it is a useful power which the assembly ought to have in order to make it plain to anyone who refuses to give evidence on a lawful occasion, or who tries to pervert the course of justice by the falsification or destruction of documents, that this is a criminal offence of some seriousness.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I agree with him that the destruction of documents is a serious matter and that perhaps it is right that imprisonment should be available for that particular offence. But as regards imprisonment for simply failing to turn up, I simply cannot agree that that is justified. Indeed, I would not have thought that the vast majority of the public would think so. If it ever were to be imposed, I believe that it would be highly counterproductive. However, in the absence of any further support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 76 agreed to.

Clause 77 [Role of Secretary of State for Wales]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 203:

Page 40, line 15, at end insert—

("( ) The Assembly may require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend any proceedings of the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly.").

The noble Lord said: The wording which appears alongside this clause in the margin of the Bill is quite extraordinary. It simply refers to the, Role of Secretary of State for Wales". Here we are dealing with the Government of Wales Bill and one would have thought that there might be set out there something for the Secretary of State to do. In fact, all that he can do is, attend or participate in the proceedings … of the Assembly", so long as he does not vote and does not attend or participate in the proceedings of a committee of the assembly or, indeed, any sub-committee. Apart from that, the only other role for the Secretary of State for Wales under this Government of Wales Bill is to receive certain documents at the same time as members of the assembly.

I suggest that the Government take another look at the wording that appears alongside that clause in the Bill. It does not in any sense encompass the role of the Secretary of State in his functions regarding operating, as I said last night, as the channel of communication between the Welsh assembly and the Westminster Parliament.

Amendment No. 203 says: The Assembly may require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend any proceedings of the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly". No sanction is suggested; indeed, we are not interested in fines or in imprisonment because, obviously, if the Secretary of State, as the Minister of the Crown, is required to attend the assembly, he will go. However, we believe that the assembly should be able to require the Secretary of State to appear before it so as to explain the current position of the Government, of the Cabinet, as regards the policies that the Government propose to include in future primary legislation; and to discuss with the assembly, or with a committee of the assembly, their concerns, their proposals for secondary legislation and how that all fits in within the scheme of things.

It has been a recurring theme of discussions on this Bill that there should be proper channels of communication so as to smooth over any difficulties which may arise between, for example, a government at Westminster of one colour and an assembly in Cardiff of an entirely different colour. One of the objections which might be raised to the proposed amendment is that it in some way makes the Secretary of State accountable to the Welsh assembly. I do not flinch from that; indeed, I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not be accountable for his role as a communicator to the assembly. Moreover, I see no reason why he should not be called upon to explain the positions that he has taken in Cabinet and explain how he is presenting to the Westminster Parliament the concerns of the Welsh assembly. We believe that he should be accountable in that sense.

We are entering into an entirely new constitutional settlement so far as concerns Wales. If that means that the Secretary of State is accountable in a way which we have not known in the past, so be it. It is a new institution. It will require new machinery and it is machinery of this particular sort that we consider to be absolutely essential if the arrangements are to work smoothly.

This in a sense follows on from the amendments that we moved last night and to which we shall return. We hope that this amendment is acceptable to the Government. We hope that they will rethink their position. We hope that they will define a serious role for the Secretary of State. In the course of our discussions a number of people have asked what responsibilities the Secretary of State will have. People have commented that his role will be light. Here is a function that he should exercise. We commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Elis-Thomas

Amendment No. 204, which stands in my name, is grouped with this amendment. We have discussed the role of the Secretary of State, the role of Members of both Chambers of the UK Parliament and the role of Members of the European Parliament. I do not wish to go over all that ground again but it is important that we consider new ways of developing collaboration between the national assembly in Cardiff Bay, these Chambers of Parliament and the structures of the European Parliament and the European Union, because whether some Members of the Committee opposite like it or not we are now moving into a quasi-federal relationship within the United Kingdom. That requires subtle ways of operating as between the different levels of elected bodies. It requires some creative thinking about the best way to deliver these relationships.

