THE ASSEMBLIES (Hansard, 25 January 1977)

§ Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I should like to ask whether you will be good enough to reconsider your selection of amendments today, in particular the enormous group to which we come first and which is linked with Amendment No. 50. There are about 40 amendments and amendments to amendments in that group, but they do not all deal with exactly the same subject. They deal with two major matters and a few less major but obviously important matters.
Of the two major matters the first is proportional representation and the method of electing to the Assemblies. The second is the size of the Assemblies in both Scotland and Wales. I should think that the Committee would infinitely prefer first to have a substantial debate confined to proportional representation and then to turn its mind to the other major matter—the size of the Assemblies.
As these amendments are selected, those matters are mixed. I appreciate that there is some difficulty possibly from your point of view, Mr. Murton, because Amendment No. 50 refers to the size of the Assemblies. However, I do not think that alters the fact that the Committee really wants first to debate in depth proportional representation and then to turn its mind to the size of the Assemblies.
It seems to me that the best way to achieve that result effectively would be to subdivide this enormous group of amendments. By my calculations, there are eight amendments relevant to proportional representation, over 20 amendments relevant to the size of the Assemblies and about eight amendments dealing with other significant but less major 1206 matters. If it is not possible to divide the amendments in that way, I hope that we may somehow debate proportional representation as a complete subject before turning our minds to anything else. I should have thought that the Committee would prefer to have a division of this enormous block of amendments.
Will you also consider a separate vote on Amendments Nos. 525, 526 and 537? I dare say that other hon. Members will make requests for separate votes. I say that without prejudice to the request that I made earlier for a division of this block of amendments so that we may deal with the matter in what appears to me to be a more orderly manner.

Several Hon. Members
rose

§ The Chairman
Order. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) at this stage. I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order which he intended to raise. I shall endeavour to explain the position.
Amendment No. 50, on which the debate is founded, which includes Amendments (a) and (b) and 37 other amendments, not only deals with the method by which the initial and subsequent elections are to be conducted, but affects also the numbers of the membership of the Assemblies. All the other amendments in the group relate to one or other of these matters. After the most careful thought, I have been unable to find a way of separating any of them out for separate debate which would not run the risk of the repetition of arguments used in previous debates.
Secondly, the Committee will have observed that Amendment No. 50 itself involves the omission of three subsections of Clause 2. Were this amendment to be agreed to, the majority of the amendments in the group could not be called since that part of the text to which they relate would have disappeared.
It seems to me that, before coming to a decision on Amendment No. 50, the Committee should at least be able to discuss some of the alternative schemes proposed. If, however, Amendment No. 50 is defeated, there are a number of amendments in the group on which it would be perfectly possible to have 1207 separate Divisions. I shall be willing to receive representations about such amendments and I shall announce my ultimate decision to the Committee before calling the next group of amendments for discussion.
Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's specific request, I shall agree to separate Divisions on Amendments Nos. 525 and 526. However, I am advised that Amendment No. 537 falls with Amendment No. 525.
With the best will in the world, I do not see how the Chair, having called a Member, could confine him to speaking to a limited aspect only of the amendments under discussion. This is a Committee. The fact that a Member has spoken once does not prevent him from later rising again to catch the eye of the Chair.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton, of which I have given you notice. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that during last Wednesday's proceedings there was a good deal of discussion on points of law relating to the powers of this Parliament on issues such as housing and education in relation to the Scottish Assembly. On that occasion, some of us raised the question whether there should not be a statement from a Law Officer to clear up the position purely on points of fact.
I have had a characteristically courteous letter from the Lord Advocate—who is present today—saying, In the course of last Wednesday's proceedings on the Scotland and Wales Bill various questions were raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and yourself among others about the respective legislative competencies of Parliament and of the Scottish Assembly in relation to devolved matters, and you asked if there might be a considered statement on the matter by one of the Law Officers. I am taking this up with my colleagues and shall write to you again on the matter. The Lord Advocate has done us the courtesy of being present. I understand that today it might be very difficult to make a statement on what are necessarily extremely complex matters. However, I put it to you, Mr. Murton, that it is a bit difficult for the Committee to go further in the proceedings unless hon. Members are clear about these difficult matters of law.
1208 Reflecting upon what happened during the passage of the European Communities Act, I think that the Lord President might well agree that there is an argument for having a Law Officer almost continuously present, as indeed the former Solicitor-General was present, to clarify these very difficult and complex matters of law, without which clarification we cannot really proceed to meaningful discussions on so many subjects. Have you, Mr. Murton, had any request from the Lord Advocate?

