HL Deb 02 June 1998 vol 590 cc305-17

(" .—(1) Before a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities, the Secretary of State shall undertake with the Assembly such consultation about the government's negotiating position as appears to him to be appropriate.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practical after the conclusion of a meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Secretary of State shall provide a report to the Assembly on any matters arising in such a meeting affecting Wales.

(3) This section does not require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with the Assembly about the government's negotiating position if he considers that there are considerations relating to the negotiations which make it inappropriate for him to do so.").

The noble Lord said: I am sorry that we come to this important amendment so late in the evening, but I make no apology for moving it because it is very important. It is important for Wales, for Scotland and for other legislation. It will be important, in time, for Northern Ireland. It concerns the relationship between these subordinate legislatures and governments and the all-important, in many respects, Council of Ministers and meetings within the European Union.

Although the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell discusses any meeting of the Council of Ministers, I shall use as my worked example, so to speak—and the most important, too—the detail affecting everyday life of many people working in Wales. I refer to agriculture through the common agricultural policy and fishing through the common fisheries policy. These two subjects are to be devolved. We discussed them earlier. I have no problem about their being devolved in part. I have no problem about the assembly debating these matters. I am sure we could find certain parts of agriculture that could easily be devolved to the assembly which are not totally entwined with what the Council of Ministers decides in Brussels.

I am genuinely concerned that the most vital aspects affecting farmers and fishermen in Wales will be decided by a UK Government Minister responsible to the UK Parliament and its Members and without any answerability for policy outcomes in Wales. I understand that preliminary discussions can go on. They do at present between the Welsh Office and MAFF. Agreed positions are arrived at, often at official level. Often it is more the order of importance attached to each issue rather than the issues themselves which have to be decided at ministerial level and, just occasionally, at Cabinet level. Debates can be, and are, held in the other place, in which MPs from Wales and England can argue the case for their farming and fishing constituents with the Ministers who will negotiate in Brussels.

The MAFF ministerial team then goes to Brussels with or without a Minister from the Welsh Office. I grant that it is quite a long time ago now and my memory could be getting dim, but I cannot recall ever going to a Fisheries Council—I attended every one while I was a Minister at the Scottish Office—at which a Minister from Wales was part of the team. Therefore, I think that I can say that most frequently the ministerial team will go to Brussels without a Welsh Office Minister. That may not be the case so often with regard to agriculture. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will tell me how many times that happens, but I am pretty certain that it is a fact that they do not go very often.

Deals are done at those meetings; votes are taken; and the team has to decide whether or not to sign up to a package. Such deals are often done in the middle of the night. I must warn the Committee that in Brussels this hour would be considered quite early in the evening. There is seldom, if ever, any opportunity for elaborate consultation back home. Anybody one wishes to consult is fast asleep in bed back in Britain. Frequently, the real problem is that one has to judge the outcome against one's initial wish list. It is often a difficult balancing act to decide whether, if one continues negotiations, one will get any more and whether one has got the best deal possible, often judging the interests of one part of the country against another, with a little bit being given here and a little bit obtained there.

I have no doubt that just occasionally over the years that this operation has gone on some Welsh Ministers have been less than satisfied with the outcome, but everyone in government had signed up to it. Ministers from MAFF and the Welsh Office backed the deal and usually said that it was an excellent outcome. I hear the same words from this Government as I remember that we used to use when we were in power. There must be a little dictionary giving the quotations used to explain, "This is the best possible deal in the best of all possible worlds". Ministers then stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of the deal.

As I understand the future, we are to have concordats which will mean that Welsh Ministers—Welsh "secretaries", as they are to be called—will have discussions with MAFF, no doubt preceded by discussions at official level. I have no doubt that most of the time agreed positions will be arrived at—but not always. Just occasionally there will be a difference on the policy or, more importantly, on the place of the policy objective in the order of priorities in the negotiations.

Who resolves those issues? Let us assume that the weight of MAFF carries the day. Is the Welsh assembly Minister bound by that decision? What about the MPs and the members of the Welsh assembly? I note that both can debate such matters, but will a Welsh MP be able to raise issues about agriculture, which is devolved, in the other place without Madam Speaker saying the equivalent of—not that she would ever be so common—"Nothing to do with us, guy"? Even if Madam Speaker allows the debate, will the MAFF Minister feel obliged to respond to a purely Welsh question or will he say, "Nothing to do with me, guv"?