I mention the European dimension because, as I mentioned earlier tonight, I am a member of Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee of this Chamber. I have therefore had the opportunity to meet many members of other member states' parliaments, of the European Parliament and of other regional or subordinate assemblies within the European Union. One of the criticisms that is constantly heard involves the lack of a satisfactory relationship between the different levels of elected bodies within that structure; that is, the lack of a good relationship between this Chamber, another place and the European Parliament; and the lack of a good relationship between the regional assemblies in other member states and their national assemblies and the European Parliament. There is a continual drive to try to develop these relationships.

My amendment suggests that we should be innovative in the national assembly. We should seek a formal arrangement whereby MPs and Members of this Chamber who have an interest in, or who represent constituencies in Wales, and MEPs should be involved in discussions in the assembly. I have not perhaps assisted the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in trying to find a role for the Secretary of State.

The trouble with constitutional debates is that we tend to talk about structures. I shall illustrate what I mean by giving the Committee a scenario. Let us consider the agricultural crisis, which is a theme that has run through our debates. Within that context what better forum is there for a proper and serious discussion of the issues than that of MPs, Members of this Chamber, MEPs and members of the national assembly being together in Cardiff Bay or Westminster—Cardiff Bay would be a more appropriate location—to discuss these issues? I do not refer to the kind of debate that we had in the Welsh Grand Committee of another place in Carmarthen a few weeks ago, which was truncated because of various circumstances—not a second-hand debate on the issues, but one in which all those with an interest and responsibility could be present. That could include—I say this for the entertainment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay—Members of the UK Parliament, not necessarily representing Welsh constituencies, who had an interest in the subject. Fisheries, forestry, agriculture, sheepmeat and all the issues that we discussed overnight are all relevant here. They are good examples of what such a creative, constructive forum could take on board.

There are models from different kinds of parliaments. The Bundesrat and the Bundestag in the German Federal Republic, the Austrian federal structure and the Danish structure have different ways of ensuring that their representatives within the European structure are mandated, or subject to scrutiny or recall, in different ways in relation to their obligations. We are presented here with an exciting opportunity. All I ask from my noble friend the Minister is an assurance that what I crave is not impossible. Not that it should have to happen, as of course I flag up with my "shall" flag, but that it might happen. I therefore look forward to his response.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, explained, Amendment No. 203 allows the assembly to require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend proceedings of the assembly or a committee. He already has an entitlement to attend and participate in assembly proceedings, but not proceedings of a committee or sub-committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the thinking behind subsections (1) and (2) of this clause. It seems odd to debar the Secretary of State from committees. Can we be certain now that he will never be required to attend a committee?

The amendment would seem to fill a gap, by enabling the assembly to require the Secretary of State's attendance at proceedings of the assembly or its committees. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said at the beginning of his remarks, it is a permissive amendment through and through. The Secretary of State is not bound to respond positively to an assembly requirement to attend any of its proceedings any more than a Minister in the United Kingdom Government is bound to attend a Select Committee. He can send a civil servant in his place, although it might be very unwise to do so and might result in heavy criticism of the Minister concerned.

One cannot help wondering what the situation might be if the Secretary of State for Wales were also a member of the assembly, and possibly first secretary of the assembly. In that case these problems would presumably not arise.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, extends the entitlement of the Secretary of State to attend and participate in assembly proceedings to other MPs and MEPs generally, and to assembly committees as well, but makes the exercise of the entitlement conditional upon the request of the assembly or its presiding officer or his deputy.

As we have heard, the assembly has extensive powers under Clause 75 to require the attendance of a great number of people to give evidence to it. I appreciate that MPs and MEPs are in a very different category in that they are not beholden to the assembly in any way.

