'(1) The National Assembly for Wales may prepare a strategy for carrying out its functions in relation to railways and railway services.

(2) The National Assembly for Wales may from time to time revise that strategy.

(3) Where the National Assembly for Wales prepares or revises such a strategy, it must publish the strategy or revised strategy in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by it.

(4) The reference in subsection (1) to the functions of the National Assembly for Wales in relation to railways and railway services includes, in particular, its functions under Part 1 of the 1993 Act and its functions under this Act.'.—[Mr. Llwyd]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 33, in clause 10, page 9, line 14, leave out "Wales-only", insert "any Welsh".

No. 36, in clause 12, page 11, line 13, at end insert—

'(da) the National Assembly for Wales.'

No. 38, in clause 22, page 21, line 2, at end insert—

'(aa) in relation to a proposal relating to services all of which are Wales-only services, means the National Assembly for Wales; and'.

No. 39, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—

'(aa) in relation to a proposal relating to services all of which are Wales-only services, means the National Assembly for Wales; and'.

No. 41, in clause 25, page 24, line 47, at end insert—

"(aa) in relation to a proposal relating to one or more services each of which is—

(i) a Wales-only service, or

(ii) a cross-border service in relation to which so much of the funding as is provided by a railway funding authority is funding provided by the National Assembly for Wales,

means the National Assembly for Wales; and".

No. 48, in clause 30, page 31, line 36, at end insert—

"(aa) in relation to a proposal relating to a station or part of a station that is wholly in Wales, means the National Assembly for Wales; and".

No. 49, in page 31, line 38, leave out 'and Wales'.

No. 50, in clause 31, page 32, line 45, at end insert—

'"(aa) in relation to a proposal relating to a station or part of a station that is wholly in Wales, means the National Assembly for Wales; and'.

No. 51, in page 32, line 47, leave out 'and Wales'.

No. 59, in schedule 9, page 114, line 19, at end insert—

'"(ba) where the relevant assets by reference to which the bye-laws are or were made are all Welsh assets, the National Assembly for Wales;

(bb) where some but not all of those assets are Welsh assets or include assets that are used partly in Wales and partly elsewhere, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales; and".'.

No. 57, in page 114, line 37, at end insert—

'(4) In sub-paragraph (1) "Welsh asset" means—

(a) an asset that is permanently situated in Wales; or

(b) an asset that is used only in Wales.

(5) In the case of bye-laws in relation to which both the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales are the appropriate national authority—

(a) anything that must be done under this Schedule in relation to those bye-laws by the appropriate national authority must be done by them both, acting jointly;

(b) anything that may be done under this Schedule in relation to those bye-laws by the appropriate national authority may be done only by them both acting jointly; and

(c) any requirement of this Schedule in relation to those bye-laws to send something to the appropriate national authority is complied with only if that thing is sent both to the Secretary of State and to the National Assembly for Wales.'.

I make no apology for spending a little time on new clause 9 and the amendments grouped with it. They were requested by the National Assembly for Wales, not because Plaid Cymru Members asked for them, but because the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the National Assembly, chaired by Christine Gwyther AM, a former new Labour Minister of the Assembly, was concerned that they should be included in the Bill. To make matters slightly worse, and to add insult to injury, the Assembly had requested overall control of the railways in a measure in the Queen's Speech, but that proposal was dispatched with very little regard.

Before I speak to the amendments, I wish to refer to a letter written by Christine Gwyther on 14 January 2005 to the Chairmen of the Railways Bill Committee. She says that her committee was

"very conscious that the timetable set for the Parliamentary process is very tight and that this has put your Committee under enormous pressure in its scrutiny of the Bill. While this is not a matter for you, my Members were disappointed that the timing of this most important piece of legislation allowed so little time for wider consideration, or for the National Assembly to consider the Bill in much detail . . . The Committee's overall view was that the Bill marked a major stage in the development of the Railways in Britain and provided an opportunity for a comprehensive transfer of powers over Welsh railways to the National Assembly. Members noted the substantial range of powers that it conferred on the Scottish Executive and were disappointed that the Secretary of State for Transport was retaining many of these powers in relation to Wales. A particular concern was the failure of the Bill to transfer to the National Assembly control over the infrastructure in Wales. Clearly, it is too late to make fundamental changes to the Bill, but there are two specific points which the Committee felt could easily be changed:

Members were concerned about the lack of control Wales would have over closures where the Assembly is not funding the rail service. Clauses 22 to 31 refer to National Authorities being notified of any closure proposal and then carrying out a consultation on this. However, while the Scottish Executive is the National Authority in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Transport would undertake this function in Wales. Members cannot see any reason why the National Assembly should not have this responsibility in Wales and urged you to amend the Bill accordingly.

Finally, the letter states:

"One other anomaly relates to the confirming of bye-laws. The National Assembly already has extensive powers in this regard and the Committee cannot see why it should not have the same powers as Scottish Ministers in relation to schedule 9. This could be achieved by amending Paragraph 1 of that schedule to include the National Assembly for Wales as the appropriate national authority for bye-laws relating to Welsh assets, with similar provisions to those relating to Scotland in relation to cross-border bye-laws."

I have quoted extensively from that letter since I believe that it is important not only in itself, but with regard to further issues. We are always told about the successful partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and this place and that the way in which legislation works, as and when it is necessary, is that it is called for by the Welsh Assembly and put in train by Ministers in this place. This is a classic example where the devolution process breaks down utterly. For whatever reason, the pleas of the Assembly, the cross-party committee and the letter penned by the ex-new Labour Minister who chairs that committee have been ignored utterly by the Committee in this place. Its members had the representations in good time to table amendments. Indeed, amendments were tabled, and they are now being discussed.

I have dealt with those points at length because I hope that somebody more kindly disposed to the devolution process in the other place will take them up. They are important if we are indeed going to refer to any form of partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and this place pro tem in any event.

I shall not read out the new clause, as other Members have important amendments to speak to later, but I wish to make a brief point. The new clause emulates the provision for Scotland and falls very well into the rest of the Bill, which gives the Assembly power to spend money on rail services. It calls for a railway strategy for Wales, which would guide decisions about where to put money and what money to put in. The Transport (Wales) Bill requires the Assembly to draw up a Wales transport strategy. A railway strategy could be a part of that, but in our view, it needs to be mentioned in the Railways Bill, as it needs to be an input into the Secretary of State's decisions about railways, particularly if the other amendments that we have tabled to strengthen the Assembly's powers are rejected.

Amendment No. 33 deletes "Wales-only" and inserts "any Welsh". The purport of that is to give the Assembly a consultation role in any proposed franchise agreements which include Welsh stations, for example Paddington to Swansea, rather than to confine it to services run entirely within Wales.

Amendment No. 36 inserts a new subsection and adds the Assembly to the list of bodies that can own railway assets following the end of a franchise. One of the issues strongly raised by Miss Gwyther was the need for the infrastructure to be in the hands of the National Assembly.

Amendment No. 38 adds the Assembly to the national authorities—currently just the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State— which must

"consider whether the closure in question should be allowed."

That comes from subsection (6). This is a proposal from a service operator to discontinue a service that the franchise does not require the operator to run and which, if it is decided to delete it, should not be allowed to run. Therefore this is to secure the provision of services.

Amendment No. 39 adds the Assembly to the definition of national authorities that must consider proposals coming from funding authorities, rather than service operators, to discontinue a service that may not be required under the franchise agreement.

Amendment No. 41 adds the Assembly to the national authorities that must consider proposals coming from service operators to discontinue excluded services, which are basically services other than ordinary passenger services. The wording emulates that which applies to Scotland.

Amendment No. 48 again adds the Assembly to the national authorities that must keep a station in operation if the Office of Rail Regulation turns down under subsection (7) a proposal from a funding authority to stop funding it.

Amendment No. 59 gives the Assembly power to make railway byelaws. Miss Gwyther specifically asked for this in her letter to the Committee. I ask the Minister to address these points, as I am sure he will. I felt it necessary to put them on the record because the last thing we want is for the National Assembly to feel that it has been entirely excluded from the process. I realise that the request came rather late to the Committee. Nevertheless, the request was plainly made well before today.