Then there are the negotiations and the outcomes. The outcome will be decided by MAFF Ministers. A Welsh assembly official may be present. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, seeks that in his related amendment. The Welsh assembly official may complain, but the MAFF Minister could be forgiven for thinking, "So the Welsh won't be happy; see if I care. I don't have to answer for Welsh agriculture in the Commons. It is devolved. I don't have to go to Cardiff. The poor sod who answers in Cardiff will just have to like it or lump it"—and the poor sod who answers in Cardiff will have to do just that because if we are to believe the White Papers leading up to these Bills, the concordats will have bound him to a collective decision even if he had no real part to play in the last act in the drama in Brussels.

Noble Lords may be wondering about the Secretary of State for Wales, believing that because he is in the UK Government, he can influence decisions. I do not believe that he can because he has no responsibility for agriculture or fishing. The matter has been devolved, so even if he tries to intervene he does not have a locus standi.

I hope that I shall not be told that the Welsh assembly secretary may go to Brussels and negotiate in the Council of Ministers. I just do not believe that that can happen. No MAFF Minister will ever hand over the negotiating reins on behalf of the whole of the UK, in particular the large English agriculture interest, to someone with no responsibility for that interest who is not answerable to English MPs down the corridor. The Government Front Bench lives in Cloud-cuckoo-land if it holds that belief.

This amendment gives the Secretary of State a full role in those important matters. He consults and reports to the assembly but the details of the agreed position in the negotiations and the outcome are for him to discuss with his ministerial colleagues inside the same government. As he will have played a key part in the decision-making he will be answerable to Welsh MPs down the corridor and, through them, to the Welsh people. In addition, as subsection (2) makes clear, he will be responsible and answerable to the Welsh assembly.

Amendment No. 103B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, addresses much the same issues, although it widens the scope a little beyond the Council of Ministers. I shall be interested to hear the discussion on the Committee of the Regions. This is an important point. Up to now people who have been sent to the Committee of the Regions have come largely from local government. That is true in Scotland and Wales. Perhaps that is in part the reason for the noble Lord's amendment. One wonders what the Government believe will be the future there. Will people from the assembly go there while local government is cut out, or will it be a combination of the two? Looking at Amendment No. 103C, that appears to be what the noble Lord is after. He has my support in that objective.

I firmly believe that the Bill exposes Welsh agriculture and fishing to a situation in which those interests can very easily and quickly be sidelined unless they concur with the wider English interests represented by MAFF. Those noble Lords who have had dealings with MAFF will be aware that it is a very powerful Ministry, particularly its agricultural sector. It carries all the big cards in these negotiations irrespective of what government are in power. We cannot rely just on concordats to ensure that Welsh agriculture and fishing are properly looked after in critical negotiations on the CFP and CAP in Brussels. I beg to move.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Elis-Thomas

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for introducing the European debate in what I understand to be the early afternoon in Brussels. Amendments Nos. 103B and 103C, the latter being a starred amendment which was a later thought on a similar theme, propose a way to ensure representation on ECOSOC and the Committee of the Regions based on a combination of representatives of the national assembly and local government and consultation arrangements between the Secretary of State and the assembly's secretary. I should like to hear from the Government how they foresee the consultation and nomination procedures. Although clearly the assembly will have the means of indirect election, I understand that the appointments will be a matter for member state governments. Therefore, the Government will have a view on the role of the Secretary of State in relation to nominations from the assembly and/or local government.

As the noble Lord has indicated, Amendment No. 103B has a wider remit. It deals with officials attending the Council of Ministers, representatives of ECOSOC and the Committee of the Regions and the scrutiny of assembly proposals by the assembly. We may return to the scrutiny issue at a later stage. Not this evening, but at another Brussels hour we will have the opportunity to debate the question of a European committee of the assembly.

