WALES BILL

HL Deb 05 July 1978 vol 394 cc1007-79

3.52 p.m.

Further considered on Report.

Clause 9 [Existing statutory functions]:

3.52 p.m.

Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 5: Page 7, line 7, leave out subsection (2)

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing Amendment concerning concurrent powers to be exercised by both the Welsh Assembly and the Minister. We did debate this at Committee stage and I am not going to go through all the arguments, but there are one or two points on which we would like further clarification before coming to a conclusion about this. I should be grateful if the Minister, either now or in writing, could let us have some reply.

In the reply I got from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on 14th June, she said: Technically, there is nothing in the terms of the Bill to prevent the Welsh Assembly using powers under such enactments as are listed in Schedule 3, within non-devolved areas, or, for that matter, the Minister using his powers within the devolved areas ".—[Official Report, 14/6/78; col. 345.] Does that mean that the Welsh Assembly will be able to exercise functions within a non-devolved area which have not in fact been given to them in any other part of the Bill? This, of course, would to some extent clearly affect the functions of the Welsh Assembly, if they can, through Schedule 3, step outside the already accepted matters which have been devolved. The noble Baroness also said—which did cause some doubts in our minds— We are reasonably satisfied that there will be collaboration and co-operation between the Assembly and the Government in the use of these powers, as we are sure there will be so far as the Scottish Assembly and the Government are concerned as regards the Scottish powers ".—[Official Report, 14/6/78; col. 346.] Both in another place and in your Lordships' House considerable concern has been expressed, because it is almost certain that there will be no collaboration and co-operation if there are different Parties in power, one in Government and one in the Welsh Assembly. What I am seeking to be told is, how do the Government think there can be collaboration and co-operation where you get that situation? What kind of mechanism do they envisage will be used to overcome the obvious difficulties that will arise in this connection? I connect it with a further statement from the noble Baroness, where she says: In that sense … —she refers to where there is conflict— … where there are concurrent powers, the Secretary of State is the "Supremo", if one likes to describe him in that way ".—[official Report, 14/6/78; col. 352.] Does that mean that the Secretary of State will be able to override a decision of the Welsh Assembly, even in matters which are devolved to the Assembly but also remain in the hands of the Secretary of State under Schedule 3?

Can the Secretary of State, despite the concurrent powers, remove powers from the Welsh Assembly in any of those seven Acts—I think with the new Amendment put down by the Government there are now eight—which are contained in Schedule 3? It is very difficult to know how it is intended to operate in accordance with the interpretation of the Bill, because there would seem to be no powers in Clause 33—the override powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in a matter which has been devolved to the Assembly. This does need some explanation.

A matter which was raised in another place—and here again there was no satisfactory explanation from the Minister because of the effect of the guillotine—was how the current powers under the Local Government Act, Section 177(1)(b) and (2)(c) will operate. These are powers to prescribe bodies for the purpose of payment of attendance and financial allowances. These powers will be devolved to the Assembly as well as being retained by the Secretary of State. We should be grateful for some clarification of how this will operate. Will there be two sets of allowances, one decided on by the Assembly and another by the Secretary of State, or will there be some ultimate decision and who will have the overriding right to take the decision? These seem petty and technical matters, but they are worrying. We do not think we have had a satisfactory or clear answer.

The noble Baroness, in concluding her remarks to your Lordships, said: I shall look at this again. I shall happily send the noble Baroness a copy of the kind of things we have in mind so that she can see how we think this will work. Then perhaps we can have a little more agreement or further discussion at the next stage ".—[Official Report, 14/6/78; col. 352.]

I do not know whether it is the internal post of your Lordships' House—and I totally accept the question of overwork on the part of the noble Baroness—but I have not received the letter. There may be some perfectly justifiable reason, knowing the enormous amount of work this Bill has involved. I hope the Minister will not take this as any criticism of those who have to draft these answers, but I have not received an answer and I would be grateful for one at some stage. I beg to move.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, on the first point, I am sure my noble friend has written to the noble Baroness on this particular point. I cannot pretend I am at the moment clear when the letter was despatched or where it may now be, but it certainly is on its way. As the noble Baroness said in moving this Amendment, this is a fairly well-trodden path as far as this particular Bill is concerned. There has already been a great deal of discussion on this point in this House and in another place. The equivalent provision in the Scotland Bill has also been subject to the same detailed scrutiny, perfectly properly, because this is clearly a matter of some importance and it is right that we should go into it in some detail.

Having said that, I fear I will not be able to say anything particularly fresh on this matter. It might be more sensible, given the character of the speech which I would otherwise have to unleash upon your Lordships, if I communicated some of this myself to the noble Baroness. It may indeed be covered in my noble friend's letter, but if it is not I will, gladly deal with the matter myself before the next stage.

I do not want at this stage to say anything more to rehearse the reasons for the inclusion of Clause 9(2) in this Bill. However, perhaps I could make a few comments. It is a device for coping with a very few, relatively marginal, powers which cannot be dealt with by the more usual mechanisms in the Bill. During earlier debates much was made of the confusion, and possibly the conflict, which might arise through the operation of this subsection. It was even suggested, I think, during the Committe stage discussions that it represented a unique, indeed vast, new way of spending substantial sums of public money. I do not think that I can deal with these particular fears by the use of generalities and I must therefore give a number of examples as to why these particular powers are required.

Let us take first the case of the Commissioners of Works Act 1852 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Those provisions relate to the acquisition of land for the public service and, to take a fairly obvious example, Government offices. The Schedule 2 entry for the provisions has the effect of ensuring that the functions will be available to the Assembly only in respect of the devolved public service. But, the listings in Schedule 3 will ensure that the Government will be able to exercise functions in respect of the devolved public service as well as that which is not devolved. Thus, the Secretary of State will be able to acquire and hold property over which the Assembly exercises powers under Clause 64(1)(b). Those user rights involve sharing in that neither the Assembly, nor indeed the Government, has exclusive possession.

Let us take as another example the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. The Assembly will have functions as regards ancient monuments and historic buildings. Payments for the acquisition of buildings will therefore normally be the responsibility of the Assembly. But the Assembly will be financed only by the block fund and it will have no access to the National Loan Fund. This fund is, however, intended for use throughout Great Britain, and it would be wrong, in our judgment, that payments could not be made from it for the purchase of buildings in Wales. By way of the Schedule 3 listings, the Secretary of State has the necessary authority to make grants and to acquire property in Wales with money from the Land Fund. He will then hand that property over to the Assembly.

Another example is the Transport Act 1968. Transport functions devolved to the Assembly are shown in Part XIV of Schedule 2, but it will not have powers in respect of other functions in this area—for example, over most of freight transport. It will have no control over that. Both the Government and the Assembly will therefore need powers to finance research. It is impractical to divide the power in Section 57 between devolved and reserved functions—for example, although some aspects of passenger transport are reserved in other contexts, the Assembly by virtue of Clause 11(b) has some interest in all forms of passenger transport, including rail.

Once more, the funding of such research by the Assembly will be from the block fund. It is from there that it will get the money. The spending of what has been described as vast sums of public money on, in this case, transport research, would be at the expense of other functions such as education and health. I find it difficult to imagine what advantage the Assembly would see in such a proposition. Obviously, to take a ludicrous example, it could use the entire block fund for that particular purpose, but it is answerable to an electorate and that is the way of ensuring—as is the situation in another place—that, in the final analysis, people behave reasonably.

There are a number of other examples that I could work my way through, but as I have indicated, my noble friend Lady Stedman has already written to the noble Baroness on this point. However, I shall gladly look at what she has said and, if there is any additional information that I can make available, of course I shall be glad to do so.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, on that understanding I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if I could receive some sort of reply, particularly as regards the first point that I raised, concerning the devolved functions and whether they can, in fact, under the provisions of Clause 9(2) governing Schedule 3, step beyond the devolved functions. As I understood the reply of the noble Baroness to me, that would be possible; but I may have misread what was said and perhaps some clarification could be given on that matter and the point about the supremacy of the Secretary of State over the Welsh Assembly in any particular sitution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [Existing statutory functions]:

4.5 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 38, column 2, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert—

	("The powers under section 250 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.
	The functions under sections 254 and 262 except so far as exercisable in relation to matters with respect to which the powers of the Assembly are exercisable").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather complicated tidying-up Amendment. It seeks to provide a more logical boundary between the Assembly's and the Government's powers under Sections 250, 254 and 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. Those sections are concerned respectively with local inquiries; with the making by order of provisions consequential on the Local Government Act 1972; and with local enactments. They are all generally ancillary provisions with application to a wide variety of matters under the Act. At present the Bill provides that the powers under those sections are to be transferred to the Assembly except where they relate to matters listed in Schedule 5.

The difficulty is that after devolution Ministers will need to exercise powers under those sections for a wider range of matters than are dealt with in Schedule 5, which lists only matters for which local authorities have responsibilities. To give an illustration, Section 254 provides, inter alia, that an order may be made with respect to the Welsh Local Government Boundary Commission. As other functions in respect of the Commission are reserved in the Bill, the application of Section 254 to the Commission should also be reserved. But matters in relation to the Commission are not listed in Schedule 5 to the Bill because there are no local authority responsibilities. So reservation is not achieved.

If, therefore, the Bill is to reserve the full range of matters for which the Government will need powers under Sections 250, 254 and 262, a different formula is required. The Amendments accordingly reserve not by reference to Schedule 5, but by reference to functions which will remain with Ministers. So, to take up the earlier example, Section 254 will he reserved in respect of the Welsh Local Government Boundary Commission by virtue of the reservation of other ministerial functions in respect of the Commission. I beg to move.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his elegant description of a complicated process. It is rather nice to see somebody else pirouetting upon the theological needle point of the interaction of Schedule 2 with other Schedules in the Bill, Maybe it is because I am less critical than him that he found it easier to do than I did.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.9 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 7: Page 38, line 44, column 1, leave out ("and 35(3)") and insert (",35(3) and 40(1)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor Amendment to devolve to the Assembly the power under Section 40(1) of the Local Government Act 1974. This power concerns the classification of highways and coheres with powers under the Highways Act 1959 which are transferred to the Assembly in Part XV of Schedule 2. There is no change of policy. I beg to move.

Lord SWANSEA

My Lords, I am slightly puzzled here. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite can enlighten us to why this reference to Section 41 of the Local Government Act 1974 is being inserted at this point in Schedule 2 and not in Part XV of the Schedule which relates specifically to highways.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My Lords, it concerns the classification of highways and it is connected with the powers under the Highways Act, which are transferred in Part XV. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on why the draftsman has chosen to put it in this Part of Schedule 2 rather than in Part XV, because I do not know the answer. I assure the noble Lord that I shall write to him.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

4.11 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 41, line 5, column 2, at end insert—

("The powers under section 93 of that Act so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 93 of the Education Act 1944 contains a Secretary of State power to hold an inquiry for the purpose of the exercise of his functions under the Act. The effect of the Wales Bill is to devolve this power to the Assembly. During our debates at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, drew my attention to this provision and I agreed to look at it and return later.

On consideration, the Government believe that the Secretary of State must retain the right to hold inquiries in respect of the functions in the education field in Wales for which he will remain responsible after devolution. The Amendment before your Lordships, therefore, provides that the Assembly will exercise the power in relation to its functions and the Secretary of State in relation to his. I trust that noble Lords will find this acceptable and will, therefore, agree to the Amendment.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, it is very agreeable to welcome the noble Lord's reasonable reply to a reasonable request.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 41, line 19, column 2, at end insert—

	("The functions under section 6 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 (c. 40) except those exercisable under subsection (1) in cases involving two authorities in Wales.
	The functions under section 7 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (c. 33) except those exercisable under subsection (1) in cases involving two authorities in Wales.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during our discussions in Committee I agreed to take away and reconsider the effect of the Bill on Section 6 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 and Section 7 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953. These Amendments before your Lordships are the result of that reconsideration. Section 6 of the 1948 Act is concerned with the recoupment of a local authority's costs when it provides school education for a person not belonging to its own area. Section 7 of the 1953 Act contains similar provisions in respect of further education costs.

Both enactments contain three main ministerial functions. In each case the Minister is required to make a decision in respect of the activities of two or more educational authorities. It was suggested that if one authority was in England and another in Wales, there could be problems caused by the devolution of the ministerial function to the Assembly. I think it might be helpful to your Lordships if I take each function in turn and describe the Government's policy in each case on cross-Border issues. As the functions in both enactments are similar, I shall illustrate by reference to Section 6 of the 1948 Act above.

The first function in Section 6 is in Section 6(1)(a). It is concerned with cases where one education authority provides education for a person belonging to another education authority. When no agreement can be reached by the authorities concerned about the payment of costs, the Assembly will make a determination in respect of disagreements between authorities in Wales. When one of the authorities concerned is in Wales and one in England, the determination should continue to be made by the Secretary of State.