Amendment No. 50 adds the Assembly to the national authorities that must keep a "secured" station in operation if the ORR turns down under subsection (7) a proposal from a funding authority to cease funding it.

Amendment No. 57 backs up the previous amendment in the same way and emulates what is happening in Scottish byelaws, defining which byelaws can be made.

My hon. Friends and I have tabled this bank of amendments. Although they were mainly drafted by Members of our party, the purport of them came from every political party in the National Assembly, as represented on the Committee chaired by Miss Gwyther. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to each and every one of them. I am not prejudging the issue, but if the Minister is unable so to do, I hope that someone in the other place more generously disposed to the devolution process might deal with them. The matters are important. I am not simply making political points; I am trying to make the point that we need this to be done for the railways infrastructure in Wales to be properly controlled.

What is the boundary for rail infrastructure in Wales, because the link lines between north and south Wales partly run through England? In the hon. Gentleman's view, should those lines be included in the Wales franchise?

The Welsh Assembly should be properly consulted with regard to the important rail service from Swansea to Paddington. I am not saying that it should control lines outside the Welsh border, but it should be consulted properly and its views should be taken into account, which is not the current situation with regard to the cross-party committee. I hope that I have made the point, and I ask the Minister to respond in as much detail as possible.

Before I address the new clause and amendments introduced by Mr. Llwyd, I shall refer to the amendments tabled by Mr. Thomas in Committee. I am sure that there was a good reason why the hon. Member for Ceredigion was not in Committee when we reached those amendments. I am sorry that they were not moved, because I sympathise with them.

My hon. Friend Mr. Thomas experienced a flooding incident in his flat.

For seven sittings?

For some unearthly reason, the message did not get through to the Clerk or the Chair, and I apologise for that on his behalf.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. If one's flat is flooded, it is a serious occurrence, which explains why the hon. Member for Ceredigion was not present on that morning. I sympathise with the amendments, and if I had known about the situation, I might have put my name to them.

New clause 9 and the amendments relate to the asymmetry of the devolution settlement in this country. In Scotland, we enjoy a Parliament with full powers, whereas the Welsh Assembly has powers over secondary legislation only. It is fairly well known that my party would like Wales to be blessed with a Parliament as opposed to an Assembly.

In broad terms, I can see no reason why Wales should not be permitted the same devolutionary responsibilities as Scotland. Some difficulties exist, and Jeremy Corbyn has made the point that whereas the Scottish railway system is almost wholly in Scotland and has two well-defined routes in the west and the east, the situation is more complex in Wales, because the railways dip in and out of England. That difficulty in formulating strategy is not apparent in Scotland.

On the principle of the matter, the Welsh Assembly should be permitted as much say in the railways as possible. I have said this before, and I am sure that I will say it again: the correct principle for devolution is that what can be devolved should be devolved. Assembly Members—in particular, Jenny Randerson, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on such matters—have contacted me to make the point that all parties would like to see a greater role for the Welsh Assembly. I hope that the Government will listen with some sympathy to the points that have been made and consider—if not today, in another place—how they might fulfil the legitimate aspirations for devolution expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

I do not doubt that these are serious matters. Nor do I doubt that Mr. Thomas, who sat—or rather, did not sit—for Plaid Cymru on the Committee, had difficulties on the day that the amendments should have been debated. These amendments should therefore be treated with all due consideration and regard, and in detail, and I shall try to respond to them in that context. However, the record should show that the inundation took place on only one sitting day. The hon. Member for Ceredigion popped along to see us for about half an hour on the first day that we sat and was not there for the remaining seven sittings. That is a matter of regret, not least for John Thurso, who, as he said, would have wanted to discuss the amendments had that been possible. I understand about the flood, but to turn up for only one sitting, albeit with an excuse for one of the others, is not a terribly good batting average for any member of any Committee.