I am certainly excited by the prospect held out by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, of MPs and MEPs contributing to assembly discussions. But, although I see some validity in the arguments and the potential value of contributions by MPs and MEPs to the assembly's deliberations in certain circumstances, I am bound to point out that there are some dangers, too. I should hate to think that the noble Lord might find that the invitees whom we are talking about might be supporters of the dominant party only; or that they might be asked to attend for party political reasons, so that they can have a home platform, perhaps, for their views at a critical time, possibly before an election. For once, I ask that standing orders should guard against abuses of that kind.

I am very much in sympathy with the thrust of the noble Lord's amendments and I appreciate the kind of synthesis and innovative ideas that can come from a new combination, a new meeting of minds. That, I am sure, would be to the benefit of Wales and all who might come to Wales, from Europe and elsewhere. But we may well be told that it is not necessary to write this on the face of the Bill.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

We do not believe that the assembly ought to be able to summon the Secretary of State. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The Secretary of State is not accountable to the assembly; he is accountable to Parliament at Westminster. That is an important point. I echo his view, which I think was shared by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that one wants collaboration between the Secretary of State and the assembly, and I was pleased to have the warm endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, of the prospect of the present Secretary of State perhaps becoming first secretary or assembly secretary in due time, for the convenient ordering of business, if I understood his drift correctly.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked specifically why there was the limited reference in Clause 77. We thought it was appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to attend plenaries as of right. He can, of course, attend committees by invitation. We thought that that was the right balance. That is the reason that we came to that judgment.

With regard to Amendment No. 204, we do not think it right that others should participate in assembly meetings, apparently influencing its actions by speaking, although I appreciate that it is proposed that they should not vote. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would receive benefit from a number of situations. For instance, Clause 41, which is quite extensive, might be of interest to him. I simply put that down as a marker for him. That clause gives quite a wide power.

One reason for allowing MPs and MEPs to be members simultaneously of the assembly, if they can persuade their electorates that they should be, is that it provides collaboration and cross-fertilisation. We would certainly expect Welsh MEPs to work closely with the relevant committees by giving evidence and by providing information and documents on European developments in particular fields of policy. We believe that that is the way to do it rather than by their appearing to join in as non-voting members of the assembly. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that one wants the closest possible collaboration with MPs and MEPs, but we believe that it should be by giving evidence and providing information rather than by attending meetings of the assembly in their own right.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Hooson

Perhaps I can intervene to say a word on Amendment No. 203. The noble Lord said that the view of the Government was that the assembly should have no right to summon the Secretary of State. Let us forget the scenario in which the Secretary of State is also the first secretary of the assembly and take it for granted that the Secretary of State is somebody separate from the first secretary. He is surely going to be a link man between the Government and the assembly. It seems very odd that he has a right at any time to attend a plenary session of the assembly, and yet the assembly has no right to ask him or require him to attend the assembly.

It may well be—let us forget the present political persuasion of the Government—that the Secretary of State is of a different political complexion from the complexion of the assembly. Surely it is right, if the Secretary of State for Wales is the link person between the Government and the assembly, that the assembly must have the right to require him to attend.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

Fundamentally, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament in Westminster; he is not accountable in that sense to the assembly. He is there as an important channel of communication but it does not require him to be summonsed to an assembly. His accountability and fundamental duty lies in Westminster.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

I am extremely disappointed at the response of the Government to this amendment. As my noble friend said yesterday—or it may have been this morning—the Bill has certain assumptions built into it. One is that the Labour Party is dominant in Wales and therefore for the rest of time will be the dominant party. However, I remind the Committee that the Liberal Party won every seat in Wales in 1905 or 1906—I stand corrected. The second assumption is that the Secretary of State is of the same party and that therefore he can wander into the assembly if he thinks fit. He has the power to go in and make his views known.