On assembly representation in the EU, the National Advisory Group—I hesitate to criticise its reports because the distinguished noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who sensibly is not with us at this late hour, is a member of that committee and no doubt is preparing for another meeting of that group—suggested that the first secretary should represent the assembly in EU matters. I should have thought that the first secretary would have plenty to do at home, answering the detailed questions of assembly members who are keen to find out what the executive committee is up to in its meetings.

There is a strong case—this brings me to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—for example, for the agriculture, countryside and agri-environment secretary—whatever the title might be, because it might be the sustainable development secretary—of the assembly to be the regular European secretary who attends meetings of the Council of Ministers and other European meetings.

One could argue that other departments' secretaries, such as culture secretaries, might be able to perform a similar task. I believe that it is a task that the noble friend of the Lord, Lord Mackay, has performed at least once when the Welsh Office took the lead in a European Council meeting on the subject of minority languages. That is clear from the fourth report of the Welsh Affairs Committee of the other place 1994–95. I cannot believe that that person who was leading on minority languages could possibly have been other than the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

It should be said that the person involved was a senior civil servant.

Lord Elis-Thomas

Can the former Minister confirm that he did attend as Minister of State an informal council on regional policy in November 1993?

Lord Roberts of Conwy

Yes.

Lord Elis-Thomas

We are getting somewhere. We now have it established that a senior Welsh Office official led, at official level, a debate on minority languages—obviously that is something that I endorse fully, although I do not endorse the term "minority languages"—and that the Minister of State attended an informal council on regional policy. So we are there already. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, shakes his head. I know that he will say that we are not leading the negotiations. These things do not work in that way. He knows full well that European Councils, in terms of formal votes and so on late at night, are part of the proceedings but that most of the work goes on in the serious discussions beforehand.

Clearly the national assembly will be represented there, both through UKREP and the input into the relevant European interdepartmental committee of the UK Government. It is important to put this in the overall European context. We are dealing with a flexible and moving scenario of European representations by regional Ministers.

I am surprised that in our debates no mention has been made—I shall not go into detail—of the constitutions of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Belgian state, or the diverse and wonderful arrangements that our colleagues in Catalonia manage to derive through their continuing relationships with parties of various hues in Madrid and elsewhere. We are dealing with a moving picture of European representation both at official and ministerial level. Whether it is in the formal sense of the federal state structure or the more asymmetrical form of autonomy in the Iberian peninsula, which is much more like what is emerging in the UK, those are facts of political life. Therefore I am certain that the national assembly will be able to devise its various strategies for operating as a serious partner at the European level in the formal sense as well as in the existing less formal contacts we have through the procedures instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is getting excited.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I can understand why and how a senior civil servant from the Welsh Office, who was a senior civil servant of the British Government, could take a lead on an issue peculiar to Wales (if I may use that word in its nicest sense of minority language) which does not have a great deal of English interest. The Scottish Office must have been content to allow the Civil Service to bat on behalf of Gaelic as well.

However, as regards fishing and agriculture, while I accept that theoretically there may be occasions when the issue before the Council of Ministers may be one entirely contained within Wales, I cannot envisage those circumstances. Therefore it will be a UK problem which is developed and explored in the Council of Ministers. That is where I do not believe that a Minister from the Welsh assembly could speak for the United Kingdom. That is my problem.

Lord Elis-Thomas

I see that his unionism excites the noble Lord at this stage of the evening.

I can well envisage that a UK government of whatever colour might decide that the secretary for agriculture, countryside, agri-environment and sheepmeat, of the national assembly for Wales, might be the appropriate person to take a lead role on that issue in terms of reform of the common agricultural policy. I can well imagine that a UK Government might decide that on agri-environment initiatives and the development of national parks it would be appropriate for the secretary from the national assembly to lead in European Union debates on behalf of the UK. There are no national parks in Scotland; and the national parks in England are part of one happy family with Wales.

For the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to suggest that somehow secretaries of the national assembly for Wales are less competent to speak on the European level, and less able to lead on an agreed UK line than Ministers of the UK Parliament does a grave disservice to the partnership arrangements between the Parliament and the national assembly.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. I do not doubt for a moment that they might be perfectly able to lead from an ability point of view, and know all about their subject. I question the issue from the constitutional position. It is a Council of Ministers of the member states of the Union. The member state is the United Kingdom. The Minister we are envisaging, no matter how able, is not a Minister of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but I think that it is a serious problem and no one has answered me properly.