The second ministerial function is in Section 6(1)(b). This deals with cases in which education is provided by an authority for a person who does not belong to any authority. In these cases, the Secretary of State makes regulations about the apportionment of costs between all authorities in England and Wales. These powers have now been superseded by powers under the Local Government Act 1974, although they have not been repealed. The Government's policy is that, after devolution, the Welsh education authorities should pay for a person educated by a Welsh authority and the English authorities for a person educated by an English authority. Since payments are now made by means of adjustments in the rate support grant, it is entirely compatible with the structure of the Wales Bill that apportionment should be on this basis. I shall, therefore, be moving an Amendment to the entry in Schedule 11 for that Act to ensure the Government's policy in respect of this matter is properly reflected in the Bill, which ensures that children from England who are educated in Wales are not treated as not belonging to the area of any authority and vice versa.

Finally, Section 3 contains prescribing powers in relation to determining which authority a pupil is to be treated as belonging to. It seems to the Government that these are not powers which can sensibly be split, and so they are to be reserved. The Amendment before your Lordships gives effect to the policy I have outlined. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for bringing to my attention the defects in the present entry. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Amendment represents a practicable and acceptable policy. As always, we take note of what the noble Lords say opposite. I beg to move.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, it is very gratifying when one's toil is thus rewarded. I thank the noble Lord for his courteous explanation of what he has done and I appreciate it. It may be worth mentioning one matter in passing, in addition to the explanation which the noble Lord has given to the operation of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948, Section 6. He stopped short at subsection (3). I notice with interest that subsection (4), which is reserved by this Amendment, is, in fact, as follows: Any question whether a pupil ought to be treated as belonging to the area of any particular local education authority, or as not belonging to the area on any such authority, shall, in case of dispute, be determined by the Minister". As I understand it, that is reserved. Therefore, where there is a dispute in that section, the appeal is not to the Authority, but to the Secretary of State.

I do not want to make a meal of this, but this was a principle about which we fell out during the Committee stage. I was anxious to have an appeal to the Secretary of State reserved in certain circumstances and had to have a Division to get it. Therefore, I am glad to have it here. I am not sure that I want it so much on this occasion because, in fact, this is an area where the Welsh Authority might well carry the appeal itself, where the dispute is within the borders of its competence and not across the Border.

However, I should not like anything I say to detract from my genuine feeling of gratitude to the noble Lord for having taken action on this in response to our request.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.19 p.m.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 11: Page 43, column 2, line 21, at end insert ("The powers under sections 29(8) and 29(9).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that any regulations—or, indeed, statutory instruments—regarding the operation of the Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees, which are commonly called ADHACs, are standard throughout England and Wales. This matter was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan on 15th June at columns 519 and 520 of the Official Report.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, replied to the point at column 528. I should like to quote her reply to my noble friend's question. On the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, the power to establish the advisory committees on agricultural housing, the intention is that the ministerial powers should pass to the Assembly. The committees are concerned primarily with housing. Housing conditions vary between areas of different kinds, and housing is essentially the kind of matter which is suitable for devolution. The Government think it very suitable that these committees should become the province of the Assembly. They see no cross-Border problems, but human beings being what they are we may find some problems ". I am not quite sure what the noble Baroness was saying there, but I think that is why I am raising it now.

May I reinforce the noble Baroness's last sentence by saying that I can see some cross-Border problems. There are many cases of farms straddling the Border, and one can too easily see the situation of, say, the authority in Wales rehousing and the authority in England not so doing. This could cause anguish, distress and bitterness, and I therefore feel that the guidelines of these ADHACs should be the same for both.

I should mention that the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Silkin has not issued many Statutory Instruments. Indeed, in his Guidelines for Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees he stated: That is why at this stage I am not proposing to issue any statutory regulations or directions governing the committees' functions and procedures. Instead, and to make for reasonable uniformity and consistency up and down the country these guidelines have been drawn up after consultation with the housing authority interests". No doubt the noble Lord will say that the Welsh Assembly will conform to these guidelines, but, if so, surely it would be better to keep it under the Secretary of State, or the Ministry of Agriculture, so as to ensure that, as his right honourable friend said, there was uniformity and consistency up and down the country.

May I also say that the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 has worked much better than was expected by some. It received, however, quite a lot of support from some sectors of the farming community, particularly, strangely enough, the farming Press, which is not always very keen about flattering the Government. I therefore feel it very much better for it to continue to work under its present rules, which I am glad to say have been interpreted by those on the ground extremely sympathetically and sensibly.

ADHACs are dealing entirely with agricultural matters. Agriculture has not been devolved. Surely the rules and regulations by which they operate should remain with the Ministry of Agriculture; I think in this case it would be the Secretary of State for Wales. This Amendment would only do that. It has nothing to do with housing, as such. Indeed, I am not even changing the composition of who should be on those ADHACs. That would still remain with the Welsh Assembly. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look kindly on this Amendment. It does not even alter the appointments to ADHACs. I beg to move.

4.24 p.m.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

My Lords, may I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. It is not one of those very big matters but one of the things which could become much more difficult under the Bill, if it ever goes through. Agriculture is not devolved, and anything that applies to agriculture, in my opinion, should be under the Ministry of Agriculture. If you take away from them some of the powers which, under this particular clause, would be taken away, you are going to complicate matters quite a little because housing is a vital part of agriculture. It is a vital part of farming.

In some areas you have far too many agricultural houses and in other areas a shortage. The whole point is that it is all part and parcel of the same industry, and if that industry is not devolved then surely it is a mistake to have one important part of it, namely housing, devolved because you are bound to have difficulties. I should have thought it would have been simple to accept this Amendment. It will not affect anything except the question of agricultural housing. I hope that the noble Lord, who is an expert on agriculture himself and housing, will be able to see his way to accepting this Amendment.

Lord COLLISON

My Lords, I should like to refer to what the noble Lord said about the good working of the Act. It certainly has operated well although many people, one remembers, expressed considerable fear about the consequences of it. In the event, it has made things very much better within the industry, having removed the one element which was of considerable concern to the work people and which they resented very much. It is gone, and things are happier. My old union would prefer the powers to be kept under the Ministry of Agriculture. They have not expressed extreme discontent with the proposal; but I shall be anxious to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say because, if it is possible, we should prefer it to remain with agriculture.

Lord O'HAGAN

My Lords, I hope I may add a word of support to my noble friends who have raised this question, and to the points put by the noble Lord, Lord Collison. At a previous stage of the discussion of this Bill I put forward a general Amendment to try and flush out some of the particular aspects of the Bill which seemed obscure. The one which, in retrospect, I am most glad that your Lordships could examine is the one we are debating now. We have not needed, and I think it is right not to do so, to spend a great deal of time at this stage of the Bill on the major matters of housing. They have been decided.

We have not looked at the broad principle of how agriculture should be dealt with under this Bill, but this particular proposal of the Government's is at the cross-ways between agriculture and housing. As my noble friend Lady Elliot said both subjects are of great intimacy to the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government. Because the demarcation line needs to be looked at with particular care, I hope that the Government will take this expression of anxiety from various quarters of the House very seriously indeed, because the system that has recently been set up by the Government is now generally considered to be working pretty well. It should not be disturbed by an incidental proposal in a devolution Bill.

4.28 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

My Lords, this is one of these marginal cases where we have the two functions, one of which is devolved and the other of which is not; this particular subject falls between the two. I do not think that it is in the least unreasonable of the noble Lord and his supporters to ask that we should have taken a different decision from the decision we have in fact taken. I should like to say a word or two about why we did this.

Part IV of Schedule 2 transfers to the Assembly a wide range of powers relating to housing, and landlord and tenant matters. These are of course matters that are of the closest local concern and are clearly things which should be devolved. Into this category come the powers under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, about which my noble friend Lord Collison and I are glad that noble Lords opposite feel less hostile than they did when we brought it in—with a good deal of trouble in this House, I may say. I agree that it has worked better than many people thought it would and there is a certain risk in altering anything here. Our view, however, is that all the powers in the Act are suitable for devolution, except the Lord Chancellor's powers to fix judicial rents, and the powers in respect of the hours worked by agricultural workers.

This Amendment concerns agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees which are set up under Section 29 of the Act. These committees advise housing authorities on applications by landlords for the rehousing of their agricultural tenants, and clearly it would be foolish to deny that there is an agricultural element in their work, but there is also an important housing element. In the Government's view, the housing element is the more important. The Amendment would reserve the powers to direct the committees and to regulate their procedure. In practice, it is unlikely that much use would be made of these powers whether devolved or reserved, but in our view there is no reason why they should not be devolved along with the other functions in respect of the committees; for instance, the duty to meet their expenses. There seems no purpose in involving the Government in this particular aspect of the Act when almost all other aspects are to be devolved. And the Assembly is hardly likely to prescribe different procedures for the committees in Wales unless there is good cause so to do. They will have better things to do.

I would much rather not accept this Amendment. On the other hand, I think it is a very marginal situation and if noble Lords feel sufficiently strongly, I would be prepared at the next stage to bring in a more complete Amendment meeting their wishes and also making a little more sense than this does in that it leaves out certain things. I repeat, I would prefer not to. I believe it would be better to leave things as they are. We should record our views, but mine will not be expressed very strongly.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, as it is the custom on Report for everybody to speak only once, except the mover of an Amendment, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for being prepared to meet your Lordships should it be their wish that he should do so, and obviously he will need more than one voice to say that that is the wish of your Lordships, otherwise it is placing rather a burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the solitary voice he is about to hear. Therefore, I would say that we regard this as a very useful approach on his part and, so far as I am in touch with the feeling of the House, I would say that was the feeling of noble Lords; but of course it rests with my noble friend to conclude our deliberations on this point.

Lord HYLTON

My Lords, I rise to urge the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to stand by his generous offer and to ask my noble friend to be kind enough to accept it. The point about these committees which has not perhaps been made fully clear is that their function is not one that is a matter of the law of landlord and tenant, nor is it to do with housing; it is to assess the agricultural need for retaining a particular house in the use of a person engaged in agriculture. That is the point.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I will of course accept anything from a fellow farmer, and I shall be delighted to accept the Minister's offer to look at this matter again before Third Reading. I shall do the same, I hope in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, whose help I was most pleased to receive. I remember how strongly he felt about what I called the tied house legislation that went through this House. I am glad I did not oppose him then and I believe that the only Amendment accepted had my name attached to it. I

support my noble friend Lord Hylton in saying that this is an entirely agricultural matter. It has nothing to do with housing, except that it is up to the local authority to rehouse, and most gratefully I accept the Minister's offer and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.35 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 12: Page 44, line 11, leave out ("to 20").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment removed from devolved functions Sections 19 and 20 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 19 contains a commencement power to bring into force provisions about local authority by-laws in relation to the employment of persons under 18 other than children. It is a power which has not been exercised in the 45 years since the Act was put on the Statute Book and to all intent and purposes never will be. Section 20 contains no ministerial power and to leave a reference to it in column 1 of Schedule 2 would cast doubt on the structure of that Schedule. The Government therefore feel that there is advantage in removing the reference affecting these two provisions from column 1 of Schedule 2. With great confidence, I beg to move.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, we wish to be assured that Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 contains a ministerial power. There is a reference to an Order in Council there, but it might be for the convenience of the House to know that it is necessary to exclude Section 18 from this Amendment.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

That is a valid point, my Lords. I would not like to answer it off the cuff and I will write to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 44, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert —

("The Mental Health Act 1959 (c. 72) section 3(4), Part IV,

The powers under section 39(1) and (4) and the powers of consent under sections 41 and 47 (being powers conferred by virtue of section 65(3)).

sections 64, 81,85,99, 133, 142 and 143 and Schedule 1.	The functions under sections 81 and 85 so far as relating to a patient subject to an order or direction restricting his discharge.
	The powers under section 99 other than the powers to direct transfers between hospitals in Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved an identical Amendment in Committee your Lordships were not happy about the Government's proposals, so I agreed to withdraw the Amendment and return later, and here I am. I have also written to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and they have had a meeting with my advisers, which I hope has satisfied them that the Government's proposals are coherent and make sense. This is an important and obscure part of the Bill and 1 shall, if I may, reply rather fully. This Amendment does not reflect any change on policy. It is a technical Amendment designed to put right defects in the existing entry for the Mental Health Act 1959 in Schedule 2. The 1959 Act is complex and the difficulties we have had in getting the entry right is a reflection of this fact.

The 1959 Act has been extensively amended. It is now largely concerned with admissions to, releases from and transfers between hospitals, guardianship and mental health tribunals. The provision of facilities for treating mentally ill patients is now dealt with in other statutes, in particular the National Health Service Act 1977. The relevant powers and duties, for example, in Section 4 of that Act to provide and maintain special hospitals are devolved to the Assembly.

I will now explain the Government's approach to the devolution of powers in the 1959 Act. The first power to be devolved is that in Section 3(4). This subsection contains ministerial powers in relation to the payment of members of mental health tribunals. The Government's policy is that ministerial powers in relation to such tribunals should be devolved, but those of the Lord Chancellor should he reserved. This is in line with the intention that all powers of the Lord Chancellor, being of a judical or quasijudicial nature, should remain with him and not be devolved.

