§ 43 Clause 37, page 14, leave out lines 29 to 35.
§ 44 Clause 37, page 14, leave out line 37.
§ 45 Clause 37, page 14, leave out lines 41 and 42.
§ 46 Clause 48, page 19, leave out lines 28 to 30.
§ 47 Schedule 3, page 62, leave out line 42.
§ 48 Schedule 4, page 63, leave out lines 31 to 38.
§ 49 Schedule 6, page 64, leave out lines 14 to 16.
§ 50 Schedule 10, page 71, leave out lines 35 to 45.
§ The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
§ 51 Because the Assembly should have the proposed functions relating to development in Wales.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 43 to 50, to which the Commons has disagreed for the Reason numbered 51, but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 14, leave out lines 29 to 35Page 14, leave out line 37Page 14, leave out line 42Page 19, leave out lines 29 and 30Page 54, leave out lines 2 to 38Page 84, leave out lines 13 to 28Page 63, leave out lines 35 to 38Page 64, leave out line 14Page 64,leave out line 16Page 71, leave out lines 35 to 45Page 52, leave out lines 20 to 49Page 84, leave out lines 12 to 31With your Lordships' permission, I should like to draw attention to the last of my Amendments on page 2 of the white paper which begins with "Page 84". It should, in fact, read "Page 85". Also, with your Lordships' permission, may we discuss Amendment No. 67 which refers to Schedule 2 and also Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 as regards Schedule 11. Of course I should make it clear that when those Amendments are proposed any noble Lord would have the right to intervene and make any statement he wishes on these matters and even consider the Amendments which have come from another place. However, for the convenience of your Lordships, and to save time, I, at any rate, wish to speak to all the Amendments together. I know that the noble Lord opposite will share that view as we have already had this kind of discussion once before in your Lordships' House concerning this Bill.688 The Amendments which I have put down and am proposing to your Lordships would have the effect of excluding from devolution the functions and powers of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, but we would not insist on the retention of the Land Authority for Wales as a separate agency. That would be the result if my Amendments were accepted. Therefore, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales would be deleted from Clause 37; the enabling Acts would be removed from Schedule 2 to the Bill and the relevant parts of those Acts would be removed from Schedule 11. That, in effect, is what would happen if these Amendments were accepted.
In another place my right honourable and honourable friends took the decision that the Land Authority for Wales was in a different category from the other two Agencies to which I have referred. The Land Authority for Wales deals specifically with housing and land development. Therefore, it would not be so inconsistent in view of the nature of its functions and powers, that these functions and powers could be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. But the other two bodies are quite a different consideration. They are concerned with the economic and social development of Wales as a whole which cannot be considered in isolation to the economic development of the United Kingdom. The debates which have been and are being held on the Bill seem to me gradually to reveal more and more how the Government intend the Bill to operate, which was certainly not clear when we began debating the Bill on Second Reading either in this place or in another place.
I shall take care not to quote what the Minister said in another place on the 19th July at column 671 of the Official Report. However, when referring to the Welsh Development Agency he said that the Agency would, in fact, be operating under guidelines which, as he saw it, would ensure that the interests of other parts of the United Kindgom would be fully considered. How can an Agency operate under guidelines from this House if it in fact comes under the control of the Welsh Assembly? Is it really to be believed that Members who are elected specifically to the Welsh Assembly to look after the interests of the Welsh, as 689 opposed to other areas of the United Kingdom, will consider in any way objectively the interests of other parts of the United Kingdom? I do not think that anyone could expect them to do so and, if guidelines were laid down for the Welsh Assembly to take into account interests of other parts of the United Kingdom, it would be totally unrealistic to expect it, to do so. However, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales will have to do so—under the guidelines from the Secretary of State—provided they remain independent. Our Party has had its views on these bodies, and we have seen how they are operating. Comments have been made by my noble friends and myself on this side of the House and by our colleagues in another place to the effect that we think it would be fair to give these two new bodies a chance to get on with what they are doing and not to change their functions.
It should also be said that should Clause 60 come into force and be restored to the Bill that would indeed ensure that both the nature and the composition of the Welsh Development Agency, for one, would no longer be the same. Therefore, it is idle to pretend that because these Agencies will come under the Welsh Assembly under Clause 37 they will, in fact, remain intact. They will be totally altered by Clause 60, should that clause come back into the Bill—which, could, of course, be envisaged at this stage of our discussions. Therefore, we would request the Commons to reconsider their Amendments and to return to the view put forward by the Government in Cmnd. 6348, Our Changing Democracy—Devolution to Scotland and Wales, that these two bodies should retain their independence and their existence separate from the Welsh Assembly, and that no functions and powers of these two particular Agencies should be devolved to the Welsh Assembly under Schedule 2.