New clause 9 seeks a power for the National Assembly for Wales to prepare and publish railway strategies for Wales that is equivalent to Scottish Ministers' powers in relation to Scottish railway strategies in clause 5. I contend that that is unnecessary. The Secretary of State has overall policy responsibility for the strategic direction of the railway in England and Wales. Scottish Ministers have the power to prepare a railway strategy because they have equivalent franchising and network functions in Scotland to those of the Secretary of State in England and Wales. I understand that Mr. Llwyd addresses those points in later amendments, which I shall deal with in due course.

Although the Bill does not place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish railway strategies in the same way that section 206 of the Transport Act 2000 makes it a duty of the Strategic Rail Authority to publish such strategies, he will have an overall strategy for the railway. From time to time, the Department for Transport will undoubtedly publish documents that set out his objectives in this regard. The Department will certainly consult the National Assembly for Wales as a matter of course when preparing any strategies that affect Wales.

The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult the Assembly before exercising certain key functions: for example, before he gives general guidance to the Office of Rail Regulation as to that body's exercise of its functions, which is in clause 3; before he publishes a statement of policy on franchising, which is in schedule 1; and before issuing invitations to tender for franchises that provide or include Welsh services or entering into such a franchise without a tendering process, which is in clause 10. The Bill already has elements that take full account of the need to consult the Assembly.

Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Assembly from preparing and publishing its own strategy for the Welsh railway. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will know, it already funds a significant programme of rail investment as part of its policy of developing an integrated transport system, which is set out in its document, "The Transport Framework for Wales". Clause 3 anticipates the Assembly's strategies. It provides that the Office of Rail Regulation must have regard to any Assembly's railway policies or strategies notified to it when exercising its functions under part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 and the Bill. Subsection (8) says that the ORR must

"have regard to any notified strategies and policies of the National Assembly for Wales, so far as they relate to Welsh services or to any other matter in or as regards Wales that concerns railways or railway services".

The provision therefore already exists. There is a logic and integrity to the Bill's provisions for Wales and the National Assembly. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to go much further and I shall deal with the amendments that try to achieve that shortly. However, the measure's logic reflects the asymmetrical democracy that exists through devolution in this country. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, it reflects the relative weight, power and functions of the respective institutions.

I am genuinely grateful for the detail that the Minister is providing in his response. However, the debate echoes what was said when the Strategic Rail Authority was set up. People in Wales felt that there should have been either a separate Welsh branch of the SRA or a strong Welsh representation. However, I repeat that I am grateful to the Minister for going into such detail.

I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right. He will understand that I did not follow the debate on establishing the SRA with the same attention to detail and interest with which I am following the current debate, for obvious reasons. However, in the past year or two, the SRA has moved more readily towards a regional focus and taken account of the regional sensitivities that exist throughout the United Kingdom. We do not want to lose that in replicating the SRA functions that the Department for Transport rail unit, rather than the SRA, will cover.

Amendment No. 33 would give the Assembly a great deal more power—more power than Scottish Ministers would enjoy. It would make the National Assembly and the Secretary of State joint signatories to all the English franchises that cross the border into Wales. The Scottish Ministers will not have that power for the east and west coast franchises—the rough parallel that one could draw.

The core of the Bill as it relates to Wales is the Assembly's role in the Arriva Trains Wales franchise. That is the only franchise that currently provides what the Bill defines as "Wales-only services". As drafted, the Bill gives the Assembly the right to be a joint signatory with the Secretary of State to the Arriva Trains Wales franchise, thus recognising the importance of that franchise to Wales.

Clause 10(1) deals with the other important relationship between the Secretary of State and the National Assembly: on consultation about all franchises that serve Wales. My hon. Friend Jeremy Corbyn made that point earlier. The Assembly will have the clear right to be consulted about franchises that provide Welsh services. That will give the Assembly the opportunity to say what it would like to achieve for Wales from them. It will also be able to use the broad powers in clause 10 to provide financial assistance to secure additional services from the relevant franchisee.

If he considered it appropriate, the Secretary of State could invite the National Assembly to be a joint signatory to a franchise that provided Welsh services—for example, if the Assembly wished to secure significant services via the franchise. Clause 10(3) enables him to do that. However, it is right that that remains a flexible option. I do not therefore believe that amendment No. 33 is necessary.