The next and major area of devolution is that of Part IV of the Act. This Part contains a variety of ministerial powers and functions concerned with, for example, admissions to hospital and guardianship. At the moment these powers and functions are exercised in Wales by the Secretary of State for Wales. In the Government's view, their devolution to the Assembly is entirely consistent with the policy to give the Assembly responsibility for the Health Service and personal social services in Wales.

Before I explain the entries in column 2 in respect of enactments in Part IV of the Act, I must comment on Part V of the Act. This part relates to patients concerned in criminal proceedings. Contained in that part are a number of ministerial powers in respect of special matters relating to such patients. These powers are currently exercised by the Home Secretary. The Assembly is to have no responsibilities in the field of crime, and to devolve the Home Secretary's powers in the 1959 Act would mean that the Assembly would be administering something for which it would not have the necessary knowledge and experience. The Government have therefore decided that these powers should remain with the Home Secretary.

As I said earlier, the 1959 Act is complex. One of its structural complexities is brought about by the fact that most of the provisions in Part IV of the Act apply equally to patients covered by Part V of the Act. An example is the provisions in Section 39 of the Act in relation to leave of absence from hospitals. But in the case of patients detained under a Section 60 order with restrictions which I shall refer to, in shorthand, as serious criminal cases—the Act applies these provisions in a different way. In these cases the power to grant leave of absence, or revoke that leave, or transfer patients, or discharge patients, can only be exercised with the consent of the Home Secretary. This is achieved by the Act in Section 65; this section overlays, as it were, the Home Secretary's powers in relation to these patients on to the relevant provisions in Part IV.

These powers need to be reserved, and this is achieved by the entries in column 2 for Sections 39(1) and (4), 41 and 47. I am well aware of the potential confusion that these entries could cause, but I am afraid they are forced upon us by the structure on the 1959 Act, which was never designed to take account of the possibility of devolution.

I should like to deal with the remaining devolved powers and functions rather more briefly. The Ministerial powers in Section 64 are concerned with emergency admissions to a different hospital than that specified in the Court order, and Section 99, the transfer of patients between special hospitals, which is devolved insofar as the hospitals concerned are in Wales. Section 133 contains a power to pay pocket money to in-patients and Section 142 is to declare a local social services authority in default. This latter power is devolved only insofar as it relates to the Assembly's responsibilities.

Sections 81 and 85 were referred to in earlier discussions. They deal respectively with the transfer of patients to Scotland and Northern Ireland. A Minister authorises the removal of the patient. The effect of the proposed entry in the Wales Bill will be to devolve the authorisation for patients in Wales to the Assembly. The Secretary of State for Social Services will continue to exercise the power as regards patients in England. The Home Secretary will continue to exercise the power in both England and Wales in respect of serious criminal cases.

I said that the Mental Health Act was a complicated Act. The Government's proposals do not add to the complications, since their intention is to devolve to the Assembly those powers held by the Secretary of State for Wales and to reserve those held by the Home Secretary. This arrangement, therefore, continues the present arrangements whereby two authorities are concerned with this aspect of health administration, but there will be no increase in the number of authorities.

Before leaving this subject—which noble Lords will be glad to hear I shall do shortly—I should like to remind your Lordships that Schedule 2 of the Wales Bill transfers to the Assembly existing statutory Ministerial powers. Powers in enactments presently exercised by, for example, local social services authorities, will continue to be exercised by those authorities. Neither can Schedule 2 anticipage future legislation.

If, for example, a new Mental Health Act were to be brought on the Statute Book it would have to take account of the Wales Act and the existence of the Assembly. The Amendment before your Lordships seeks to ensure that the entry in Schedule 2 is as accurate a reflection of the Government's devolution policy as it can be in respect of the existing legislation.

I have spoken at length because I thought that this rather complicated issue should be on the record, even though I believe that in the discussions he had with my advisers the noble Lord was satisfied as to its validity. 1 beg to move.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, both for his long and helpful letter and for the opportunity which he gave to my noble friend Lady Faithful' and myself to discuss the particularly difficult situation which the Government were concerned with in making suitable arrangements for devolution in regard to the Mental Health Act, 1959.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has further added to his helpful explanation this afternoon. I would not wish to add any further complication, except in one regard: that is, to emphasise the first part of the Amendment, in the right hand column, where reference is made to Section 65(3) of the Mental Health Act. This is of particular significance for those interpreting what has taken place in this regard. We shall be guided by what the Government have said this afternoon. Of course, it would be only too easy if it had been possible to suggest that Part IV of the Mental Health Act was to have been devolved and Part V reserved. That was impossible, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, explained to us. Therefore, with gratitude to the Government for advising my noble friend, myself and the House about how we should proceed, I would not wish to add anything further to what has been said.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 14: Page 45, line 29, leave out from ("under") to end of line 39 and insert ("sections 69, 98(1)(e), 107(1) and 108").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the present entry for the Children Act 1975 reserves in column 2 functions under Section 107(1) of the Act. These are the designation of countries to be considered as British territory; and specification of conditions to be fulfilled by citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies for them to be designated as United Kingdom nationals. Both these functions are tied up with Hague Convention adoption orders, Ministerial functions in relation to which are reserved. I am sure your Lordships would accept that it would be quite wrong to have, for example, different criteria applied in England and Wales as to who should be considered a United Kingdom national for the purposes of the Act.

It has now been realised that Section 107(1) contains a third Ministerial function of the same family. This is one to designate a country as being one in which the Convention is in force. In the Government's view, this function too should be excluded from the competence of the Assembly, as is the equivalent provision in the Adoption Act 1976. This is an afterthought. I hope noble Lords will find it easy to accept. 1 beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 48, line 12, column 2, at beginning insert—

	("The powers under section 6 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 (c. 64).
	The powers under section 9(6) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961 (c. 50).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment reserves the Ministerial powers under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961 to extends the seaward application of those Acts. The Government consider that all such powers should be reserved because they are essentially powers to extend the frontier of devolution. Similar Amendments will be moved in respect of the Water Act 1973 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 48, column 2, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—

("The functions under sections 6(1), 8 to 12 and 15 so far as

exercisable in relation to premises mentioned in section 8(1) or radioactive waste on or from such premises.")'

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment tidies up the entry in Schedule 2 for the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. The Government's policy—which was explained during Committee stage—is that functions in respect of waste from United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority premises and from licensed nuclear sites should be reserved. Such waste has implications not only for energy policy, but also for national safety. However, these considerations do not apply for minor sources of radioactive waste, such as hospitals. So this lesser aspect of radioactive waste is devolved as part of the Assembly's general control of pollution responsibilities.

The Amendment gives effect to this policy in respect of two particular provisions of the 1960 Act which were previously devolved outright. The first of these is Section 6(1), which provides for the authorisation of the disposal of radioactive waste. The second is Section 10, which concerns the provision of additional facilities for the accumulation and disposal of radioactive waste. The Amendment reserves the powers under these sections so far as they relate to waste from United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority premises and licensed nuclear sites. I hope that the distinction is clear. I beg to move.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

My Lords, this appears to be a tidying up Amendment which arises from discussions in which my noble friend Lord Sandys joined me during the Committee stage. We welcome the Amendment very much because it seems to make absolutely clear exactly which functions regarding radioactive wastes and their disposal are to be devolved, and exactly which are to remain in the hands of the Secretary of State.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, in view of the fact that I spoke to this proposal at Committee stage in support of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I should like to join him in thanking the Government for their efforts in this regard.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent)

My Lords, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 18.

4.53 p.m.

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 17: Page 48, in column 1, line 31, leave out ("1(1)(d), 3(3), 5(1)") and insert ("3(3)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that it will be to the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 18 because it covers substantially the same point. I advanced the original arguments for the Amendment rather badly at the Committee stage during consideration of the Motion, Whether Schedule 2 shall be a Schedule to the Bill? At that time the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was answering for the Government. I asked then why on earth were Sections 1(1)(d) and 5(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act in the left-hand column in the Schedule, which indicated that they were to be devolved, while in the next breath, as it seemed to me, they were promptly excluded in the second column. I recognise that this needs a little clarification, but the point at issue is quite simple, and my hope is that it would tidy up quite considerably this area of the Schedule.

The Government's object regarding pollution in the atmosphere has been made abundantly clear. It is that functions regarding basic pollutants should be the responsibility of the Assembly, while matters relating to the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances should remain with the Secretary of State. Sections 1(1)(d) and 5(1) are concerned first with the control of emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances and, secondly, with the general duty of those persons in control of the premises to which these noxious effluents pertain. It would be much tidier and neater to omit Sections 1(1)(d) and 5(1) altogether from column 1, rather than have them mentioned twice—first in column 1, then in column 2. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

My Lords, I should like to speak to Government Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 before I come to move them, because if I can persuade the noble Lord not to press Amendment No. 17, I shall be able to move the other two Amendments which I believe meet Lord Skelmersdale's requirements better than his Amendment does. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to reserve the power referred to in Sections 1(1)(d) and 5 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to prescribe premises to which the atmospheric pollution aspects of the Act apply. The Government without collusion, incidentally—have tabled two Amendments, Nos. 18 and 19, which also deal with this question, and I wish to discuss those first.

The Government's starting point is that the provisions of the Act dealing with atmospheric pollution should be devolved, as are the similar provisions of other related Acts. However, in retrospect we think that we have devolved too much. First, we agree that we should not devolve any powers in respect of vehicles, hovercraft and aircraft. Our reasoning here is that pollution from all of these is essentially connected with design and fuel standards, and hence has major implications for industry and energy. With vessels, which essentially means ships, it is not necessary to have such a complete reservation. We consider that the power to prescribe ships as premises for purposes of the Act should be retained by Ministers, but, if they are so prescribed, the Assembly should be able to apply the smoke controls provided for in the Act; for example, in port. Accordingly we do not go all the way with the noble Lord, who would reserve entirely the power to prescribe premises to which the atmospheric pollution provisions of the Act apply. He would, for instance, reserve this power in respect of offices and industry. We believe that all powers in respect of atmospheric pollution from such premises should be devolved as part of the Assembly's general control of pullution powers. If it wants to be tougher on pollution by prescribing more classes of premises it should be able to do so. I hope that your Lordships will accept the somewhat lesser deletions in Amendment No. 18, to which No. 19 is complementary. I also hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment and to assist me to enforce mine.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

My Lords, the noble Lord has obviously had a far better success ratio in delving into the back of my mind than I have had myself. Most certainly his Amendments cover the points I was trying to make, and I am very pleased to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 18: Page 48, line 31, column 1, leave out ("5(1)") and insert (" 5 ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 48, line 34, column 2, at end insert—

	(" The functions under those sections so far as exercisable in relation to the control of emissions from vehicles, aircraft or hovercraft.
	The power to prescribe vehicles, vessels, aircraft or hovercraft for the purposes of section 1(1)(d).").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: moved Amendment No. 20: Page 48, line 35, column 2, leave out from ("under") to end of line 8 on page 49 and insert ("sections 21(2) and (5), 30(5) and 31(9).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I hope will quickly attract the approval of the House because it takes out 21 lines of the Bill and replaces them with two, and this can hardly be wrong. It concerns Section 30(5) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. This is a complex provision which enables the Secretary of State to apply to radioactive waste the general waste disposal code set out in the 1974 Act. The previous entry in the Bill reserved the powers under Section 30(5) in relation to waste from United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority premises and licensed nuclear sites, but otherwise devolved it.

We were obliged to look at this entry again because a consequential Amendment would have been required to take account of our earlier Amendment, No. 16, to the entry for the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. This consequential Amend ment would have rendered the entry for Section 30(5) of the 1974 Act yet more complex. Instead, we propose to reserve Section 30(5) outright. So it will be for the Secretary of State alone to adapt the Control of Pollution Act to radioactive waste, but he will of course consult the Assembly in the light of their other responsibilities for pollution, including some forms of radioactive pollution. I hope noble Lords will think that this is a sensible solution. I beg to move.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, rightly anticipated the pleasure which we hope your Lordships will share with this Front Bench in accepting the Amendment as proposed. At Committee stage we devoted some little time to the subject of the disposal of radioactive waste, and if the Government have reached the conclusion, as they have, to simplify and ensure that the Secretary of State retains all powers under this section, we believe that this w ill have conferred a benefit on the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 49, line 10, column 2, at end insert—

	("The power to prescribe parts of the territorial sea for the purposes of the definition of "controlled waters" in section 56(1).
	The functions under section 56(4).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 21 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 22. Both have the effect of reserving powers to determine, or arbitrate on, the seaward extent of the application of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Again, the Government's approach is that all powers to extend the frontier of devolution should be reserved. These Amendments are part of a series of four with similar effect, the others being No. 15, with which we have already dealt, and No. 37, which deals with the Water Act and will come later. I think this is a simple and obvious improvement, and I beg to move.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

My Lords, being a bit slow on the uptake I did not speak to Amendment No. 15, but what I had to say on that Amendment goes just as well for these Amendments, too. They are quite obviously, as the noble Lord has said, very welcome to all partsof the House, and indeed will be, 1 think, to the understanding of the future Assemblymen. This is no small matter. I think it is quite obvious that these particular powers should be reserved to the Secretary of State, because to give them to the Assembly will only lead to ultimate confusion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 22: Page 49, line 14, column 2, after (" sections ") insert (" 73(2)(a) ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 23: Page 49, leave out lines 35 to 47.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission 1 will also speak to Amendment No. 73. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that the Minister of Agriculture has control of the management of common land and, in particular, allotments. As the Bill is written, I understand that any matter affecting the farming of commons or the future of allotments will be dealt with by a planning committee of the Welsh Assembly. Surely such matters are agricultural, and as such should be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Wales in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture. At least he should be consulted; and if the Government cannot accept my Amendment (as I am sure they cannot) perhaps they can assure me that the Minister of Agriculture would be consulted in matters affecting the farming of commons or allotments. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

My Lords, if I may first make a comment on the last point, agriculture is not devolved and, therefore, the agriculture of commons is not devolved. So if new operations were to be introduced into commons it would be a matter, inevitably, for the Minister. But, on the whole, the effect of the Amendment would be to reserve almost all existing ministerial powers in respect of commons. Some of these powers are admittedly very rarely used, but others, especially those under the Commons Act 1899 and the Law of Property Act 1925, are at present constantly being exerciesd by the Secretary of State for Wales—not by the Minister of Agriculture, I note.

