LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 20 July 1978)

§ Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 44. These Amendments were fully debated in the other place. The debate concentrated almost entirely on Amendment No. 43 and the 498 extent to which standing orders should provide that no Assembly committee should have functions extending to non-devolved matters. It is not seriously argued that Assembly committees should be barred from discussing matters other than devolved matters; the concern of those who supported the Amendment was rather that the Assembly should not have powers to set up committees with the function of considering matters which are not devolved.

In the Government's view the Amendment would only serve to introduce doubt into a clause which is at present both simple and straightforward. And it betrays a substantial misunderstanding—and I think I could add, mistrust—of the way the Assembly can be expected to operate. In the first place, there is doubt as to how the Amendment would be interpreted. It would seem to prevent any committee from being allocated any function which lies outside devolved matters. If that is so, then any trace of non-devolved matter in a committee's functions is prohibited. On this view, the remit of every Assembly committee is tied to matters which are on their face devolved matters. In the Government's view, this would impede the practical, sensible functioning of Assembly Committees.

Secondly, if the Assembly did set up, say, a committee on Foreign Affairs—unlikely as that may seem—this could not have any implications for the conduct of this non-devolved matter by the United Kingdom Government. The Committee might make recommendations—that is all. But why should anyone object to this? Everyone is agreed, judging by comments made earlier in the House, that there is nothing to prevent the Assembly from discussing the same matters in full Assembly and making recommendations. The point is that these would only be recommendations; what the Assembly or its committees cannot do is take effective action in relation to a non-devolved matter.

It is for these reasons that the Amendments appear to be misconceived and unnecessary; they might damage the effective operation of the Assembly's committees. In moving a similar Amendment on the Third Reading of the Wales Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady 499 Elles, made clear that, in view of the decision taken in another place to disagree with this Amendment, she would not press the Amendment to the Wales Bill. In these circumstances, I trust your Lordships will not seek to insist on the present Amendment to the Scotland Bill.