Lord Elis-Thomas

This is my final riposte to the noble Lord. Other member states make specific arrangements. I said that I would not involve myself in the federal position in Belgium. But arrangements are made there. There are four or five categories—I forget how many—of Council ministers. The mix depends on which region leads on which subject.

Many arrangements are possible within a devolved structure. The Scottish parliament has precisely the same relationship with the European Union as the national assembly will have, except possibly in the area of legislation. It could be argued that Scottish Ministers could debate legislation directly whereas national assembly Ministers might not on primary legislation. Apart from that, relationships are similar. On reflection, I am sure the noble Lord will concede that his unionist tendencies have overtaken his judgment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

This is an important debate. The nub of Amendments Nos. 102 and 103C is the role the assembly will play in discussions on EU matters in the United Kingdom and with EU institutions.

In respect of Amendment No. 103B spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, as I explained earlier, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate for concordats to have the force of law, or for the detail to appear on the face of the Bill.

Both amendments seek to explore the level of representation that the assembly will have in Europe. The Government's position is that the assembly will play a direct role, but that it is not appropriate for that to be dealt with on the face of the Bill.

I readily acknowledge the extensive personal knowledge of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on how both the Scottish and Welsh Offices operated within a unitary government. I hope that they will accept that in this Bill we are dealing with an entirely different internal constitutional background. We do not consider it appropriate to put that in the Bill. It is an attempt to write into legislation the role that the assembly will play in discussions on EU matters in the UK and with EU institutions. That can be handled much better by agreed arrangements, if necessary through concordats, with government departments which will be prepared in due course. The UK Government will continue to have overall responsibility for foreign policy, including issues arising from membership of the EU. That is plain, too, in the drafting of the Scotland Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, slithered between two different positions. First, when he was taking his fisheries example, he was talking about practicality. But then the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was politely interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, saying that constitutionally there would be a difficulty about somebody from the assembly speaking in the Council of Ministers. Then in the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, confirmed that a senior official from the Welsh Office, or possibly himself, had spoken in the Council of Ministers on a Welsh language issue. Taking that as an example, if a Welsh language issue is raised by an EU institution, the representative at the EU institution is plainly a representative of the UK Government. But there is nothing wrong with the UK Government saying that the obvious and most appropriate person to speak on behalf of the UK Government, which is the player in foreign policy terms, is somebody from the Welsh assembly. That particular issue has been transferred to the assembly.

I see neither practical difficulty in that case nor any constitutional difficulty, so long as it is remembered at all times that the relevant player in foreign policy terms is the UK, because it is a member of the EU.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for repeating his expression, I believe that he slithered neatly from the position of a civil servant, an official, albeit of the Welsh Office, who is of the United Kingdom service taking the position on the front desk. Civil servants do take positions in place of Ministers, especially during election interregnums in a country where there is no government, as occasionally is the case with some of our European friends, thanks to proportional representation. They have to be represented by officials, but they are officials of the member state's government.

The official who represented the UK perhaps came from the Welsh Office but he was a UK civil servant. I understand that civil servants who work for the Welsh assembly will still be UK civil servants. I suspect that there may not be such a problem about them, but is the Minister saying that assembly members will be civil servants in some capacity and that they will be able to represent the UK in the same way as a civil servant? I believe that that is a bit of a slither.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

It is obviously my fault for not making myself sufficiently clear to the noble Lord. The starting point is that the UK is the member of the EU. The UK can choose who is the most appropriate person to speak for the UK, on behalf of the UK, in the Council of Ministers. The UK could choose to have as its representative a secretary from the Welsh assembly who would be in a parallel position to that in which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, found himself when he was speaking on behalf of the UK in relation to the UK government.

With the greatest respect, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he was slightly muddying the waters by bringing in the idea, which is entirely accurate, that the civil servants serving the Welsh assembly and the assembly secretaries will be members of the Home Civil Service. If a civil servant serving a secretary from the Welsh assembly goes to such a meeting, he will do so on behalf of his Welsh assembly secretary.