What we must decide is whether they continue to be exercised by him or whether they should be transferred to the Assembly. The Government's strong view is that they should be devolved. Commons are essentially a local matter and, especially in South Wales, they are a very important local matter. Right across South Wales there are commons in the hills between the industrial valleys, and these are a much-valued source of recreation for those living in the valleys. It seems to the Government that this is just the kind of local matter which is ideal for devolution. There is no impact at all for other parts of the United Kingdom. Commons also cohere with other matters for which the Assembly will have responsibilities: most particularly, land-use planning, countryside and recreation. The Assembly will therefore be well placed to exercise its powers.

It might perhaps be argued that there is a connection between commons and agriculture. This is so, of course, but I do not think it should be overstated. Commons powers at present do not rest with agriculture Ministers, but with planning Ministers; and it is noteworthy that these powers were among the first to be transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales. In practice, most cases arising today turn on planning and amenity considerations. But even going back to the early Commons Acts, the powers are exercisable with regard not just to agriculture but to more general considerations. For instance, Section 7 of the Commons Act 1876 (which is included in the list of Acts devolved by the entry for Inclosure Acts 1845 to 1882) provides that powers are exercisable "for the benefit of the neighbourhood". Where agricultural considerations are relevant, as I said at the beginning of this speech, the Assembly will be required to take them into account along with other considerations. The Assembly will be bound by statutory requirements, just as is the Secretary of State at present. For instance, if the Assembly is to consent under Section 194 of the 1925 Act to the restriction of access to commons, it will be bound by the requirements of the 1876 Act to hold an inquiry and will also be required to weigh all the criteria listed in the Inclosure Acts of 1845 to 1862; and if the Assembly does not come to its decision in a proper manner, the decision will be open to challenge in the courts.

Against this background, my Lords, may I say that the Government are quite sure that it would be wrong to deprive the Assembly of powers in respect of commons. They are of a very local nature, and entirely suitable for devolution. I trust that what I have said will put the noble Lord's mind a little more at ease, and I hope very much that he will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed reply—much more detailed than I expected. I have to accept it although, as he intimated, I do not accept it with a completely glad heart. I feel at the back of my mind that agriculture is inclined to be pushed into second place, or it might be so. The noble Lord shakes his head. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.10 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 24:

Page 50, line 16, column 2, at end insert—

(" The functions under section 17(5) so far as exercisable in relation to excepted statutory undertakers, and the function conferred on the Treasury by section 17(8).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns the carrying out of coast protection work by statutory undertakers. It is technical and involves no policy change. Section 17 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 provides that statutory undertakers carrying out coast protection work must satisfy the coast protection authority. If there is a dispute, subsection (4) provides that it should be resolved jointly by the "appropriate Minister" (that is, the Minister responsible for the undertakers) and the Minister responsible for the coast protection authority; that is, both of them. Subsection(5)then provides for the appropriate Minister to direct the statutory undertakers to carry out the work or not to do so as the case may be.

The Amendment reserves this power under subsection (5) in cases where the undertakers are "excepted statutory undertakers "—that is to say, undertakers which operate in reserved areas. The term is defined in Clause 76(1) and includes, for example, British Rail. The power will remain devolved for other statutory undertakers such as water authorities. The Amendment also reserves the power in subsection (8), which is, in effect, the power to decide whether the Assembly is the "appropriate Minister in any particular case.

There is a later related Amendment (No. 70) to Schedule 4 to the Bill which I shall move when we get there. It is worth noticing that corresponding changes were made and accepted to the Scotland Bill. I beg to move.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I rise briefly on this technical point with another. I deplore putting down Amendments later than they should be put down and I thought it fair to give the noble Lord notice on this occasion since he mentioned statutory excepted undertakers. I may tell him that I am in process of tabling an Amendment to the definitions, to the interpretation clause, in which I find the strange provision that the Secretary of State is the only person who, in the long run, determines what an "excepted statutory undertaking" is. It seems a strange place to put it. I wanted to air the matter. The noble Lord's advisers will wish to think about it, and I hope that the usual means will be taken of alerting them to the subject.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 25: Page 50, line 33, column 2, leave out (" those sections ") and insert (" sections 23(2)(b) and (in a case within subsection (2)(b)) 26(2) ")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, with the permission of the House, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. They both relate to Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959. As my noble friend Lady Stedman explained in Committee stage, Part II of the 1959 Act makes provision for the acquisition, appropriation and disposal of property by local authorities. At present, local authorities require the consent of the Minister concerned with the purpose for which the land was acquired. After devolution it will be for the Assembly to give consent where the purpose is one for which they will be responsible; for instance, housing. The Bill already achieves this satisfactorily. Part II of the 1959 Act also includes some powers of a more general nature—for example, relating to the appropriation of open space or to the adjustment of local authority accounts. These arc powers related to the general supervision of local government. As such they should be devolved outright. At present they are reserved outright, and the Amendment corrects this. I think it a simple point and I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 26: Page 50, line 34, column 1, leave out (" 23(2)(b) and 26(2)(b) and (3)(b)") and insert (" 23, 24, 26 and 27").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 50, line 42, at end insert—

("The Land Compensation Act 1961 (c. 33) sections 18 and 37 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.

The powers under section 37 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment transfers to the Assembly powers under Sections 18 and 37 of, and paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act 1961. Section 18 concerns appeals against certificates of appropriate alternative development. The certificates may be granted by local authorities where land is to be compulsorily acquired. The certificate states whether the land was likely to receive planning permission for any other use—a matter of some significance for compensation purposes. Appeals currently go to the Secretary of State for Wales. But as the Assembly will be responsible after devolution for land use matters, it is sensible that appeals under Section 18 should go to it. Para graph 2 of Schedule 2 concerns the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders in respect of houses unfit for human habitation. After devolution, it is appropriate that the Assembly should be responsible for confirmation of such orders as the Assembly will be responsible for related housing and public health matters.

The Amendment also ensures that the Assembly will be able to hold local inquiries under Section 37 for the purposes of both Section 18 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. The Government will be able to hold local inquiries in respect of functions under the Act which are to be reserved. I should stress that this Amendment does not devolve any functions relating to the basis on which compensation is assessed. This will remain uniform throughout Great Britain. I hope that noble Lords will think that this is a sensible Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 51, column 2, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert—

	("The functions under section 10(3) so far as exercisable in relation to excepted statutory undertakers.
	The functions under sections 28 to 30 and Schedule 8 so far as exercisable by virtue of representations made by excepted statutory undertakers.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I indicated during Committee stage that the Government would he proposing a series of technical Amendments concerning the Bill's treatment of excepted statutory undertakers. This is the first of these Amendments, and perhaps I could save time later if I explain our general approach now. Statutory undertakers by their nature have statutory duties to perform—for instance, to supply electricity to households—and planning legislation contains a number of ministerial protections to ensure that these duties are not unduly prejudiced by planning decisions. After devolution, the Assembly will have responsibility for most planning functions, and it is necessary to ensure that they are not exercised in a way which might prejudice those statutory undertakers who will remain responsible to the Government. These are termed "excepted statutory undertakers" and are defined in Clause 76(1). They include, for example, the Post Office and Electricity Boards.

The Wales Bill accordingly reserves certain planning powers where they are exercised in respect of excepted statutory undertakers, or, depending on the nature of the power, devolves them in Schedule 2 subject to ministerial consent under Schedule 4. However, the detail is not in all cases right, and that is why we are proposing this series of Amendments. This particular Amendment has the effect of reserving the powers in Sections 28 and 29 of the New Towns Act 1965 where their exercise stems from representations by excepted statutory undertakers. Section 28 concerns the extension or modification of the functions of statutory undertakers, and Section 29 contains related procedural provisions. The Amendment also mentions Sections 10(3) and 30 and Schedule 8 of the Act, but in these cases it merely carries over the effect of the entry as it previously stood. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.20 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 29: Page 51, line 11, column 2, leave out from ("(5)") to end of line 12 and insert ("and 43 to 45.").]

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to reserve the powers under Section 44 of the New Towns Act 1965 relating to grants and loans made to the Commission for New Towns from the Consolidated Fund. This is in line with the reservation of other matters relating to the Commission for New Towns. Section 44 also relates to grants to new town development corporations. Powers in respect of development corporations are in general to be devolved. But no specific provision is required in the case of Section 44, because Clause 54(1) has the effect of converting the references as necessary to provide for devolution. This is all very technical, and no policy change is involved. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 51, line 21, column 2, at end insert —

("The powers under section 50 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the holding of local inquiries under Section 50 of the New Towns Act 1965. It involves no change of policy. Most ministerial functions under the 1965 Act are to be transferred to the Assembly. But some—for example, in respect of excepted statutory undertakers—will remain with the Government. Both the Assembly and the Government will, therefore, need to have the power under Section 50 to hold inquiries. The Amendment ensures that each can hold inquiries where this is required for the exercise of their functions under the Act. Previously only the Assembly would have been able to hold an inquiry. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 32.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 51, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—

("The Commons Registration Act 1965 (c. 64) section 19.

The power to make regulations for the purposes specified in paragraphs (e) and (g) of subsection (1).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House, if, in introducing the Government's Amendment, I refer also to Amendment No. 32. Both concern Section 19 of the Commons Registration Act 1965. Section 19 of the Commons Registration Act contains powers which are not of great significance in practice. I say that not because commons are an unimportant subject—I know that, rightfully, they arouse strong feelings—but because most of the powers are either spent or are unlikely to be exercised again. This is because the initial process of applications for registration under the 1965 Act, and of the making of objections, is now complete. However, whether powers are major or minor, our task is to ensure that they are allocated to the Government or the Assembly as is the more appropriate.

The Government's Amendment does two things. First, it acknowledges the fact that the only section containing powers to be devolved is Section 19. The powers in the other sections are either spent or irrelevant; except those in Section 17, which we agree should be reserved because they establish the Commons Commissioners. Secondly, it reserves two aspects of Section 19 because, we believe, they are not apt for the Assembly to exercise. There is the power under subsection 1(e) to make regulations in respect of the procedure of the Commons Commissioners; and there is the power under subsection 1(g) to provide for the Church Commissioners to act on behalf of Church of England benefices. I am told that the Church of England is not totally disestablished in Wales; some border parishes remain part of the Established Church.

This leaves devolved a variety of powers to make regulations with respect to the keeping of commons registers by local authorities. What do we do with these? I suggest that we should leave them devolved: because most local authority matters of this nature are devolved, and because most other aspects of commons under other legislation are also to be devolved. We are concerned here essentially with a local matter. The Assembly are not going to make different Welsh regulations for their own sake—they will have better things to do. But if there is a need to reflect particular Welsh circumstances, then it is appropriate for the Assembly rather than the Government to do so.

I hope therefore that your Lordships will accept our Amendment. We have looked at the matter carefully in the light of the Amendment tabled on Committee stage, and believe that in practical administrative terms what we propose is sensible. I hope also that Amendment No. 32, which in effect reserves all functions under the 1965 Act, will not be pressed. I beg to move.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, while reserving the right of my noble friend to speak to Amendment No. 32, I should like to comment briefly on Amendment No. 31 and draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that by her Amendment she is deleting the functions under Section 17 from excluded functions. By leaving out lines 28 and 29 one is leaving out chapter 64 and the functions under Section 17, which is in the second column of the Bill. According to the very clear explanation from the noble Baroness and from what she said at Committee stage, this was not the intention of the Amendment. If she will look at it again I shall be grateful.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I assume from the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is nodding that she is going to withdraw her Amendment.

Baroness STEDMAN

No, my Lords. I am happy to look at the point that the noble Baroness has raised. Our understanding is that all the powers in the other sections referred to are spent or irrelevant, but those in Sections 17 we agree ought to he reserved because they establish the Commons Commissioners. That is the way that we want to leave it.