Amendment No. 36 would enable the Assembly to be the recipient of franchise assets at the end of a franchise agreement. At the end of the term of a franchise in England and Wales, it will be the Secretary of State's responsibility to make a transfer scheme in relation to the franchise assets. In Scotland, that role will be performed by Scottish Ministers.

Clause 12 sets out the parties to whom the franchise assets may transfer. They include the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or a company that is either wholly or jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, and a franchise company. The Secretary of State must consult every party to which he proposes to transfer assets before making the transfer scheme.

The primary intention of the clause is to transfer designated franchise assets at the end of the franchise to the new operator of train services. In the vast majority of cases, the new operator will be the new private sector franchisee. A transfer scheme will be made to transfer the franchise assets from the old franchise company to the new one. The out-going company will be paid by the in-coming train operator for the franchise assets in accordance with the terms of the franchise agreement.

In a small number of cases, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or companies owned by them will operate a train service as the operator of last resort on a temporary basis. Assets such as ticket machines and office equipment will therefore have to be transferred to those bodies to allow them to provide the service. There is no provision in the Bill for the National Assembly for Wales to operate services as the operator of last resort. The Assembly is therefore not included in the list of bodies that can receive a transfer of franchise assets.

That does not prevent the Assembly from owning certain assets in relation to a franchise. For example, if the Assembly were to invest in the Arriva Trains Wales franchise and there were certain assets that it considered should remain the responsibility of the Assembly, those assets need not be designated as franchise assets. The franchise agreement could clearly state that those assets were not among the franchise assets and were to be returned to the Assembly, which would then decide how they were to be used. On replacing the Arriva Trains Wales franchise in future, it would be for the Assembly to decide how it wished such assets to be used by the new franchise operator. The Assembly will of course be involved in the re-letting process, and will be consulted by the Secretary of State about that franchise and all franchises that serve Wales. However the ultimate statutory responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. I am therefore convinced that amendment No. 36 is unnecessary.

I understand the import of amendments Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 48 to 51, which all seek to make the National Assembly for Wales the national authority in Wales for the purposes of clauses that deal with network modifications. At present, the Secretary of State has that role. The amendments, if accepted, would give the Assembly the same status in Wales as Scottish Ministers have in Scotland in this regard. Throughout clauses 22 to 31, the only national authorities are the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. Scottish Ministers have this duty for all services, stations and networks wholly within Scotland and for some cross-border services; it rests with the Secretary of State in all other circumstances. This reflects and is part of the much wider devolution of responsibility for railway policy and funding to Scottish Ministers. Apart from in a few important areas such as safety, Scottish Ministers now have policy responsibility for all aspects of Scotland's railway. That makes it appropriate for them to be the national authority in the circumstances that I have just described.

As hon. Members have pointed out, that devolution settlement has not been extended to Wales. Under the Bill, devolution of railway policy and funding to the Assembly is much less extensive than to Scottish Ministers, and I fully accept that that is the cause of the complaint by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The Assembly is taking on responsibility for franchising services in Wales, and those starting and finishing in Wales, through the Arriva Trains Wales franchise. However, the Secretary of State continues to have a major role relating to the railway in Wales—in specifying high-level outputs for the railway under schedule 4 to the Bill and funding the network, for example. Part of the reason for this is that the network in Wales is much less discrete an entity than the network in Scotland, which makes fuller devolution difficult at present.

That being the case, it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to be the national authority for the purposes of this clause. Retaining this role for the Secretary of State fits better with the more general approach to devolving railway responsibilities to the Assembly, and is also simpler and more straightforward. Of course, in acting as the national authority for the purposes of the clause, the Secretary of State will need to consult and work closely with the National Assembly. There is already a requirement in schedule 7 for the Assembly to be a statutory consultee in relation to all closure proposals affecting Wales. Backing this up will be the extensive formal and informal discussions envisaged in the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the National Assembly.

Does the Minister accept that some services, such as those operating on the Fishguard and Cardiff to Paddington line and those running along the north Wales coast, effectively serve local communities? They are mainline train services, but people use them in the same way as they would use a regional network such as Arriva, which operates within Wales. How would the Assembly discharge its responsibilities in regard to lines which the Minister would say start in Wales and end in England?