It should be added that when our Amendments were considered and voted upon in another place the margins were very narrow indeed—285 to 280—a mere majority of five. If noble Lords check in the Official Report for 20th July, they will see that it was not only Members from this side of the House who voted in favour of the Amendments which came 690 from your Lordships' House. Therefore, I very much hope that my Amendments will be accepted in the light of the changed position that we accept that the functions and powers of the Land Authority for Wales should be devolved to the Welsh Assembly but feel that these two other major Agencies which are playing a role in the economic development of Wales should remain as independent Agencies. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 43 to 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 51, but propose the said Amendments in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Elles.)
§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRANMy Lords, in view of the fact that Clause 37 deals with the important matter of industrial and economic guidelines, I feel that I should say a few words on asking the House to vote against the Motion as introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. The noble Baroness was less generous about the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales than were her colleagues in the other place because in the other place great tribute was paid from all sides—including from Conservative spokesmen—to the way in which these two Agencies were working. They expressed their deep appreciation of the success of the working of those agencies.
However, these Agencies are dealing with very important matters in Wales—namely, major planning and social matters, which have important economic implications. Their method of working, which has been so successful, is due to the way in which they are working in the context of Wales. I therefore support the view that Clause 37 and the relevant Schedules, as set out, provide a realistic, sensible and coherent way in which the powers on these matters should be devolved, subject, as they are, to full Parliamentary control by the Houses of Parliament.
§ 4.50 p.m.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I hope that the House will not insist on Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50, and also Amendments Nos. 67, 82 and 84, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, spoke. I hope that in due 691 course the House will agree to Amendments Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 83, 85 and 86 to the words restored to the Bill.
The Amendments which were carried by this House on the Committee stage had the result of reserving all ministerial responsibilities for the Land Authority for Wales, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. In another place colleagues of noble Lords opposite were prepared to agree to devolution in respect of the first body, but not the other two. So perhaps I might concentrate on the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. During the debate both in this House and in another place we have heard much of the efficiency and success of these two bodies, and the official Opposition in another place have, in the course of debate, said that a Conservative Government would not, after all, bring their life to an end. On this side of the House we are delighted to hear this news, and perhaps the Amendments have served a purpose if they have elicited this undertaking from the official Opposition.
However, I hope that noble Lords opposite will not insist on their previously expressed view that responsibility for a body must be reserved if it has proved successful. I would suggest that this is not a constructive approach to devolution, and risks causing serious offence to people living in Wales who will be represented by the Assembly. The Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales are—unlike other public bodies which we have discussed—purely Welsh organisations, and to deprive the Assembly of responsibility for them would be to divorce them from an important aspect of the development and regeneration of life in Wales.
The work of both bodies spans a variety of matters. The Board and the Agency have a number of planning and environment functions, which your Lordships' House has already agreed should be devolved in the context of other legislation. For instance, the Development of Rural Wales Act confers on the Board a number of new towns powers which are almost identical to those conferred on development corporations by the New Towns Act 1965. If we are to reserve responsibility for the Board but not for new town development corporations, we have the absurd position 692 where ministerial powers in respect of Cwmbran are to be devolved while those in respect of Newtown are to be reserved. This is only one of a range of matters where reservation of the Welsh Development Agency Act and Development of Rural Wales Act will lead to administrative complexity and overlap, with an inevitable risk of friction. The fact that so much of the work of the Board and Agency is of a planning and environmental nature is reflected in the Government's Amendment No. 72, which merges the Old Part IX of Schedule 2 into a new Part VIII entitled "Land use and Development". These subjects have a natural coherence. The other Government Amendments to which I have referred make minor tidying changes which we were previously prevented from making by the deletion of Part IX of Schedule 2.
Both the Board and the Agency, especially the latter, also have functions of a more economic and industrial nature. But the Government do not see this as a reason for splitting responsibility for these bodies; indeed, we were strongly criticised when such a course was proposed in the November 1975 White Paper. Instead we propose that the Assembly should be subject to guidelines as to the industrial and economic activities of these bodies. These will ensure that these bodies continue to operate in a way which is consistent with the Government's regional and industrial policy. The guidelines will be contained in a Statutory Instrument made by the Secretary of State, and the Agency's and Board's annual reports on their "guidelines" activities must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. Should the Assembly fail to give effect to the guidelines, or pursue policies prejudicial to reserved industrial policy, then Clauses 70 and 34 provide the necessary sanctions for the Government. I should add that guidelines are already a well-established administrative tool. The Welsh Development Agency is presently subject to guidelines—although not quite of the same nature—and this is a means of ensuring that it operates in the commercial manner which has drawn praise from Members of the Opposition Benches in both Houses.