§ The Chairman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have received no request from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to make a statement. In any event, the matter appears to me to be one for debate. Should it arise during the course of discussion of a relevant amendment, no doubt a Minister will wish to reply to any points that may have been made.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I hope that you will not think it amiss if on a ruling of such great importance hon. Members put further points to you. I am reverting to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym).
You, Mr. Murton, have been good enough to indicate to the Committee that you would select for Division amendments which relate to one of the separate issues which are bound up together in the amendment which is to be put as the main Question before the Committee. Of course, that enables hon. Members to indicate their opinion on that subject in the Division Lobby. However, as you will appreciate, it does not touch what is at least an equally important matter —the conduct of a debate and the possibility of a subject being thrashed out in debate in the Committee and the Committee then proceeding to a Division upon it.
May I put this point to you, Mr. Murton? We are in this difficulty in that it so happens that Amendment No. 50 is the first in order upon the Notice Paper and therefore, if selected at all, falls to be debated first. It undoubtedly contains at least two matters that do not hang together, because, whereas for the purposes of proportional representation some 1209 variation in the size of the Assemblies might be desirable and even necessary, the question of the size of the Assemblies is one which can be completely separated from the method of election.
The difficulty that the Committee is in arises because, through no particular fault of the hon. Members who drafted and tabled Amendment No. 50, the Committee, in accordance with your ruling, is debarred from having a rational debate upon a single subject and will be forced to go backwards and forwards between subjects which are not integrally connected.
We of course understand that, under the normal proceedings of the House of Commons in Committee, if matters are disposed of on any grounds, if a part of a Bill fails to stand part on any ground, no other matters relating to that part of the Bill can be ventilated during the Committee stage and that those words, as you have explained, have fallen. However, I do not think that you can regard it as satisfactory, Mr. Murton, that we are unable to devise a means whereby two of the major subjects on this whole question of the new Assemblies—namely, the size of the Assemblies and the method of election—cannot be properly debated on their own merits.
I draw here upon a dictum that many of us associate with the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President, who over and over again has lauded to the House of Commons the ability of the House of Commons to achieve that degree of flexibility in its proceedings that will enable it to do what it wants—to conduct the debate in the way in which it wants. I do not think that there can be any doubt that it would be the wish of the Committee to address its mind separately to the method of election and to the size of the Assemblies as separate issues.
I am therefore appealing to you, Mr. Murton, to recognise that we have here not a matter that is restricted to just this amendment—important though it is—but a matter that relates to the efficiency of the proceedings of the House of Commons in Committee. I should like to inquire whether you are prepared to consider allowing the debate on Amendment No. 50 to proceed and for those who are discussing it to cover the whole 1210 ambit, but, nevertheless, to provide a means of reserving the debate upon the other question or questions involved.
In particular, Mr. Murton, you will be aware that there is a procedure whereby in putting a Question part of the amendment which is being put to the Committee can be withheld from the Question. I believe that I am right in saying that in putting a Question the Chair is not obliged to put the whole of the Question at the same time but need put only part of it, reserving the other part for subsequent debate. I would ask you whether by that or any other means it is possible for the Committee not to be placed in this self-defeating situation of being obliged to debate together two subjects that are inherently separate from one another.

§ Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton, which was so ably put by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It seems to me, with respect to you, Mr. Murton, that there is a distinction between these two sets of amendments. The amendments on proportional representation carry a change in the size of the Assembly purely as a consequence of adopting a different electoral system. They are not primarily designed to discuss the question of the optimal size of the Assembly.
The second series of amendments deals with the size of the Assembly given that the existing method of selection proposed in the Bill is adhered to. That is quite a different matter.
Some hon. Members may wish to support proportional representation, taking the size of the Assembly in consequence as written in. However, if that is defeated, they may wish to take a different view, given the system proposed by the Government, of what would be the appropriate size of the Assembly.
Moreover, perhaps I may say, with respect to the right hon. Member for Down, South and you, Mr. Murton, that there is a certain logical consequence in this, because if Amendment No. 50 is carried, that determines the precise numbers of the Assembly and there is no point in going on to debate its size. One could amend it to increase the number of added Members, or otherwise, but that 1211 is a secondary element. It follows logically on whether the first amendment is carried.
I would therefore plead with you, Mr. Murton, in the interests of a clear-cut debate, to allow us to debate first those amendments on proportional representation as a block.

§ The Chairman
The argument that was advanced earlier is indeed the ruling that I have given, and I explained the difficulties of the situation.
Turning to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I am afraid that what he proposes is virtually impossible. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the matter has been gone into with the greatest care to find some means by which it would be possible—if I may use an unparliamentary phrase —to unscramble the amendment that appears first in the selection. I assure the Committee that everything has been done that could be done to attempt to do that.

§ Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)
I think that the Committee realises, Mr. Murton, the difficulty in which you are in and the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself. We are discussing two major constitutional factors in the Bill. Whatever view any right hon. or hon. Member may take, they are of major importance. In the framing of constitutions for different territories for which Parliament has been responsible the matters that are lumped together in 40 amendments have in the past been treated with great seriousness. There have been long debates and separate discussions.
It is possible that we shall have a long-drawn-out debate—indeed, a ragged debate—taking place until the early hours of the morning. If the Leader of the House were a cynic—I am sure that he is not—he would say "Thank God we have got rid of that. All the constitutional matters are out of the way. We do not need the guillotine if we can have matters lumped together in this way." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not take that view. I am wondering whether we cannot have some self-denying ordinance, to which I should be 1212 the first to offer myself as a sacrifice, without in any way challenging your selection, Mr. Murton.
I am wondering whether we can agree to have a major debate on the electoral system that is to be used and to have a vote at 12 o'clock midnight or 1 o'clock in the morning, thereby going to bed fairly early, and tomorrow debate the matter of size on the assumption that the first amendment falls. It seems that the Leader of the House is always asking others to be reasonable about the allocation of time. I understand that he has even had discussions on these matters. Here is an opportunity to put him to the test and to ascertain what his judgment is in this respect.
I believe that I have put forward a modest proposal that will help you, Mr. Murton, without in any way contesting your ruling. First, I suggest that we debate the electoral system that should be used and, secondly, that we debate the size of the constituencies tomorrow. If anyone tells me that these are not matters of major importance and that they do not demand one day each, his concept of what is constitutionally important is very different from mine.
I believe that these are matters of vital importance. If my proposition is accepted, there is the prospect that we shall have civilised and meaningful debates. With great respect, Mr. Murton, and without challenging your selection, we shall have a hotch-potch of a debate as matters stand. The debate will go backwards and forwards and the vote, in the end, will not really mean very much.

§ Mr. Nicholas Edwards (Pembroke)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I understood you to say that it would probably not be possible to have a separate vote on Amendment No. 537 because of its relationship with Amendment No. 525 or Amendment No. 526. If that is so, it means that we should be unable to vote on the size of the Welsh Assembly because we should have taken a decision about the size of the Scottish Assembly. We have warned the House about that sort of difficulty—

§ The Chairman
Perhaps I should explain that Amendment No. 525 paves the way for Amendment No. 537.

§ Mr. Edwards
With great respect, Mr. Murton, I seek to complete my submission. Amendment No. 525 deals primarily with the Scottish Assembly whereas No. 537 is explicitly directed towards the Welsh Assembly. This is precisely the difficulty that we have warned would come from muddling Scotland and Wales in one Bill.
If it is impossible to debate proportional representation and the size of the Assemblies separately—we have already expressed our views about that—it will be equally unsatisfactory if we are unable to vote separately on the size of the Welsh Assembly and the size of the Scottish Assembly.
I hope, Mr. Murton, that you will consider this matter again and seek to find a way out of the difficulty.