Baroness ELLES

With respect, my Lords, from the way the Amendment is drafted the functions under Section 17 would be removed from the Bill. I am sure that this is not the intention of the noble Baroness. As I understand it, the words: the functions under Section 17 should remain printed in the second column of the Bill. By removing lines 28 and 29 from the Bill that particular reference would be excluded. I do not believe that that is the intention of the noble Baroness. I should be grateful if she would withdraw this Amendment. If the noble Baroness presses this Amendment, she will be excluding the functions under Section 17. They will be deleted from the Bill and it will put my noble friend in a difficult position over Amendment No. 32. If the noble Baroness withdraws this Amendment and looks closely at the effect of it, I am sure that my noble friend would undertake not to press his Amendment at this stage. The drafting can be sorted out later. This will allow my noble friend to speak to the substance of Amendment No. 32 without creating confusion.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, with the leave of the House, my "pigeon post" has been active and I understand that Section 17 is reserved by silence. We have returned to what we had in the Scotland Bill where we had things reserved by silence. If the noble Baroness is not happy, I will take the Amendment back and look at it again on the undertaking that the noble Lord does the same. We can then consider it before the next stage.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, so far as I am concerned, I shall be very happy with that explanation and to reserve this matter to a further stage. Many of us are not always happy about exclusion by silence.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.28 p.m.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32: Page 51, line 28, leave out ("section 17") and insert ("sections 17 and 19").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to find myself for once not being the only one wrong and for once seeing, as I thought, that the noble Baroness was wrong in not putting in: The functions under Section 17". I cannot understand why she had the functions under Section 17 before, but not in this Bill. This must be sorted out between now and Third Reading.

As the noble Baroness knows, I raised the matter in Committee. I received a favourable reply, as I did today in what the noble Baroness said to Amendment No. 31. However, having wounded the "bird" I should like to try to finish him off. The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the regulations of common land are the same in England and Wales. I do not agree with what the noble Baroness said about her Amendment. As I understand it, the 1965 Commons Registration Act was passed for that reason with, to the best of my knowledge, little dissension. There are already provisions under Section 19(4) of the Bill to allow different regulations for different circumstances.

I cannot accept the Government's argument as stated by the noble Baroness in Committee on 15th June. In column 610 of Hansard she said: It seems unlikely that it"— I think she means the Welsh Assembly— would wish to make regulations differing greatly from those applying in England, but circumstances are, of course, not always the same in Wales, and it should have the opportunity to take account of this". As I said, there are provisions under Section 19(4) to do this. If, however, it did make different regulations, despite the fact that the noble Baroness said that she did not think it would, there could be a muddle on commons straddling the Border between England and Wales. If it does not make these different regulations, why devolve them? It seems to me to be a case of "heads I win and tails you lose".

There is also the question of the class of person eligible to re-register. Paragraph 29(2)(b) of the Statutory Instrument of 1966, No. 1471, defines the different classes of person eligible. As I understand it, the Welsh Assembly could redefine "a person having an interest", and this, I believe could add confusion. I have one probing question to put: Could the Government tell me whether under Section 15(3) of the 1965 Act it will be Parliament and not the Welsh Assembly which will have the powers with regard to quantification of certain grazing rights? I think perhaps I ought to know that, but this does not make it quite clear to me as to whether it has or has not been devolved.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 33: Page 51, line 48, column 2, at end insert (",73 to 77 and 84").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Baroness, Baroness Elles, suggested that the Bill should reserve ministerial powers in respect of office development permits under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This Amendment is a direct response to that suggestion, and reserves all the ministerial powers. Office development permits have never applied to Wales, and are perhaps unlikely to do so. But we accept that we should nevertheless get the Bill right, and that reservation is consistent with the reservation of other functions relating to regional employment policy. I beg to move.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness for the way she has dealt with my proposals made at the Committee stage, and I naturally support the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

5.33 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 35: Page 52, line 19, leave out from ("under") to ("exercisable") in line 22 and insert ("sections 233 to 236 so far as").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a further Amendment in respect of excepted statutory undertakers, and the effect is to reserve the powers referred to in Sections 233 and 234 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, where exercisable, following representations from an excepted statutory undertaker. These provisions are parallel to Sections 28 and 29 of the New Towns Act 1965, which were the subject of an earlier Amendment this afternoon. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 53, line 10, column 1, at end insert—

("The Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26) sections 15(2), 20, 22(5), 41(2), 42(5), 51 and 72.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment transfers to the Assembly a series of functions under the Land Compensation Act 1973 which cohere with other devolved functions. The function are as follows: (1) the function under Section 15 of certifying whether runway alterations have been carried out; (2) the making of regulations under Section 20 as to sound-proofing of buildings to mitigate noise from public works: (3) the functions under Section 22(5) of authorising the acquisition of land by local highway authorities; (4) the functions under Sections 41(2) and 42(5) relating to people displaced from their homes as a result of compulsory acquisition by public bodies; (5) the functions under Section 51 of specifying that land to be designated as a new town is required for purposes of public development. This is relevant to entitlements to compensation; and (6) the power under Section 72 to acquire land compulsorily in pursuance of a blight notice where land has been designated as part of a new town.

All these provisions cohere with other functions which are to be transferred to the Assembly, and the Assembly will be much better placed than the Secretary of State to exercise them. All matters relating to the basis on which compensation is assessed are, of course, reserved. I beg to move.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, may I, from these Benches, say how much we welcome the transfer of this authority to the Assembly.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I wonder whether I might just ask the noble Baroness, in view of her explanation of the purpose of this Amendment, whether it will make any difference to where the money comes from, in view of this devolution of power. Obviously, many of these matters are going to involve certain amount of expenditure—particularly insulation and some of the other matters she has referred to. Will this mean that these matters will now be paid for out of the block grant given to the Welsh Assembly, as opposed to other funds which are available to the Secretary of State?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, where they are strictly devolved powers, they will come out of the Consolidated Fund for the Assembly. Where they are powers within the remit of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will still provide the money in the normal way, as he does now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 37: Page 54, line 14, column 2, after ("4") insert ("5").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the last in the series of Amendments dealing with seaward limits. It concerns the power of the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Water Act 1973 to determine questions arising as to the extent of the seaward boundaries of water authorities. This power is to be reserved along with all other powers relating to seaward limits. The House dealt with the other Amendments, Nos. 15, 21 and 22, earlier this afternoon, when my noble friend Lord Donaldson was present. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 47:

Page 54, column 2, leave out lines 32 and 33.

Page 54, line 34, column 2, leave out ("(5)")

Page 54, line 35, column 2, leave out ("section 42") and insert ("sections 42 and 64")

Page 54, line 35, column 2, leave out lines 49 and 50.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it might be convenient to the House to take Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 together because they all tidy up the entry in Schedule 2 to the Bill for the Land Drainage Act 1976. Amendment No. 38 concerns the powers under Section 23 of the Act to approve arrangements between drainage authorities on the one hand and navigation or conservancy authorities on the other hand. The Assembly will be responsible for drainage authorities, but powers in respect of conservancy and navigation authorities are generally to be reserved. The present entry in the Bill seeks to reflect this by reserving the powers under Section 23 of the Secretary of State, but not of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, Section 23 has been affected by a recent transfer of functions order which took effect on 1st April—the Transfer of Functions (Wales) (No. 1) Order—and this solution is no longer possible. Instead, the Amendment devolves all the powers under Section 23, and a later Amendment, No. 72, requires that their exercise be subject to ministerial consent.

Amendment No. 39 reserves all the powers under Section 27 of the Act. These are concerned with navigation authorities, responsibility for which is generally reserved in the Bill. Amendment No. 40 reserves the power of the Treasury in Section 64 to fix the fee for the provision of information by the Inspector of Taxes to internal drainage boards. This is essentially a power in respect of the Inland Revenue. Amendment No. 41 is a technical Amendment in relation to the pay, pensions and allowances of the chairman of regional and local land drainage committees of the Welsh Water Authority. This was previously dealt with in paragraph 87 of Schedule 11, but it is not for technical reasons appropriate to deal with the matter in Schedule 2. The functions in question are to be devolved to the Assembly.

As I said, these are all tidying Amendments, and we shall come to some more far-reaching Amendments concerning internal drainage boards when we get to Clause 61. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

5.40 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 41A: Page 55, leave out lines 24 and 25.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this, again, is a technical Amendment. It deletes the entry in Part XI of Schedule 2 for Sections 7 and 9 of the Local Government Act 1974, for the reason that the necessary devolution of the ministerial functions in these provisions is already provided for in paragraphs 58, 66 and 68 of Schedule 11. Section 7 of the 1974 Act concerns supplementary grants towards expenditure in national parks. Section 9 concerns grants and loans by the Countryside Commission which, after devolution, will be the Welsh Countryside Commission. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 42: Page 56, line 45, after ("29") insert ("(7) and (8)")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the debate in Committee on Schedule 2 stand part, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, raised a point about the devolution of powers in relation to noise pollution from aircraft. At the time I said that the noble Lord had put his finger on a defect in the Bill which the Government intended to rectify at Report. This is the first of two such Amendments designed to put things right. Section 29A of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 (added by the Airports Authority Act 1975) is concerned with the mitigation of the effects of noise and vibration from aircraft. It provides for a scheme whereby grants can be made for the insulation of buildings. It is entirely in keeping with the Assembly's powers, in relation to housing and other local matters, that it should have transferred to it the powers in this section.

Functions in relation to the control of noise pollution are to be excluded from the competence of the Assembly. It is not the Government's intention that the Assembly should have powers, for example, to specify the number of aircraft, or to determine the periods during which aircraft take off or land at an aerodrome. Powers of this nature are contained in Section 29 of the 1971 Act, and the Bill at present wrongly devolves them to the Assembly. But Section 29(7) of the 1971 Act contains powers in relation to the measurement of noise, and Section 29(8) contains powers in respect of failure to perform the duties laid down in Section 29(7). The Assembly needs these powers in order to carry out its functions under Section 29A. Equally, the Secretary of State needs the same powers in order to perform his functions under the remainder of Section 29.

Accordingly, the Amendment before your Lordships devolves the power under Sections 29(7) and (8) and 29A to the Assembly. We will shortly reach Government Amendment No. 47 to Schedule 3, which makes the powers under Sections 29(7) and (8) concurrent so that they are available to both the Assembly and the Secretary of State. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord O'HAGAN

My Lords, may I, on behalf of my noble friends, say that I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for remedying the defect in this part of the Schedule, which was brought to her attention at an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill. Can she confirm —and this is a question asked from ignorance rather than malice—whether the nature of the control over the by-products of aircraft, if one may call them that, is now reserved to central Government? Is it noise levels, or is it pollution generally from aircraft? There can be pollution by noise and there can also be pollution of other kinds. If I understand it correctly, what is being reserved is central control of the noise level itself: that alone and nothing more.

I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said, and may I serve notice on her that as I, like some of my noble friends, have not received letters which I am sure are in the post, I look forward to hearing, when we come to later Amendments, what are Her Majesty's Government's views about the devolution of various aspects of the Road Traffic Act 1967, particularly in regard to bollards in central London and statutory notices controlling dogs, both of which I mentioned at the Committee stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I am grateful for the Amendment which the noble Baroness has brought forward, together with the one that follows from it.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I understand that in my absence there were some comments about letters which appear to have gone astray. I apologise to noble Lords if they have not received them. My understanding was that they had all been sent, but 1 will certainly check on that when I get back to my office.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, may I say, on behalf of my noble friends—and I am one of those who have not had a letter—that we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for having said that. No doubt the letters are somewhere on their way.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 56, line 47, column 1, at end insert—

("The Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Act 1977 (c. 21.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment devolves to the Assembly all powers under the Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Act 1977. This Act provides for the designation of areas in which local authorities may authorise the relaxation of the licensing requirements of Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1960. The authorisation may apply to private vehicles or commercial vehicles carrying up to five people. Where an authorisation is made, there is no need to have a road service licence or a public service vehicle licence. The main ministerial powers are to be found in Sections 1(2) and 2(6); they are the power to designate areas and the power to approve authorisations granted by local authorities. These and the other ministerial powers in the Act are essentially of a local nature and are suitable for transfer to the Assembly as part of its wider responsibilities related to road service licensing and transport in general. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 56, line 47, at end insert—

("The Minibus Act 1977 (c.25).	The power under section 1(3) except so far as exercisable in connection with the grant of permits in respect of vehicles ordinarily kept in Wales.
	The functions under section 3 except the power under subsection (1) to prescribe the matters to be taken into account in determining the conditions of permits granted in respect of vehicles ordinarily kept in Wales.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment devolves powers under the Minibus Act 1977, and is very similar in nature to the previous one concerned with the Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Act of the same year. The Minibus Act provides that the Secretary of State may designate bodies as being able to grant permits in respect of minibuses. Where such a permit is granted, there is no requirement to have a road service licence or a public service vehicle licence. However, the Act applies only to minibus services which are not available to the public at large and which are not for profit. It is aimed particularly at minibuses run by voluntary community organisations.