If we remember what we were discussing yesterday, the Secretary of State may choose to discuss such part of the Government's programme at Westminster as he thinks is fit and suitable for the assembly to consider. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, that is entirely within his discretion. We are trying to look at other possibilities where there are different parties in power. It may be the Labour Party at Westminster and the Liberal Democrats in Cardiff; it could be a combination of parties in Cardiff or it could be the Conservative Party in Westminster and so forth—we do not expect to see them in Cardiff, obviously.

All sorts of possibilities arise and one ought to look at the legislation not from a single point of view, as it is framed at the moment. That is the reason why we are urging—as we urged yesterday—that there should be a requirement for the Secretary of State to explain himself. We should not go back into outdated constitutional theory that the Secretary of State for Wales is accountable only in Parliament. Why should not he be accountable in the sense of having to explain what he is doing to the Welsh assembly? After all, in this Bill the Secretary of State has a right to go into the assembly if he chooses and to speak. If he has a right to go in and to speak at his own discretion, why cannot the assembly question him? Why cannot it require him to go there when there is something of real importance afoot?

I urge the Government to go back and rethink their position on the role of the Secretary of State: give him a meaningful task to carry out. I promise the Minister that we will be back to see how far he has got in his thinking and perhaps to expand upon our own thinking at a later stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 203A:

Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 19 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly itself which have taken place or are to take place,").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]

Clause 78 [Defamation]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204A:

Page 40, line 25, leave out from ("in") to (""statement"") in line 29 and insert (", for the purposes of or for purposes incidental to proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee), and

  1. (b) the publication by or under the authority of the Assembly of a report of such proceedings,
is absolutely privileged.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies, in particular, to any statement made in—

  1. (a) evidence given before the Assembly, a committee of the Assembly or a sub-committee of such a committee,
  2. (b) a document laid before the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee,
  3. (c) a document prepared for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, the transaction of business by the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee,
  4. (d) a document (other than a report to which subsection (1)(b) applies) formulated, made or published by or under the authority of the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee, or
  5. (e) any communication with any person having functions in connection with the registration of interests of Assembly members.
(2A) In subsections (1) and (2)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 78, as amended, shall be agreed to?

Lord Monson

Parliamentary privilege and quasi-parliamentary privilege is exactly that—privilege. Albeit with the best of intentions, it gives certain powers to one small group of people at the possible—and I stress the word "possible"—expense of one or more of a very much larger group of people. For that reason alone it should be doled out very sparingly.

The question arises of why a non-legislative body should be given such privileges at all. As I said earlier, the GLC was responsible for three times as many people as the Welsh assembly will be, and it did not enjoy them as far as I am aware. Neither the Birmingham Unitary Authority, nor Essex County Council, nor Kent County Council, all with populations of well over 1 million, have them either. Nor, as far as I am aware—and the noble Lord will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong—will the new Greater London authority.

Moreover, the privileged statements that assembly persons will be entitled to make need not be confined to assertions about people in Wales or matters affecting Wales. It is perfectly true that privileged comments in either House of Parliament in Westminster need not be restricted to matters concerning British subjects or UK matters. However, should somebody in either House of Parliament in this country unfairly attack an individual in France, Switzerland, the United States or Japan, it is highly unlikely that the attack will be reported in the victim's own country unless the accusation was extremely serious, for example if the individual concerned had been a war criminal and responsible for many hundreds of deaths.

How very different the situation will be in Wales. I am sure no one would do so deliberately, but an assembly man or assembly woman could accidently defame individuals—not only in Swansea but in Southampton, Sudbury, Stockton-on-Tees or Stirling. Unlike France, Germany and Italy, where people read different newspapers according to the region of the particular country they happen to live in, here in our small, overcrowded, centralised country we all tend to read a few high-circulation newspapers and watch the same few TV channels. So any inadvertent libel or slander gets massive, nigh universal, coverage throughout the United Kingdom. Exactly the same argument will apply to the Scottish parliament of course, but at least the Scottish parliament will be a legislative body.