§ The Chairman
Amendment No. 525, as I understand it, cuts out Wales.

§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton, I suggest that the logical way of trying to unscramble the difficulty facing the Committee is to try if possible to move from the general to the specific. Amendment No. 59, standing in the names of my Plaid Cymru colleagues and myself, would facilitate such a move. It deals with the subject in the most general context. It states that election to the Assembly should be by a system of proportional representation. The amendment has been selected and, presumably, is in order.
I accept that inevitably there would have to be further amendments thereafter to specify what system of proportional representation would be necessary. However, if the Committee had the opportunity to demonstrate whether it wished to have such a system, it would then have the maximum possible opportunity to decide in which direction it wished to go. If Amendment No. 50 is taken first, the whole system of proportional representation may be cut out. I personally happen to agree with Amendment No. 50, but I accept that there are Members on both sides of the Chamber who, while agreeing to proportional representation as a system, would not go along with all the detail set out in the amendment. There are some amendments that would cut out Wales, and as a decision has already 1214 been taken, on a previous clause, on whether Wales should stay in the Bill, I submit that such amendments are out of order.
Further, Mr. Murton, I draw your attention to the fact that we are not discussing two issues. Amendments Nos. 521 and 522 relate to the proposition of having more than one Assembly in Wales and Scotland. That underlines the need for treating the amendments separately.

§ Mr. Malcolm Rifkind (Edinburgh, Pentlands)
I wish to make two brief points, Mr. Murton. First, I suggest that the grouping of amendments is primarily a matter for the convenience of the Committee. I think that you will agree, Mr. Murton, that the views that have been expressed from both sides of the Chamber suggest strongly that if the Committee were able to consider separately the size of the Assembly and method of selection it would be for its convenience.
As you indicated, Mr. Murton, as we are in Committee there is nothing to stop Members from trying to speak twice. Presumably they could speak the first time on the method of election and the second time on the question of size. If that course were taken and Members were to confine themselves to the method of election for the first few hours, and if the debate were entirely on that matter until, for example, 11 o'clock, it would not be totally unprecedented for a Government Whip to move, "That the Question be now put". If the Committee were to decide accordingly, it might find itself obliged to vote on the size of the Assemblies without any debate having been undertaken by Members on either side of the Chamber. Clearly that would be undesirable.

§ The Chairman
First, I answer the last part of the point of order of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). Whether to accept a closure motion is entirely for the occupant of the Chair. The Chair ensures that justice is done in Committee. The only suggestion that I can make to try to help the Committee—I am sure that the Committee understands my sincerity when I say that it has been faced with difficulties—is that if the Committee desires in the earlier part of the debate to emphasise matters relating to proportional representation, so be it, but the one thing the Chair cannot do is to prevent other 1215 matters that are related to it and grouped with it from being discussed by individual Members if they so desire.

§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)
Taking into account what you have just said, Mr. Murton, surely it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the two subjects were discussed separately. I have tabled three amendments that bear on the size of the Scottish Assembly. As far as I am concerned, it does not matter a row of beans how the Scottish people choose their own Assembly, but we now have before us matters that are separate. Clearly some Members do not agree with the present proposals and want a full and separate debate on elections to the Assembly.
In respect of your earlier ruling, Mr. Murton, it would seem that Amendment No. 50, to all intents and purposes, is a new clause. It completely rewrites the whole principle of the clause but has been tabled as an amendment. If such amendments are to lead to the grouping of a large number of amendments, surely they will offer a blocking procedure for the Opposition, who may wish to debate separate items of principle separately. As I understand it, surely it is for the convenience of the whole Committee that we can debate separate subjects separately and show an element of common sense.

§ The Chairman
It would not be possible to introduce a new clause if a clause on the subject had already been agreed to and was part of the Bill.

§ Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Further to your ruling a moment ago when you said that it would be quite in order for the Committee to emphasise the arguments on proportional representation in the earlier part of the debate, may I ask what the position is of many of my hon. and right hon. Friends who have a view to put on both matters? If we are fortunate enough to catch your eye in the early part of the debate, and if we are conscientiously trying to keep our remarks brief by confining ourselves to the issue of PR, should we then desist from commenting on the size of the Assembly, safe in the knowledge that we are likely to be called later, or should we make the most of it and make all the observations that we wish to make?

§ The Chairman
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair could not and would not put pressure upon any individual Member to curtail his arguments, be they on PR or any of the other amendments. I would emphasise again that I shall give full and sympathetic consideration to the matter at the appropriate time should hon. and right hon. Members desire separate Divisions on specific amendments.

§ Mr. Francis Pym
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I took a little advice before asking for separate Divisions on the amendments that I mentioned earlier. I was advised that there would be no problem about a Division on Amendment No. 537. I hope, Mr. Murton, that you will reconsider that together with any other representations that you receive. It will have been quite clear to you from these interventions how much importance the Committee attaches to these two separate and, although related, distinct subjects.
As the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) stressed and as we on the Conservative Benches agree, they are two separate and major matters. I am sure that the Committee will wish to emphasise the PR argument at the beginning of the debate. I hope that at a later stage, if it is convenient, one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be able to intervene with advice and comments on the size of the Scottish Assembly and that in due course another of my hon. Friends will put the same arguments about the Welsh Assembly.
That is the way in which to deal with matters of this kind if we are to take them in one chunk. It would be easier if they were separated. If they are not to be separated I hope, Mr. Murton, that you will appreciate that there will be two interventions during the course of this inevitably long debate before we finally come to a conclusion on Amendment No. 50 if, indeed, we are to proceed with that amendment.

§ The Chairman
Perhaps I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that if any hon. Member on either Front Bench should rise at any time during the debate, he is likely to catch my eye. I cannot give a specific undertaking with regard to 1217 Amendment No. 537, but I promise to give the matter serious consideration.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)
Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), Mr. Murton. Let me press you to consider again the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, which was that it would be possible to take Amendment No. 59 as the lead amendment and divide the debate as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish. I would also take the opportunity of asking whether there is any possibility that the Lord President himself will be afforded the opportunity of intervening at this juncture.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)
I am happy to try to assist the Committee if I can. The situation facing the Committee is that you, Mr. Murton, have announced a selection of amendments and some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have raised criticisms or doubts or questions about it and asked whether that selection could be reconsidered.
It is not a question for the Government at all. If the Government had any way in which they could assist in the matter, they would be glad to do so. I do not say this in a critical sense, because I know why it has been done, but the problem arises from the comprehensive form and manner of Amendment No. 50. You had to select that amendment, Mr. Murton, and that influences the whole situation. It is not the responsibility of the Government. It is not the Government's decision that it should have been a comprehensive amendment of that character, or that it should have been put down in that form.
I think that what you have said is quite clear, Mr. Murton. We must carry on the debate on that basis, but certainly in the form in which we have debates throughout the whole of this Committee we shall be eager to assist. It is not possible for the Government to overcome the problem arising from the ambitious nature of Amendment No. 50.

§ Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. One 1218 difficulty I find is that the order of selection says that we shall discuss Clauses 1 and 2, then Schedule 1, and then it goes on to other clauses. Among the list are not only amendments dealing with Clause 2, but No. 146, which relates to Clause 5.

§ The Chairman
Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. It does indeed, because they are consequential.
As the Committee knows, the next amendment is No. 50. With it we are taking the two amendments to it:

(a), in line 6, leave out '14' and insert '24'.

(b), in line 8, leave out '50' and insert '60'.