Surely the critical point raised by these amendments is whether there are situations where an assembly secretary can attend and speak on behalf of the UK Government. If the UK Government, which means the national government, agree, the answer is yes, he or she can. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, reacts as though that were some great concession. It has never been any part of the arrangements, other than those for foreign policy which includes EU policy. It is for this Parliament and not for the Welsh assembly. However, that does not mean that the Welsh assembly has no part to play; indeed, as I have indicated, that could include representation subject to the agreement of the UK Government.

Clause 109 of the Bill makes clear that the assembly will have a duty to ensure the implementation and enforcement of Community obligations in Wales, to the extent that it has the power to do so. There is no doubt, then, that the assembly will have a direct interest in the effects of a wide range of EU legislation.

The assembly will be able to scrutinise European Union documents and proposals and respond to them. Clause 34 makes clear that it has the power to consider and make appropriate representations on any matter that affects Wales. Its powers under Clause 33—to support culture and so forth—and under Clause 41—its supplementary powers—may also be relevant here. Of course, the Government intend to enable the assembly to implement European law under Clause 30.

The assembly will be involved in discussions that decide the UK negotiating line on those proposals, to the extent that they fall within its remit—for example, on agriculture and on the environment. There will need to be close liaison between the assembly and government departments to ensure that the assembly's views are fed into UK policy formation on Europe and are taken into account during negotiations in the Council of Ministers and working groups. The Government are committed to that end.

As I have already said, assembly secretaries will be able, subject to the agreement of the lead UK Minister, to take part in relevant policy negotiations at the Council of Ministers and to speak on behalf of the UK.

Amendment No. 103C would impose on the Secretary of State and the assembly who should and should not be represented on the Committee of the Regions and would require the Secretary of State to consult the first secretary about representation on the Economic and Social Committee. The Bill already contains provisions to allow members of the assembly to be members of the Committee of the Regions, but we do not believe that it would be right to prescribe on the face of the Bill who should and should not be nominated.

Amendment No. 102 is inappropriate in the Government's view because it would give an intermediary role to the Secretary of State when the intention is that the assembly will deal directly with the relevant government departments on these European matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, knows, the Government envisage the same arrangements for the Scottish Executive.

Whether or not assembly secretaries form part of the UK delegation at meetings of the Council of Ministers, arrangements will be made for them to know the outcome of those discussions which are relevant to the assembly's responsibilities. Again, in relation to that exchange, there is no need to interpose the Secretary of State.

Apart from the channels that I have mentioned, we also have to bear in mind that the assembly will have open to it various means of exerting influence in other ways. The assembly may well choose to have its own representative office in Brussels. I imagine that it will want to maintain close links with the Welsh Members of the European Parliament. Assembly members will, from 2002 onwards, be able to represent Wales on the Committee of the Regions. These and other routes of influence will be available to the assembly.

I believe that Amendment No. 102 fails to recognise the new constitutional landscape. It suggests that the only way of dealing with business is the present system, with decisions on these matters taken by the UK Government alone, while the new devolved administrations are left on the outside with the crumbs of being consulted beforehand and being told after the event what has transpired. That, I believe, does not reflect the political dynamic of the constitutional changes that the Government are putting in place. In view of my response I invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I would not wish the discussion on this amendment to be concluded without my saying how important my noble friends' amendment is as regards agriculture. I think—I only think at this stage of the night—that the noble and learned Lord added a little to my understanding of the position, but I shall with my advisers read carefully the whole of this debate before the next stage. As I said, the amendment is vitally important to agriculture.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. He clarified a little what the Government hope will be the position. However, I am still less than convinced that if I were a Welsh farmer I would be entirely satisfied with that. The noble and learned Lord suggested that I was somehow a little old fashioned as I wanted decisions taken by the UK Government alone. The point is decisions are not taken by the UK Government alone; they are taken by 15 governments, and perhaps more in the future. Decisions are often taken at this time of night and later. It is not the preliminary position that bothers me too much, although to be honest I think the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite do not quite appreciate how important and powerful a central UK department—with the might, for example, of English agriculture behind it—can be when dealing with what are called the "territorial" departments. Perhaps that is just the experience I had in government, but when I listen to the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I am pretty certain that he does not bow too often to his territorial friends and that he takes a pretty robust view of his senior and leading role.

These decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers and by the Council of Ministers. That is what really bothers me. When we discuss the Scottish Bill I shall discuss the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers. I have spoken for the United Kingdom on fisheries matters with no MAFF Minister beside me. I have spoken on matters which involved Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. I was welcomed back with a full creel by the fishermen, at least in terms of the total allowable catch. Whether they transferred the total allowable catch into real fish and creels, I am not sure. I was able to speak in that way because I was a member of a United Kingdom government. My noble friend Lord Roberts was at the meeting which has been mentioned because he was a member of a United Kingdom government. Perhaps I am being a little stupid and not grasping the nuances of the noble and learned Lord, but I am worried that the secretaries of the Welsh assembly will not be considered members of the United Kingdom Government. That is the problem.

However, I do not think we shall make any great advances on this matter tonight. I shall read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I leave him with one request. Through much of this argument has run the suggestion—although the noble and learned Lord did not mention it—that if we considered the Council of Ministers we would see circumstances in which Ministers from the German Länder or Ministers from the various regional governments of Spain have attended meetings of the Council of Ministers and have spoken and voted on behalf of the member state on issues which affected the entire member state. I would be deeply grateful to receive a letter—a copy of which could be put in the Library—indicating instances where this has happened.

I do not refer to instances where there has been a peculiar issue before the Council of Ministers relevant only to that particular region or Land, but where the Minister from a Land, from Catalonia or wherever it is, has actually represented the whole of Germany, the whole of Spain and interests far beyond his boundaries. I should be interested to see examples of that actually happening in the Council of Ministers. I do not refer to informal ministerial meetings but formal Council meetings where decisions are made. It would go some way to help me and, I suspect, many other people in agriculture and fisheries if I had concrete examples of that happening. I hope that the Minister might be able to send me a letter giving some examples between now and Report stage.

12 midnight

Lord Prys-Davies

Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I wonder whether he is not missing the point. It is not that the assembly secretary will be a member of the UK Government. Of course he will not be. But he will be a representative of the UK ministerial team and, as such, will be authorised to commit the Government of the UK. The authority for that, apart from what we have heard from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General, is also to be found in Article 146 of the EC treaty as amended by the Maastricht Treaty. That makes it abundantly clear that a person such as the assembly secretary can represent, and commit, the UK Government provided that he has the authority of the lead department.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I am interested, and therefore I shall no doubt be given lots of examples of Council of Ministers meetings, especially in agriculture and fisheries, which are the two most important ones so far as concerns rural life in Wales, where Ministers from, for example, German Länder actually represented their government on an all-German issue and cast that government's votes if the matter came to a vote. I shall be very interested to read that, and it might go some way to persuade me that this may not be as bad a deal for Scottish and Welsh agriculture and fisheries as I sometimes fear. I look forward to the letter which I hope will come to me before Report stage, when one way or another we shall return to this issue.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is necessary, for the purpose of calming fears in the agricultural community in Scotland and Wales, that there should be examples of Ministers of Länder, or from regional governments in Spain or wherever, representing the whole of their country as opposed to the regions for which they are responsible, but representing that region—for example, in Wales, obtaining Objective 1 status or making representation on that account. Are we not interested to know whether Ministers from regional governments have, with the consent of their national governments, been able to put forward regional issues?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am happy to enlarge my request. However, my real point still is—and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has quite grasped it—that all of the negotiations in which I ever took part involved all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Sometimes there were minor players; sometimes the issues were major ones. But it was an all-UK issue. So it was not merely a case of me, in my capacity as a UK Government Minister, speaking for Scotland; I was speaking about fishing issues in relation to Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. That is the point I am trying to make. I can see that with an issue which only affected a particular area it might be able to work that way. But, as I doubt that that happens very often, and in major negotiations in agriculture—such as decisions about price fixing, HLCAs and many other matters, and even objective status—they do not merely discuss whether Wales is to get Objective 1 status—they are probably discussing a whole raft of issues relating to Objective 1 status all over Europe. I do not believe it can be nearly as narrow as the noble Lord's intervention seems to indicate. Frankly, any example will be of great interest to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 103:

After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—