The main ministerial power is that under Section 1 of designating bodies in respect of vehicles normally kept in Wales. But there are powers in Section 3 to make regulations in respect of vehicle safety, and these are to be reserved. This is in line with the reservation elsewhere in the Bill of matters relating to safety standards, including the reservation of public service vehicle licensing. Again, the powers to be devolved are of a local and social nature, and cohere with the devolution of other functions relating to road service licensing and transport. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:

Page 58, leave out lines 43 to 52 and insert—

("The power under section 55(1) to give general directions other than directions as to the placing of signs of a type prescribed by regulations made by the Assembly under section 54.").

Page 59, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert ("speed limits on any road specified in an order or on all roads in any area so specified.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it might be convenient to take together Amendments Nos. 45 and 46, as they both relate to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and follow a common approach. The Government's view is that general rules relating to traffic should be the same in both England and Wales, and for this reason most general powers under the 1967 Act are reserved. But it is sensible that the Assembly should have powers which are of purely local application, as this will be more knowledgeable of local circumstances. These Amendments both concern local powers.

Amendment No. 45 concerns road signs. The Bill already reserves the powers under Section 55(1) of the 1967 Act to make general directions as to the placing of road signs—except that the Assembly will be able to make its own directions in respect of Welsh language variants of signs. However, powers in subsection (2) in respect of the placing and replacing of particular signs should be devolved outright because they are concerned with local circumstances. At present these powers are only partly devolved and this Amendment completes the job.

Amendment No. 46 concerns the power for the setting of speed limits under Section 77 of the 1967 Act. At present the Bill correctly reserves these powers in respect of general speed limits. It devolves them, again correctly, in respect of local maximum speed limits. But it omits to devolve in respect of local minimum limits, and this Amendment puts right that minor omission. I might add that both Amendments, although it is not their primary purpose, have the desirable effect of simplifying what is at the moment a rather complex entry in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Questions, Amendments agreed to.

Scheuled 3 [Enactments conferring powers exercisable concurrently]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 60, line 38, at end insert— ("The Civil Aviation Act 1971 (c. 75) section 29(7) and (8).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the second leg of the Amendments to put right the treatment in the Bill of Sections 29 and 29A of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. When I moved Amendment No. 42 to Schedule 2, I explained the Government's policy towards noise pollution from aircraft. I do not propose to retread that same ground again. Suffice to say that the purpose of this Amendment is to give access to the powers in Sections 29(7) and (8) in respect of the measurement of noise levels at aerodromes to both the Assembly and the Secretary of State so that both can perform their respective functions effectively. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Cultural and recreative activities]:

5.53 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 48: Page 7, line 13, at end insert ("but shall not make payments of grants with respect to items for the collections of museums and galleries and special grants with respect to items for the collections of libraries.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we enter now an area on which there was some considerable interest at the Committee stage. Your Lordships will recall that we were discussing in this context the future of the Arts Council and the question which we were considering at the close of our deliberations was the extent to which the functions of the Arts Council were to be devolved and divided. It was made clear to us that since the Arts Council was a chartered body it was not subject to legislation, and it was borne in upon us that where you have devolution it is reasonable to devolve the arts and it is likely that the different areas of the Kingdom which receive the devolved power are likely to wish to set up their own independent establishment in place of the United Kingdom one.

It was also clear that, while the functions of the Arts Council would not be subject to legislation, the funds which they administered would, and indeed I think of the Arts Council sometimes as a gardener with a hosepipe. He decides which parts of the garden should be made to flourish, which arc the most precious trees, which must suffer a temporary drought; and upon those most deserving, particularly those which look as though they are going to be taken out through the garden gate by foreign tourists, they pour sustaining torrents of money.

In this context I do not wish to argue against the principle that the Welsh should have a considerable or indeed a predominant say in the administration of their artistic affairs. They are an artistic people and this is a right which they may well feel they ought to be able to claim. But I am increasingly aware, since the time that we had our exchanges on this side of the House, that this is a whole area, discussion of which has not taken place in another place and which it is desirable that they should have an opportunity to discuss. Therefore, in introducing this Amendment to restrict the right to make payments for the special purchase grants of galleries and museums, I do so with the intention of enabling the subject to be discussed in another place by the elected representatives of the Welsh people who have a considerable interest in the matter. This is one of the occasions when your Lordships' function of a revising Chamber is overlaid by our function as a Chamber which opens the door to discussion in another place, and it is with that purpose principally in mind that I move this Amendment.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that I appreciate the motives of the noble Lord. This needs further discussion and I am very glad to have further discussion. I should like to begin by quoting something which the Arts Council itself said, I think yesterday. They issued a statement after the discussion on devolution and said: The Council, and particularly its Scottish and Welsh members believe that, if devolution comes the principle of having an intermediate body between the politicians and the artists which has worked so well for the past 30 years should be preserved in any new arrangements made by the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies ". The fact that the Government are not laying this down does not mean that the Government, if asked—which they have not been—might not agree with this I do not think the Government should say what they think or should necessarily even have a view. If you are going to devolve, the devolved Assemblies must make their decision about that. I thought it important to say that this statement had been made and it is a statement which I find, at its least controversial, extremely interesting.

I have prepared a fairly complete statement about the purchase grant side. I prepared it very carefully and I think I sent a copy to the noble Lord, but I shall go through it again because this is the basis of what we want to discuss. Of course, the Amendment—and I am not going to criticise it in detail because it is a probing Amendment—it is just worth noticing, as it stands, would prevent the Assembly from making any contribution whatsoever to purchases at any time even for example, in a national appeal for something for a Welsh collection. I am quite sure that this is not meant, but it is worth noticing that that is where we stand at the moment.

By virtue of Clause 10 the Assembly will be expected to assume responsibility for the national collections in Wales—for example in the National Museum of Wales—and for their accommodation and care. All this will be funded from their block fund. It is also intended that this responsibility should extend to purchase grants. In the Government's view all these aspects are indivisible, the policy on purchases being but one aspect of total responsibility in this field. However, there is the question of special purchase grants about which we heard much in our debates on the same matters in the Scotland Bill and I shall deal with those. The question of special purchase grants is very complicated, so perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I deal with these in general terms first before going on to discuss the impact of devolution.

The position now is that the national museums and galleries receive grants-in-aid earmarked for the purchases of objects to add to their collections. These grants-in-aid are revalued for inflation and from time to time are increased in real terms. Last October we announced an increase in real terms of £1 million a year to take effect from this year, and a further £1 million a year on top of that to take effect next year. This year's extra £1 million was allocated between England, Scotland and Wales. This is before devolution. The English money was added to the national institutions' purchase grants, approximately pro rata to their existing grants. The Scots and the Welsh have decided to keep their share of the extra £1 million separate from the individual purchase grants. But this is all money which is in the programme and budgeted for.

If the opportunity to purchase something exceptional comes along and the object is very expensive, as many works of art now are, there is a strong risk that the institute that is interested in buying it or bidding for it cannot find the money from within the purchase grant. But the purpose of adding the extra £1 million this year and next year another £1 million is to reduce that risk, and make it easier for galleries to find the money from what are their own budgeted resources. This was how the Tate managed to afford that marvellous picture of Ben Truman by Gainsborough. It cost about £400,000, but their purchase grant as enlarged stood at over £1 million.

Nevertheless, there are some works of art whose cost would exceed the whole of a gallery's purchase grant. And something might come up for sale when the gallery had used up most of its purchase grant, which could have been afforded if the grant had not been used up, and there may be no possibility of delaying the purchase to the following year. If the gallery wants the item badly, but cannot afford it, it can apply to the department—the Department of Education and Science in England, the Scottish Education Department in Scotland, and the Welsh Office in Wales—for a special purchase grant.

Such a grant has to have the approval of the Treasury. The Department and the Treasury have to be satisfied on several counts. First that the gallery genuinely cannot find the money out of its own purchase grant-in-aid. Secondly, that the gallery has mobilised all the private trust funds that it possibly can put towards the price. Thirdly, that it has already attempted, or will attempt, to raise some of the money from the public at large or other private sources such as local benefactors, charitable trusts and so on.

The Treasury then look to the Department to find the money for the grant from savings elsewhere. Only if they are satisfied that no such savings are available will they agree to have recourse to the Contingency Reserve of money set aside for unprogrammed eventualities. Even that, of course, may have been exhausted by the time the application comes in. Finally, if all these hoops are jumped through, it has always been the practice that the special grant should not be more than half the total cost of the object. Some people believe these special purchase grants have ceased to happen and that it is all too difficult. It is all too difficult, but they have not ceased to happen. Special purchase grants were, for example, provided towards the two Stubbs the Tate acquired last year—the Reapers and the Haymakers—and for the Cornbury Park Bellini, acquired by the Birmingham City Art Gallery.

What will be the position after devolution? The arrangements envisaged in the Wales Bill, and also in the Scotland Bill before the Government Amendment on Third Reading, are as follows. The museums and galleries would be the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish administration. They would provide their normal purchase grant money out of the block fund. It would be for the devolved administrations to decide whether to maintain the pre-devolution levels or increase them or reduce them. But the "routine" purchases, if I may so call them, of the galleries—small objects of the kind which they would acquire fairly frequently—could, I imagine, be capable of being budgeted for in advance.

When something really big came along, which could not be budgeted for, the devolved administrations would have to consider whether they could find the money from some unspent or unallocated section of the block fund. In this respect the expenditure on a work of art would be treated in the same way as any other piece of proposed expenditure which was not originally foreseen. The administrations will have to draw up rules for deciding whether to allow the expenditure.

I daresay that the finance officers will be interested in the conditions in which the Treasury currently operates, and which will continue to operate in England.

But I think there is a worry over what would happen if an enormously expensive item came along. Chatsworth is sometimes cited as an example of the scale of things in England. The pictures on loan from the Duke of Sutherland are another, closer to the issue here, and were discussed in our last debate on Scotland. In the first instance the answer must be to see if the block fund can accommodate it. The block fund will, after all, be large, and with such a sum, covering such a wide range of activities, the possibility and scope for underspending elsewhere on a large scale cannot be ruled out. This must be the first question to ask in any extra expenditure proposal in fields covered by the block fund, not only for works of art; and one could not exempt works of art from that rule without exempting everything else.

However, without promising anything at all, if I may adopt my usual position, I think it would be reasonable to say that the issue, though strictly one for the devolved administrations, might well take on a Great Britain dimension if the works of art were important enough, and obviously they would have to be important if the sum of money involved was such that the block fund could not accommodate it. In those circumstances it would be open to the administrations to ask the Government to help. This is only commonsense. What the answer would be would have to depend on the circumstances, and would be a political decision by the Government of the day.

All special purchase grants now, under the present regime, are ad hoc and without prejudice, and involve a great turning out of pockets. They are the kind of hard cases for which one should not legislate. One has to strike a balance, between providing sufficient money for galleries and museums to pursue an adequate acquisition strategy and not providing them with so much that they lower their standards or hold the money unused when it could be spent in something totally different. The point has been made time and again in these debates that we must not credit the elected Assembly with malign intentions of spending its whole re sources on something other than one's own pet interests. A strong part of the whole movement for devolution stems from cultural factors, and it would be inconsistent, when we are recognising them in the broad policy we are trying to implement, to take back one of the principal elements in the cultural life of Wales and Scotland.

I have spoken at length but I thought it important that the Government should set out their views in some detail so that there should be no confusion on this matter. In the light of my remarks I hope the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his long and informative answer. I should have thanked him at the outset for writing to me in similar terms, but I was a little pressed at the beginning of this exchange. I make no apology for leaving the Amendment on the Marshalled List, because noble Lords have been able to share his reasonings and they will also share the difficulty in which I now find myself. There are two considerations here: one was the really encouraging noise which the noble Lord made from what he chose to term his "usual position"—that is to say, "I am not allowed to say this but I am saying it and you can believe it if you want to, or not"—saying that there would very likely be recourse for the Assemblies of the two countries to national funds in the case of all the pockets being empty, as he put it.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE

My Lords, I should just like to correct that. It is important to get this right: it is not merely very likely, but there would be recourse. But there is absolutely no reason to suppose that there would be the money voted by the central Government.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for putting me straight on that. He went on towards the conclusion of his speech to say that we must not credit the Assembly with malign intentions of spending the whole of their resources on something other than one's own pet interests. I hoped I had made it plain that there was no such intention, that the purpose of this Amendment was purely to give another place an opportunity to discuss a matter which they have not as yet been able to discuss, and which it is evident they required an opportunity to discuss. It is my regret that the only way of framing such an Amendment is in such a form as I fear is open to exploitation as being a gesture of hostility and mistrust towards the Assembly.