I accept that point, which alludes to the complexities of the issue. Equally, portions, and no more than portions, of many of our high-speed lines in an English context will be utilised as inter-communal lines as well in various parts of the country. In terms of the examples given, and specifically the Assembly, such matters will be worked out between the provisions in the Bill relating to Wales, which I have described thus far and will come on to describe, and the memorandum of understanding to which I have just alluded. In those or other circumstances in which an Assembly viewpoint should be given in discussions on any aspect of rail services in Wales, there should be no blockage on that view being reflected. We are not simply in the business of imposing from the centre what view should prevail in terms of the Welsh rail network. Equally, we are trying to work with the Assembly around the complexities to which the hon. Gentleman and others have alluded. I am trying to do so by taking the amendments as seriously as I can and in the spirit in which they were suggested. The memorandum will pick up many of those complexities, beyond what is not already reflected in the Bill.

For those reasons, we do not think it appropriate for the Assembly to be a national authority for the purposes of this clause. As I have said, retaining the role for the Secretary of State fits better with the more general approach to devolving railway responsibilities to the Assembly and is simpler and more straightforward. As I have said, there will be a consultation and memorandum.

Although the National Assembly is not a national authority, it has a significant role in closure procedures in Wales. In addition to being a statutory consultee, as I have said, it has a duty to provide closure guidance jointly with the Secretary of State for stations or networks in Wales and services in Wales, including cross-border services. I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will have seen—if not, they are in the Library—the headlines of the closure guidance, and I promised no more than that in Committee. Consultation will take place with the Assembly to come to some broad agreement on what specifically those should be in relation to Wales, as they need to be published jointly with the Secretary of State, as I suggested. The Assembly is also a designated railway funding authority under clause 44 of the Bill. The effect of that and the Assembly's funding of the Arriva Wales franchise will be that the Assembly will have the power to initiate closure proposals for the services that it funds through the Arriva Wales franchise. In that context, although I understand the import and thrust of that series of amendments, they are not absolutely necessary.

Amendments Nos. 57 and 59, taken together, to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy alluded, seek to amend schedule 9 to replicate in Wales the arrangements for confirmation of railway byelaws, before they come into effect, that apply in Scotland. More specifically, the amendments would mean that where the byelaws affect only railway assets in Wales, they would need to be confirmed by the National Assembly. Where the byelaws affect railway assets including those in Wales, they would need to be confirmed by both the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State.

As currently drafted, the Bill makes the Secretary of State responsible for approving the byelaws of all railway operators wherever assets are located or used in England and Wales. This role is consistent with the Secretary of State's overall responsibility for the railway network in England and Wales. In Scotland, the Scottish Ministers have overall responsibility, hence their role in approving byelaws. I can understand the Assembly's desire to have a greater role in this regard. However, the arrangements set out in the Bill do not exclude it entirely. Byelaws will be made by the railway operator. The arrangements for approving the byelaws will not prevent the Assembly from working with Arriva Trains on the development of byelaws for the operator's stations and trains, which would then be approved by the Secretary of State.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will examine further the matter of byelaws and how they reflect dealings with Arriva Trains Wales, to see whether there is some way, perhaps outwith the Bill, that we can ensure that the Assembly plays a fuller role. I understand the importance of byelaws in many regards, although I am sure that he has read the Official Report of the assorted Committee proceedings, which reflect that there were those in Committee who would choose to push the byelaws a little too far in some regards. I will examine the byelaws point in more detail, to see whether through the memorandum, or some other way, there can be some accommodation.

I have dealt with the new clause and amendments in as detailed and serious a fashion as I could, and have tried to explain—I did receive a letter from the Welsh Assembly—why they are not necessary for a number of reasons. I will, however, pursue the point about byelaws outside the confines of the Bill.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

The Minister went into great detail, and responded in a very fair way. I hope that this matter will be revisited in the other place, but that is by the by, and not for today.

I hope to be able to move amendment No. 38 formally at the conclusion of proceedings, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.