We are also to discuss the following amendments:
No. 521, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scottish Assembly' and insert 'three Scottish Assemblies'.
No. 55, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'Assembly' to the end of line 10 on page 2 and insert 'the members of which shall be the persons who shall have been elected for the Assembly constituencies specified in an Order in Council under the provisions applied by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (provided that no such Order shall be made unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament) and there shall be one member for each of such constituencies.' No. 522, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Welsh Assembly' and insert 'two Welsh Assemblies'.
No. 59, in page 1, line 16, at end insert 'election to which shall be by a system of proportional representation'. No. 523, in page 1, line 16, at end insert 'as set out in the schedule (Assemblies)'. No. 61, in page 1, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert 'The members of each assembly (House of Representatives) shall be those members of Parliament sitting for constituencies in the areas over which the assemblies are granted control'. No. 524, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'initial'.
No. 525, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'each' and insert 'the Scottish'.
1219 No. 368, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'Assembly' to end of line 23 and insert: 'shall be persons elected by each district and regional council in Scotland and by each district and county council in Wales'. No. 66, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'be' to end of line 23 and insert: 'constituted from one representative from each district and regional council in Scotland, and from one representative from each district and county council in Wales'. No. 526, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 23 and insert: 'and there shall be one member for each such constituency'. No. 73, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'respectively' to end of line 23 and insert: 'and there shall be one initial member for each 20,000 or part thereof of the electorate for the area'. No. 371, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'respectively' to end of line 23 and insert: 'and there shall be one member for each of those areas'. No. 74, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'be' to end of line 23 and insert: 'one initial member for each of these areas'. No. 460, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'be' to end of line 23 and insert: 'only one member for each such constituency'. No. 75, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
No. 77, in page 1, line 21, leave out '125' and insert '150'.
No. 78, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'two' and insert 'one'.
No. 546, in page 1, line 23, at end insert: ',together with 50 additional members for the Scottish Assembly elected by the process set out in Schedule (Election of additional Members) to this Act.' No. 537, in page 1, line 23, at end insert: '() The members of the Welsh Assembly shall be returned for the areas which, at the time of their election, are local government districts, and there shall be one member for each of those areas of which the electorate is between 50 and 150 per cent. of the electoral quota, two members for each of those areas of which the electorate is between 150 and 250 per cent. of the electoral quota, three members of each of those areas of which the electorate is between 250 per cent. and 350 per cent. of the electoral quota and in the 1220 case of areas of which the electorate is above 350 per cent. of the electorate the number of members shall be the nearest whole number to the number obtained by dividing the electorate by the electoral quota. () In the case of any area of which the electorate is below 50 per cent. of the electoral quota the Boundary Commission for Wales shall submit a report to the Secretary of State for Wales recommending an area with which that area shall be merged. () Sections 2(4), 2(5) and 3 of the Act of 1949 (notice of proposed report of Boundary Commission and implementation of recommendations in report) paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part III of Schedule 1 to that Act (notice of proposed recommendations and local inquiries) and section 4 of the Act of 1958 (procedure) shall apply in relation to a supplementary report made under this Schedule and a recommendation made or proposed to be made in such a report; and in those provisions as they apply by virtue of this paragraph references to constituency shall be construed as referring to Assembly areas and references to electors as references to electors for the Assembly. () Subsections (2) and (3) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (attendance of witnesses at inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry held in pursuance of Subsection(). () For the purposes of determining the number of members to be returned to the Assembly, areas merged pursuant to the provisions of subsection (), () and () shall be treated as a single area. Electoral quota" means the number obtained by dividing the electorate (as defined in this subsection) of Wales by 50. Electorate" means the number of persons whose names appear on the relevant registers of local government electors last published before this Act comes into force, the relevant registers being those for the area concerned.' No. 527, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
No. 438, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'other'.
No. 439, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'constituencies' to 'specified' and insert to be'.
No. 86, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 4.
No. 547, in page 2, line 4, at end insert 'elected by the Alternative Vote'. No. 442, in page 2, line 4, at end insert— '() Each vote in the election in each Assembly constituency shall be a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the 1221 candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

(ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates'.

No. 89, in page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
No. 261, in Schedule 1, page 70, leave out lines 1 to 30 and insert—