I think that it would be a great mistake for this House to insist on these Amendments. It would not only deprive the 693 Assembly of powers of great importance to people in Wales, but would cause administrative complexity and overlap as a result of the division of planning and environmental functions.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, first, on behalf of these Benches, may we welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who we understood had been unwell. It is very nice to see her back among us, even though we are the other side of the Table; we hope that she will feel strong enough at any rate to see us through this week before she has a well-earned holiday.
In reply to interventions by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, first, I should, of course, say that from these Benches during the Committee stage of the Bill I did pay tribute precisely to the Welsh Development Agency and to the Development Board for Rural Wales. It was in order not to take up the time of your Lordships' House and repeat what I said a few weeks ago that I did not say so again. It has in fact been repeated by my honourable friends in another place that our Party is watching with care the work of these Boards. They are doing well and are trying to do the best they can in an objective way to restore the ailing economy of Wales. Indeed, we hope that they will be successful in their method of working to which, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred. I understand he said that the method of working "was successful". It is, indeed, for one of these reasons that we do not see why this method of working should be changed.
With regard to the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, of course, if these two bodies come under the Welsh Assembly, there is no doubt whatever that their structure and their nature will be changed; their method of working will not remain the same. Indeed, the noble Baroness used words which I think we have been using throughout the Bill. The noble Baroness said that the administrative complexity will have "an inevitable risk of friction". That is, of course, exactly what we are saying about the way in which the Wales Bill as a whole is being conceived: that there will 694 be considerable chance and risk of friction both with regard to the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly, and between the Welsh Assembly and independent or subsumed bodies and local authorities. The whole Bill is a recipe for confrontation and friction. Therefore, I am interested that these same words should be used from the Government Benches when we are, indeed, making an alternative suggestion.
If the Secretary of State gives guidelines to the Welsh Assembly, what authority will the Secretary of State have to impose implementation of these guidelines on the Welsh Assembly? Will it involve, as some Government guidelines now do, the threat of blacklisting certain companies or certain corporate bodies? How does one impose sanctions on the observation of guidelines? It is all very well to say that these will be debated in both Houses; but once the guidelines have gone out to the Welsh Assembly, how can it be ensured that an elected body—and an elected body for four years—can be made to implement guidelines? I think that that is an impossibility.
There is also the other consideration, that if they are to operate with a block grant, it will be for the Welsh Assembly to decide the order of priorities for the allocation of these financial resources. Can the Government say categorically that £X thousands or £X millions will be allocated to the work which is now being done by the Welsh Development Agency or to the valuable work being done by the Development Board for Rural Wales? Of course, they cannot; I do not think that anybody can say at this stage what sums will be allocated to these bodies or the priorities that the Welsh Assembly may decide upon.
If we are going to set up an elected body, with so-called democratic rights to decide how its finances are to be used, we cannot insist, either from this House or from another place, how the priorities are to be decided and how the financial resources are to be allocated. The noble Baroness said—and I believe quite rightly—that the bodies are operating in a commercial manner. They are trying to achieve economic viability throughout Wales. In so far as they have done so up to date, this is to be encouraged and 695 welcomed. I also think that it would be disastrous, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, gave in his resistance to the change in local authorities, that a new body which is doing well should now possibly be dissolved.
In conclusion, I should like to say that of course it is not because they are successful that we think they should not be devolved. I hope that we can be in agreement that there are other bodies besides these two which are working reasonably well throughout the country and which indeed may be devolved. That is not the reason. These are two new bodies which have proved to be doing well; the composition of their committees, their agency chairmen and part-time chairmen, should not be at risk in their jobs at the present stage when they are doing so well. Therefore, I beg to move that my Amendment be accepted.
§ Lord PARRYMy Lords, perhaps I might be allowed, in the spirit of the earlier part of the noble Baroness's remarks, to say that until Monday of last week it would have been impossible for me to intervene in this way because I was a member, from its charter inception, of the Welsh Development Agency and only removed myself from that body, at my own request, on Monday of last week. During that time we were joined by the chairman of the newly created Development Board for Rural Wales, and so I am in a unique position to be able to
§ pay particular tribute, as in fact has already been done, to both these bodies.