My disposition to listen carefully to what the noble Lord has said has been blunted somewhat, on the other hand, by the circumstance to which he briefly alluded, and that was the Amendment carried by the Government into the Scotland Bill at Third Reading to bring it into line with other provisions within the Bill with which we are not on this occasion familiar. A great deal has been made by the Government at an earlier stage that the two Bills should be exactly

similar on every possible occasion, and therefore it is difficult for them to say that they should differ on this occasion rather than be the same, and it is difficult for me to say that these funds should be denied to the Assembly when I am fairly confident that in the outcome, when the Bill becomes an Act, they will be in it, and I would not regret that. But I think we have a duty to another place. We have said at the outset that it is our job to enable them to discuss matters of interest to them. When that interest is so openly expressed as it has been I think we have no option but to put this in at this stage, and if the noble Lord regards it as a poke in the eye I can only say that it is given very apologetically.

6.9 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents: 79; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Dulverton, L.	Northchurch, B.
Alport, L.	Elles, B.	O'Hagan, L.
Atholl, D.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Onslow, E.
Auckland, L.	Elton, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Berkeley, B.	Emmet of Amberley, B.	Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Exeter, M.	Reigate, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Faithfull, B.	Rochdale, V.
Burton, L.	Fortescue, E.	Romney, E.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Glenkinglas, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Cathcart, E.	Gridley, L.	Sandys, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.	Savile, L.
Clwyd, L.	Killearn, L.	Sharples, B.
Cockfield, L.	Kinloss, Ly.	Skelmersdale, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Lauderdale, E.	Stamp, L.
Colwyn, L.	Long, V.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Loudoun, C.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Lyell, L.
Craigavon, V.	Mancroft, L.	Swinfen, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Margadale, L.	Tenby, V.
Crathorne, L.	Merrivale, L.	Terrington, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Middleton, L.	Tranmire, L.
Daventry, V.	Monson, L.	Tweeddale, M.
de Clifford, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.	Vickers, B.
De La Warr, E.	Mottistone, L.	Vivian, L.
Denman, L. [Teller.]	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Digby, L.		Westbury, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Newall, L.	Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.	Gaitskell, B.
Aylestone, L.	Crook, L.	Gardiner, L.
Banks, L.	Cudlipp, L.	Garner, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Darling of Hillsborough, L.	Gladwyn, L.
Birk, B.	Davies of Leek, L.	Gordon-Walker, L.
Blyton, L.	Diamond, L.	Greenwood of Rossendale, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Hale, L.
Bowden, L.	Douglas of Barloch, L.	Halsbury, E.
Brockway, L.	Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Hampton, L.
Byers, L.	Evans of Claughton, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.
Collison, L.	Fisher of Camden, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
Henderson, L.	McNair, L.	Stedman, B.
Hughes, L.	Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Jacobson, L.	Ogmore, L.	Stone, L.
Jacques, L.	Oram, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Janner, L.	Paget of Northampton, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Kaldor, L.	Parry, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)	Walston, L.
Leatherland, L.	Phillips, B.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Leonard, L.	Plant, L.	White, B.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Wigg, L.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Rhodes, L.	Wigoder, L.
Longford, E.	Seear, B.	Willis, L.
Lovell-Davis, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.	Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
McCarthy, L.	Shinwell, L.	Winterbottom, L.
McCluskey, L.	Simon, V.	Wynne-Jones, L.
McGregor of Durris, L.	Snow, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Somers, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 14 [Standing Orders]:

6.21 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 8, line 7, at end insert— (" (4) The standing orders shall include provision for the publication of a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Assembly as soon as practicable after the day on which they take place.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, let it not be said that there is a permanent, automatic and in-built majority for the Conservative Party in this House. The contrary has just been proved, to the great satisfaction of noble Lords opposite and with some illumination to my noble friends. We move to an Amendment to Clause 14, the clause which sets out the requirements for the standing orders of the Assembly. During the Committee stage we had a debate of some extent and precision about the requirement for the publication of a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Assembly, and that is what Amendment No. 49 seeks to establish. I should also like to refer to Amendment No. 50 which seeks to apply the same requirement to the committees of the Assembly, but at, as it were, a different level.

As regards Amendment No. 49, the intention is that there shall be published by the Assembly—as there is by this House—a verbatim account of its proceedings as soon as may be after those proceedings have taken place. The only argument of which I am cognisant that was adduced against this proposal with any great force at the last stage was that this was something which the Assembly could be relied upon to do itself. If the Assembly is going to do it itself, it cannot really take offence if it comes to life under circumstances which require it to do what it intends to do. The importance of these reports should not be underestimated, because the Welsh people, as a whole, will certainly be interested in the transactions of their Assembly. Moreover, the professional classes in Wales—that is to say, the people who have, so far as possible, to anticipate the subordinate legislation of the Assembly— will be very much in the dark if they are not able to have access to those proceedings.

The width of distribution of Hansard of both Houses of Parliament is witness to the fact that it is a useful tool for professional people as well as those who merely have a general interest in the progress of political affairs in Parliament. It seems to me a reasonable requirement, and that to resist it with force suggests that for some reason it is a requirement that might not be met. I do not understand the argument which says that the Welsh Assembly is certain to do this, so do not tell it to do it, and which then seeks to strike out of the Bill the requirement that it should be done. The only purpose in making that decision must be to enable the Assembly not to do it. Therefore, it seems to me that resistance to this Amendment is what makes it seem more necessary than would otherwise be the case.

I should like to refer to Amendment No. 50. It is understood that there are occasions when a committee may require to deliberate in private. I went into that matter at some length at an earlier stage. In planning matters, in particular, the release of chance phrases in discussion, taken seriously outside a chamber, can have a quite disproportionate effect—disproportionate, that is, to their intention. Surely the way to overcome that is merely to have a record of meetings in the form of minutes which will determine what were the subjects discussed and who were the people present. That is a function of minutes. I hope that I have said enough and that an answer will be forthcoming from the opposite Bench—I now understand that it will come from the Woolsack: that explains the vacancy; I was extending my delivery in order to have the gap filled. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, Amendment No. 49 and, indeed, Amendment No. 50 which we are discussing together are, I fear, unacceptable both as a matter of principle and as one of practice. We had a discussion on this matter in Committee and on that occasion my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich thought it unnecessary to provide for the Assembly to publish its proceedings, and he also said that to legislate to require it to do so showed a lack of faith in the ability of Assembly Members to run their affairs responsibly. That, I think, is a well-founded objection.

However, there are also serious practical objections to what is proposed. The first is that I do not think that it is reasonable to impose on the Assembly a duty to prepare a verbatim report of proceedings. The Assembly may decide to operate bilingually, and that would mean verbatim reports of the proceedings in English and Welsh. The production of those reports would be an extremely expensive business and the Assembly may well judge that it could inform the public of what was going on by some other method.

It is interesting in this connection to note that in relation to the Scotland Bill your Lordships have written in the new clause requiring the Assembly to make provision for the reporting of proceedings and for the publication of the reports of such proceedings. There is nothing in that new clause about verbatim reports, which is the requirement of this Amendment. In the case of the Scottish Assembly the scope and form of the reports is left to the Assembly itself to decide. It may well be, of course, that the Assembly—or either Assembly—will not wish to publish verbatim reports, or may well, indeed, wish to do so. All I am saying at present is that it would be an extremely expensive business and I do not think that it would be right to impose, by statute, an unduly onerous burden on the Assembly which, for its own purposes, it may not wish to undertake.

I am afraid also that I cannot accept the second Amendment which we are considering which provides, among other things, that the minutes of the Executive Committee shall be published. Quite what is comprehended by minutes—

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but I ought to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the fact that the Amendment refers to "committees" and not specifically to the Executive Committee to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am much obliged. The Amendment refers to "the minutes of the proceedings of committees". The noble Lord is quite right. Quite what is comprehended by "minutes of the proceedings of committees", I know not; they vary enormously in their content and in their form. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has conceded that in respect of some of the committees their proceedings could well be confidential and probably will be confidential. I should have thought that the minutes of such confidential proceedings would be objectionable if they were to be of any value sufficient to expose what has been discussed and decided. Therefore, in my submission, both in principle and in regard to the practical difficulties involved, there are serious objections to these Amendments, which I accordingly resist.

Lord GRIDLEY

My Lords, may I, respectfully, say a few words in reply to what the noble and learned Lord has just said on this matter. I should have thought that as we are devolving these powers to the Welsh Assembly—and a large number of Acts are being devolved to it which were formerly Acts of a British Parliament, certain parts of those Acts being reserved to the Secretary of State—it would not be inconceivable that at some time in the future there might be points of disagreement between what was reserved to the Secretary of State and what should be administered by the Assembly. I should have thought that in such circumstances, in order to encourage the running of this new Assembly in a conciliatory manner, it would possibly be of great value to the Secretary of State to have some verbatim report of what the Members of the Assembly were saying on a particular point.

I cannot understand why there is objection to this. It seems to me that what my noble friend has said in proposing this Amendment would assist the smooth running of the proposed Assembly and would make a contribution to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government and to the Assembly in Wales.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I cannot understand what the discussion is about. As it is drafted, in due course Clause 14 will give a power to the Assembly to regulate its own procedure. Therefore, if it proposes to publish its proceedings in Sanskrit, as long as it can find something to bake the bricks, I cannot see that there is anything to stop it. It simply means that until the Assembly has taken its decision whether to publish in shorthand, Sanskrit, Welsh, English or whatever language it likes, the Secretary of State will regulate the procedure.

However, when the Assembly begins to work, I should have thought that being composed of Welshmen and, therefore, a little prolix, or inclined to it, it would certainly take steps to ensure that posterity knows everything that has been said. Therefore, it will draft its standing orders which, I should have thought, will automatically provide for the publication of something like Hansard. But if it is put into the statute that such reports must be verbatim and then someone makes a mistake and gets a semicolon mixed up with a comma or omits a word, it seems to me that the Assembly could be taken to the courts because it would not be carrying out the statute inasmuch as it would not have published a verbatim report.

I do not know quite what all this is about. It has been made perfectly plain that the Assembly can run its own "show", and if it is wise it will probably want to base its procedures and standing orders on something like the Standing Orders that operate at Westminster. But if it wants to do something else, it has all the power in the world to do it. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, these Amendments, as drafted, are in error in principle, and when they come to be applied they will involve everyone—and I use the word "everyone"— in great difficulties. Therefore, as it is a cold night, I should have thought that we might just as well forget this and go on to the next Amendment on the Marshalled List.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I should like to add a few remarks on a technical matter in support of my noble friend's Amendments. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the difficulty if some of the speeches were made in Welsh. I want to assure him that in the European Parliament they publish daily what is called the Rainbow which gives a verbatim report of the proceedings of the previous day in English, French, German, Dutch, Italian and Danish. It is not a very expensive document to produce; it is produced very simply. But it means that all the speeches which have been made the previous day are available to all the members in the languages which they purport to speak and understand. I wanted to add that point in relation to the comment made by the noble and learned Lord.

Baroness GAITSKELL

My Lords, I should like to comment on the remark just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. She said that these documents were not very expensive to produce. She knows perfectly well that in the United Nations these documents are also produced in all languages and that they are very expensive to produce.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, in the midst of these interesting exchanges it would suffice to say that, of course, the United Nations has many more tongues than has Europe. I thought that I had disposed of the argument about trust, but I failed. I see no purpose in returning to it. My noble friend Lady Elles has dealt very clearly and succinctly with the question of the practicalities. The difference between this Bill and the Scotland Bill is that the word "verbatim" is omitted from that Bill and included in this one. That is something which could quite well be put right in another place if, in fact, it is wrong. As to expense, as a fraction of the £12½ million which this exercise will cost, I think that we are discussing peanuts. I beg to move.

6.37 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 77.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Elles, B.	Newall, L.
Alport, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Northchurch, B.
Auckland, L.	Elton, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Berkeley, B.	Emmet of Amberley, B.	Onslow, E.
Broadbridge, L.	Fortescue, E.	Rankeillour, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Glenkinglas, L.	Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Burton, L.	Gridley, L.	Reigate, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Harvington, L.	Rochdale, V.
Cathcart, E.	Hylton-Foster, B.	Romney, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Killearn, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Clitheroe, L.	Kilmarnock, L.	Sandys, L.
Cockfield, L.	Kimberley, E.	Savile, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Kinnoull, E.	Shannon, E.
Colwyn, L.	Lauderdale, E.	Sharples, B.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Long, V.	Skelmersdale, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Loudoun, C.	Stamp, L.
Craigavon, V.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Lyell, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Crathorne, L.	Mancroft, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Margadale, L.	Swinfen, L.
Daventry, V.	Masham of Ilton, B.	Tranmire, L.
de Clifford, L.	Middleton, L.	Tweeddale, M.
De La Warr, E.	Monson, L.	Vickers, B.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Montgomery of Alamein, V.	Vivian, L.
Devonshire, D.	Mottistone, L.	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Digby, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]	Westbury, L.
Drumalbyn, L.
Dulverton, L.	Moyne, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Halsbury, E.	Phillips, B.
Aylestone, L.	Hampton, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Banks, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.	Plant, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Birk, B.	Henderson, L.	Rhodes, L.
Blyton, L.	Hughes, L.	Seear, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Jacobson, L.	Segal, L.
Brockway, L.	Jacques, L.	Simon, V.
Caccia, L.	Janner, L.	Snow, L.
Collison, L.	Kaldor, L.	Somers, L.
Crook, L.	Leatherland, L.	Stedman, B.
Darling of Hillsborough, L.	Leonard, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Davies of Leek, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Stone, L.
Diamond, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Longford, E.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	McCarthy, L.
Evans of Claughton, L.	McCluskey, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Fisher of Camden, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.	Whaddon, L.
Foot, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.	White, B.
Gaitskell, B.	Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.	Wigg, L.
Gardiner, L.	Ogmore, L.	Wigoder, L.
Garner, L.	Oram, L.	Willis, L.
Gordon-Walker, L.	Paget of Northampton, L.	Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L.	Parry, L,	Winterbottom, L.
Hale, L.	Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)	Wynne-Jones, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

6.44 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 8, line 7, at end insert— (" (5) The standing orders shall include provision for the publication of the minutes of the proceedings of committees appointed under sections 16, 17, 20 and 52 of this Act as soon as practicable after the day on which they take place.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Pecuniary interests]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 51: Page 8, line 10, after ("orders") insert ("or such other interests (if any) as may be specified in the standing orders").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, which we might conveniently discuss together, mirror Government Amendments which were accepted by your Lordships at the Third Reading stage of the Scotland Bill. During our discussion on this subject at Report stage of the Scotland Bill my noble friend Lady Stedman sympathised with the Opposition's worries on this matter and agreed to look again at the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Assembly should be required to cover pecuniary and other interests, and at the other suggestion made that the Assembly should be able to suspend or exclude Members who fail to comply with standing orders on pecuniary interests.