In the vain hope that this time round there may be some contribution from one or both of the Opposition Benches, I beg to oppose the Question that Clause 79 stand part of the Bill.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

We agreed earlier that Clause 78 should be amended and the amendments were very significantly a response to concerns expressed by the leading spokesman for the Conservative Party in another place. We believe that protection from actions in defamation is a necessary protection for members of the assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to it as privilege. Yes, it is a privilege for members to be able to speak fearlessly in defence of the interests of their constituents, whether or not they have primary legislative powers.

The privilege is there not to protect members alone but to protect the public interest in its wider, fuller sense. One wants to have free, fearless discussion, debates and exchanges of opinion in an assembly of this sort. The assembly will be important. If members are constantly looking over their shoulders waiting for the writ, they will not be able to discharge their functions properly. That is why we took on board the concerns expressed in another place and brought forward the amendments. I respectfully and fundamentally disagree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said.

Lord Monson

First, I apologise for referring to Clause 79. I should have said Clause 78. Before I decide what to do, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. Is it the case that when the Bill was originally drafted it did not include the possibility of privilege? I infer that that is the case from what the noble Lord has just said. Secondly, can he say why other important bodies which have no legislative functions—I refer to the late GLC and the future Greater London authority—do not have similar privileges?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

They did not have those privileges because Parliament decided differently. It is not right to say that the Welsh assembly has no legislative functions. It will have some legislative powers. But apart from that, it is to be the assembly for the whole nation. It is a very important body. If members are not able to speak freely, protected by the privilege which we have in this House, unelected as we are, they will not be able to do their work consonant with the wider public interest. As to whether Clause 78 was in precisely this form when the Bill was first drafted all those many months ago, I presently cannot remember. But whether it was or it was not, the question is what its form should be when it leaves your Lordships' House. I urge your Lordships to the conclusion I have put forward. This is a necessary protection. It is useful for the public that frank debate should go on without the fear of defamation proceedings.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

We support this clause as it is drafted and as amended in the course of our discussions. Parliament exists not simply to legislate but also to redress grievances. It would be an anomaly, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if he reflects upon the matter, will appreciate, that matters which are to be devolved to Wales, such as issues of housing, education and so on, could be spoken of freely in this place and in another place but not so freely in the assembly. Surely the same standard has to apply—the same ability to speak fearlessly on these topics, to expose grievances on issues that are being devolved to Wales, as on those which will remain with the Parliament at Westminster.

Lord Monson

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that Parliament exists to redress grievances. I agree. But of course the Welsh assembly is not a parliament. It is not described as such. It does not have the functions of a parliament with full legislative powers. He also talked about protecting the people of Wales. That is an admirable objective. But as I hope I explained, the assembly persons will not have to restrict their comments purely to Welsh matters. They ought to perhaps, but they need not. That is one of the aspects of this which worries me and I dare say would worry other people if they knew about it. I am not sure that many people are aware that this privilege is going to be granted to the assembly. However, it is late at night. For the time being, therefore, I withdraw my objection to this clause.

Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79 [Contempt of court]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204B:

Page 41, line 3, leave out from first ("in") to first (—the") in line 6 and insert (", for the purposes of or for purposes incidental to proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee), or

(b) to the extent that it consists of a report of such proceedings made by or under the authority of the Assembly.

(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) applies, in particular, to any publication made in any evidence, document or communication such as is specified in section 78(2)(a) to (e); and in that subsection").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 80 agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I did indicate earlier that when I moved the amendment to Clause 54 it would be necessary, if the Committee so agreed, to omit Clause 81 from the Bill.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

Perhaps I may briefly intervene. This is the second time that the noble Lord has taken one of his own clauses out of the Bill. Would that it actually shortened the Bill, but it has not. The one line and a little bit has been replaced by three lines and a little bit. At this time of night it is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has carried the load of the Government Front Bench on this Bill in Committee throughout today. I congratulate him and I am happy to agree to the Question on this clause.

Clause 81 negatived.

Lord Carter

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.