§ I apologise for taking this opportunity at this moment in the debate, but I have served on the body and seen how members of varying political Parties, and members variously disposed throughout those Parties, have co-operated with the professional officers who later were recruited to the Board, and seen the appearance on it of the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales. Speaking as an individual, I should say that it is the general feeling of the Board that one of the most welcome factors has been that Her Majesty's Opposition have taken the attitude that they have to the continuation of the life of the Boards in the form in which they were conceived. I simply intervene to say that it has been immensely encouraging to both these boards that there could be continuity even if there were, after a General Election, to be a different form of government—although I do not anticipate that in any way.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I think it has been valuable.
§ 5.3 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the House doth not insist upon their Amendments Nos. 43 to 50 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 84.
697| CONTENTS | ||
| Alport, L. | Donegall, M. | Henley, L. |
| Amory, V. | Drumalbyn, L. | Home of the Hirsel, L. |
| Auckland, L. | Ebbisham, L. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Avon, E. | Eccles, V. | Kintore, E. |
| Balerno, L. | Elles, B. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Barnby, L. | Elliot of Harwood, B. | Long, V. |
| Belstead, L. | Elton, L. | Lyell, L. |
| Berkeley, B. | Emmet of Amberley, B. | Malmesbury, E. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Exeter, M. | Mancroft, L. |
| Campbell of Croy, L. | Faithfull, B. | Margadale, L. |
| Carr of Hadley, L. | Fortescue, E. | Marley, L. |
| Carrington, L. | Fraser of Kilmorack, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Clwyd, L. | Gainford, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Cockfield, L. | Glenkinglas, L. | Monson, L. |
| Colville of Culross, V. | Granville of Eye, L. | Mottistone, L. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Gridley, L. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.] |
| Croft, L. | Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. | |
| Cullen of Ashbourne, L. | Newall, L. | |
| Daventry, V. | Halsbury, E. | Northchurch, B. |
| de Clifford, L. | Harcourt, V. | Nugent of Guildford, L. |
| Denham, L. [Teller.] | Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Pender, L. |
| Digby, L. | Hawke, L. | Penrhyn, L. |
| Porritt, L. | Sharpies, B. | Thomas, L. |
| Rankeillout, L. | Skelmersdale, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Rawlinson of Ewell, L. | Spens, L. | Trenchard, V. |
| Reigate, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. | Tweeddale, M. |
| Robbins, L. | Stradbroke, E. | Vernon, L. |
| Romney, E. | Strathcarron, L. | Vickers, B. |
| St. Aldwyns, E. | Strathclyde, L. | Vivian, L. |
| St. Davids, V. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. | Wakefield of Kendal, L. |
| Sandys, L. | Sudeley, L. | Ward of North Tyneside, B. |
| Selkirk, E. | Tenby, V. | Westbury, L. |
| Sempill, Ly. | Teviot, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Ampthill, L. | Greenwood of Rossendale, L. | Parry, L. |
| Ardwick, L. | Hale, L. | Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.) |
| Avebury, L. | Hanworth, V. | Phillips, B. |
| Aylestone, L. | Harris of Greenwich, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Banks, L. | Hatch of Lusby, L. | Redcliffe-Maud, L. |
| Birk, B. | Henderson, L. | Rhodes, L. |
| Blyton, L. | Howie of Troon, L. | Ritchie-Calder, L. |
| Boston of Faversham, L. | Hughes, L. | Roberthall, L. |
| Brockway, L. | Hylton-Foster, B. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Burton of Coventry, B. | Jacques, L. | Samuel, V. |
| Byers, L. | Janner, L. | Seear, B. |
| Castle, L. | Kennet, L. | Segal, L. |
| Clancarty, E. | Kirkhill, L. | Shinwell, L. |
| Collison, L. | Leatherland, L. | Snow, L. |
| Craigavon, V. | Listowel, E. | Stamp, L. |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. | Stedman, B. |
| Davies of Penrhys, L. | Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. | Stewart of Alvechurch, B. |
| Denington, B. | Longford, E. | Stone, L. |
| Douglas of Barloch, L. | Lovell-Davies, L. | Strabolgi, L. [Teller.] |
| Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) | McCluskey, L. | Swaythling, L. |
| Fisher of Camden, L. | McGregor of Durris, L. | Taylor of Mansfield, L. |
| Foot, L. | McNair, L. | Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.] |
| Gaitskell, B. | Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L. | Whaddon, L. |
| Gardiner, L. | Morris of Grasmere, L. | Wigg, L. |
| Gladwyn, L. | Murray of Gravesend, L. | Wigoder, L. |
| Gordon-Walker, L. | Oram, L. | Winterbottom, L. |
| Goronwy-Roberts, L. | Paget of Northampton, L. | Wise, L. |
| Greenway, L. | Pannell, L. | Wynne-Jones, L. |
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.