The first Amendment that has now been put down after consideration has been given to what was discussed earlier, makes it clear beyond doubt that the Assembly may include in its standing orders provision for the disclosure of interests other than pecuniary interests. Without it, there might have been room to argue that the particularity of the provision on pecuniary interests was intended to exclude provision on other interests.

The second Amendment enables the Assembly to provide for the exclusion from its proceedings of a Member who contravenes the standing orders relating to pecuniary and any other interests. Exclusion is not the same as expulsion: to expel a duly elected Member would be a step of great constitutional significance requiring primary legislation and would not be done under standing orders. I hope that these Amendments will meet the criticisms and anxieties that were expressed earlier on this matter. I beg to move.

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having put down these Amendments. I moved a similar Amendment at Committee stage. I would only say that the noble and learned Lord's Amendments are very much better than mine.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 52, which includes provisions for excluding Members from the Assembly, I speak with some sympathy. I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. Some years ago I was chairman of a county council which possessed among its members a most unruly person, whose mission in life was to play hell with the chairman at every meeting. We had to call in the police on a number of occasions. If this Amendment will fortify the authorities at the Assembly then it is very much to be welcomed.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Liberal Party have a history in relation to encouraging the disclosure of interests may I also support the Amendments as moved by the noble and learned Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 8, line 13, at end insert— (" (2) Standing orders made in pursuance of subsection (1) above may include provision for excluding members contravening them from the proceedings of the Assembly.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Subject committees]:

6.50 p.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 53: Page 8, line 24, leave out from ("all the") to end of line 26 and insert ("areas of government with which the Assembly is concerned").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment flows from debates in Committee on this clause when the Opposition criticised as vague the proposal to enable subject committees to have "other functions". This language will enable the Assembly to appoint subject committees and they would also have power to appoint other committees to deal, for example, with domestic matters. I think the language now proposed meets the earlier criticism and is a convenient formula for dealing with the problem.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, the difficulty on Report is that if one does not fully understand things one is denied the useful exchange of comment and answer that one has in Committee. I am in some difficulty, in the face of the noble and learned Lord's brief explanation of the results of this Amendment, of discovering quite how those results are arrived at. There is a preliminary difficulty which I will mention now so that the noble and learned Lord may reply to it when he replies to my larger difficulty.

The change in the wording brings in the word "areas"; I fear that if the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, were in his place he might say that I was being pernickety. It seems to me that an area of Government is entirely ambiguous; it could relate to a number of concepts or places. What is intended may be clear at this moment, but it may not be clear when the intention is pursued in the courts, if it ever should be. The clause will, with the Amendment, include the words: areas of government with which the Assembly is concerned ". In other words, it will relate to all the areas of government with which the Assembly is concerned. My first and minor difficulty is that that could refer to North and South Wales or Gwent as opposed to housing, transport and education. However, maybe that is not a matter of concern.

My larger difficulty is that I am not certain from what the noble and learned Lord said whether the difficulty which he feels he is meeting is the difficulty expressed, as it were, in Amendment No. 54A, the starred Amendment immediately after this one. This is because the anxiety that we expressed in Committee was that committees might be set up to consider and recommend action on things on which the Assembly had no power to act. It seems to me that Amendment No. 54A, to which my noble friend Baroness Elles will speak in due course, is designed to meet that, but I do not see how Amendment No. 53 is designed to meet it. It seemed from what the noble and learned Lord said that that is what it is designed to do. I hope, therefore, that when he replies he will explain how it achieves that result. because it is by no means clear to me.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am afraid that my attempt at brevity has not meet the needs of the situation. In Committee there was criticism of the words in the Bill: the powers conferred on the Assembly by sections 9, 10 and 11 above and with such other functions (if any) as the Assembly may determine". It was thought that the reference to "other functions" was too vague. Furthermore, there was a suggestion that to link those subject committees only to Clauses 9, 10 and 11 was arbitrary, and it is in an endeavour to deal with those two matters that this Amendment is proposed.

As proposed by this Amendment, Clause 16(1) provides that the Assembly must appoint subject committees with powers relating to all the areas of government with which the Assembly is concerned, and I should have thought, with respect, that that could not really be thought to be a geographical reference but to areas of government. Subsection (2) goes on to provide that the Assembly may delegate powers to those subject committees, and subsection (3) deals with the composition of the subject committees. The requirement to appoint subject committees is without prejudice to the Assembly's power to appoint other committees to deal, for example, with domestic matters—a catering committee or whatever it might be —but of course the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) would not apply to those other committees. It is now felt that by inserting the generality of the phrase: areas of government with which the Assembly is concerned we are dealing effectively with the need to give the Assembly powers to appoint the relevant committees.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I understand we are discussing Amendments Nos. 53 and 54A at the same time; they obviously overlap. I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord say he now considers that the wording of Clause 16 as drafted concerning Clauses 9, 10 and 11 is too restrictive, and that the Government have decided to amend that part of the clause by inserting the words contained in Amendment No. 53. We on this side of the House consider that Amendment No. 54A is more suitable to a body which will have executive powers; that the committees which are set up must be clearly defined as to their functions and powers.

In our contention there will already be an enormous number of committees set up when one considers the number of functions, for example, contained in Schedule 2. One will have either separate committees dealing with individual subjects like local government, health or social services, pollution, fresh water fisheries or whatever the case may be; endless matters are contained in Schedule 2. Or it would be possible within the scope of our Amendment to have committees which would cover perhaps two or three of those functions and have, say, committees dealing with forestry and water and land drainage together, or planning and land use together with housing or the countryside. It would be possible in the areas that fall to the Welsh Assembly to set up a committee which would deal with two or three of the aspects of the matters devolved to them.

We must remember that the people who attend such committees will get attendance allowances and will probably receive remuneration to meet financial loss on their part, so if we are to have a great many committees set up and their number is not in some way controlled by Statute, there will be an absolute proliferation of committees. And that, incidentally, will involve the consequence of having large sums spent on the holding of those committee meetings. As a former Member of the European Parliament, and knowing how these committees are run and the number of times they can be called, I am aware that it can involve very large expense if some control is not exerted over both the number of committees and the times and places where they sit. Those last two matters are, I accept, matters for the Assembly itself to decide, but when defining by Statute how a new body like this is to be set up and run, it is a legitimate view to take that the Assembly should be constricted to setting up only those committees which are strictly necessary.

That is what our Amendment seeks to do. The Assembly would, for instance, not be able to set up a committee to deal with foreign affairs or matters dealing with the European Community. Those are two obvious areas of concern to a public body dealing in certain policy matters but which, as far as the Welsh are concerned, are specifically excluded from its powers and functions. This is the kind of committee which presumably the Assembly would not be able to set up. The wording of the areas of government with which the Assembly is concerned is, in our opinion, much too widely drawn. I accept that the wording of Clause 16 as it stood was too narrow. I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord say that it was too restrictive to confine it to Clauses 9, 10 and 11. However, I consider that Amendment No. 53 goes too wide. I therefore recommend Amendment No. 54A to your Lordships.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am not sure that we shall not get into a little difficulty if we do not make a decision about the earlier Amendment first. But, as we are now plunged into the discussion of Amendment No. 54A as well, in my submission the attempt in Amendment No. 54A to limit the areas of discussion of matters which the Assembly may be permitted to discuss is neither desirable nor effective.

The first main observation I wish to make is that with or without the proposed Amendment No. 54A there is no way in which an Assembly committee can be equipped with powers which are not devolved. The Assembly can only delegate its own powers. We have been over this ground before. We have pointed out that we should not try to restrict the matters the Assembly may wish to discuss. It may well want to discuss matters such as relations with the Common Market, if it wants to, and it should not be forbidden to do so. It is the National Assembly of Wales. It would clearly have no powers to affect the decisions in the Common Market. However, the attempt in this Amendment to limit matters that committees could discuss to those in respect of which the powers of the Assembly are exercisable is, in my submission, unwarranted, and will constitute an interference with the powers of the Assembly to appoint such committees as it likes—other committees—quite apart from those specifically charged with carrying out functions.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord allow me to intervene? He may have misunderstood what I said or I may have expressed myself badly.

The committees to be set up are not debarred from discussing matters. We are saying that committees should not be set up to deal with matters which are outside the devolved functions. We are referring to the number of committees that are set up. We are not in any way restricting what is said in those committees. An Assembly of this nature could presumably discuss any matter brought before it, provided that the members of that Assembly all agree to discuss it. What we are saying is that we shall not have separate committees for functions which are not contained in the Bill and which are devolved to them. This is quite another matter from stopping them from talking about whatever they want to talk about.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the view the Government take is that it would not be right to prevent the Assembly from specifically giving committees a remit which does cover non-

devolved functions, if it wants to. If it wants to do so, and if the committee wants to discuss a matter in that way, why not? There is a kind of basic suspicion of what the Assembly will do, and what it will be about, emanating from the Opposition Front Bench. I should have thought that this attempted restriction in this way is unnecessary and indeed undesirable.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

My Lords, I should have thought that the particular case raised by the noble Baroness of a sub-committee being set up for relations with—

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, with respect I did not say "sub-committee". I said "committee".

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

—being set up for relations with the EEC might be the kind of committee which the Assembly might well conceive that it wished to set up, although this was not a devolved matter. It is a matter which can affect the very lifeblood of Wales, whether regional grants are given by the EEC to forward certain processes in the Principality and to support industry there. It may well be that the Assembly would wish to have a sub-committee to argue the case with the EEC for increased grants.

7.6 p.m.

On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Gaitskell, B.	Kirkhill, L.
Aylestone, L.	Gardiner, L.	Leonard, L.
Baker, L.	Glenamara, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Barrington, V.	Gordon-Walker, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Birk, B.	Greenwood of Rossendale, L.	Longford, E.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Gregson, L.	Loudoun, C.
Brockway, L.	Hale, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Caccia, L.	Hampton, L.	McCarthy, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Hanworth, V.	McCluskey, L.
Collison, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Cudlipp, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L.	Henderson, L.	Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Howie of Troon, L.	Morris of Kenwood, L.
Diamond, L.	Hughes, L.	Noel-Baker, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Jacobson, L.	Oram, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L.	Jacques, L.	Parry, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Janner, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Fisher of Camden, L.	Kaldor, L.	Plant, L.
Foot, L.	Kilmarnock, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Rhodes, L.	Stone, L.	White, B.
Sefton of Garston, L.	Strabolgi, L.	Wigg, L.
Segal, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.	Willis, L.
Simon, V.	Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]	Winterbottom, L.
Snow, L.		Wynne-Jones, L.
Stedman, B.	Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]
Stewart of Alvechurch, B.	Whaddon, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Falkland, V.	Northchurch, B.
Berkeley, B.	Fortescue, E.	O'Hagan, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Glenkinglas, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Burton, L.	Gridley, L.	Redesdale, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Harvington, L.	Rochdale, V.
Colwyn, L.	Killearn, L.	Romney, E.
Cottesloe, L.	Kimberley, E.	Sandys, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Lauderdale, E.	Savile, L.
Crathorne, L.	Long, V.	Sharples, B.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Lyell, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
de Clifford, L.	Middleton, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
De La Warr, E.	Molson, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Digby, L.	Monson, L.	Tweeddale, M.
Drumalbyn, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.	Vickers, B.
Dulverton, L.	Mottistone, L.	Vivian, L.
Elles, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Elliot of Harwood, B.		Westbury, L.
Elton, L.	Newall, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

7.14 p.m.

[Amendment No. 54A not moved.]

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.