Welsh Business

HC Deb 11 March 1996 vol 273 cc703-55

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Before I call the Minister to move the motion on Welsh business, I should say that debate will take place jointly on the motion and on the various amendments selected by Madam Speaker. The amendments will be moved formally at 10 pm.

7.22 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

I beg to move, That—

1. (1) Standing Order No. 98 (Welsh Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders A to G below shall have effect;
2. (2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, after "business))", by inserting "or a motion in the Welsh Grand Committee under Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business))";
3. (3) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 3, after "business))", by inserting "Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))"; and
4. (4) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

1. A. Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)
1. (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Welsh Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
2. (2) The business of the committee shall include—
1. (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));
2. (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates));
3. (c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order D (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
4. (d) Bills referred to it in accordance with Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (Bills));
5. (e) such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)); and
6. (f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).
3. (3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.
2. B. Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)
1. (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
2. (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee.
3. (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
704
4. (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
5. (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:
• Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
3. C. Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)
1. (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
2. (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Wales.
3. (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
4. (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
5. (5)(a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.
1. (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.
2. (c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.
6. (6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:
• Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
4. D. Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements)
1. (1) The chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Wales, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
2. (2) Ministerial statements may be made—
1. (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
2. (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
3. (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.
3. (3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.
4. (4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
5. E. Welsh Grand Committee (Bills)
1. (1) A motion, of which at least 10 days' notice has been given, may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a public Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and 705 if, on the question being put, not fewer than 20 Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it:
• Provided that no such notice shall be given until the Bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office.
2. (2) The committee shall report to the House either that it recommends that the Bill ought to be read a second time or that it recommends that the Bill ought not to be read a second time, and in the latter case it shall have power to state its reasons for so recommending.
3. (3) Upon a motion being made for the second reading of a Bill reported from the committee, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
6. F. Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)
1. (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
2. (2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the matter or matters referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said matter or matters.
7. G. Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)
1. (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Welsh Grand Committee—
1. (a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Wales, the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;
2. (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past 10 o'clock, or at half-past 10 o'clock and between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock;
3. (c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above; and
4. (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;
5. (e) to consider specified Bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (Bills)) on certain of the days so specified; and
6. (f) to consider specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales) on certain of the days so specified;
• and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
• Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Wales, nor from considering at a sitting in Wales business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.
8. (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Welsh Grand Committee.
9. (3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
10. (4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.
706
11. (5) After the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

The motion gives effect to the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 30 November for extending and enhancing the role of the Welsh Grand Committee. The Committee will be able to deal with a wider range of business, not only here in Westminster but at a range of locations in the Principality and as a result will play a more prominent role in the parliamentary consideration of Welsh affairs.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

rose—

Mr. Newton

I see that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is once again determined to let me get no more than one sentence out at a time.

Mr. Wigley

The Leader of the House will recall that I did not intervene in his last speech.

Mr. Newton

indicated assent.

Mr. Wigley

I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. He told the House that the orders put into effect the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Wales before Christmas. Given that he is putting into effect exactly what was announced without taking account of any of the changes that have been discussed since, what was the point of the play that he made earlier of the discussion period? What is the point of pretending that any of the Opposition's points have been taken on board when he is merely putting into practice exactly what was intended three or four months ago?

Mr. Newton

I am reluctant to be drawn into re-running the previous debate, though I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was one of the few who did not seek to intervene even in my relatively brief winding-up speech. The sensible course would be to proceed with the debate and no doubt, either in relation to the amendments or in his speech, the hon. Gentleman—who has fixed views on the matter and wants the Welsh Grand Committee to be not a Committee of the Westminster Parliament but a quite different arrangement—will be able to put his views to the House.

The new Standing Order A re-enacts the existing provisions relating to the composition of the Welsh Grand Committee, lists the full range of business with which the Committee will be able to deal and provides for Ministers who represent constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom to attend meetings and take part in debates. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already told the House—and I assume that this will be welcome in Wales, as it certainly should be—both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have indicated that they propose to attend the Committee under that provision.

Standing Order B seeks to add to the opportunities for Welsh Members to question Welsh Office Ministers by providing for an additional Welsh Office Question Time lasting for half an hour at certain meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee. I am never quite sure whether comparisons with Scotland go down well, but that procedure has undoubtedly proved a great success in the Scottish Grand Committee since its introduction a year ago.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a comparison between Wales and Scotland. The previous debate was about how we should make decisions about the Welsh Grand Committee, but when are we going to decide about the Committee changes themselves? Why, after 17 years, have the Government suddenly seen the light and decided to make changes to both the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees? What has spurred on the Government's interest in changing procedures? What has changed the Government's mind?

Mr. Newton

Nothing has changed the Government's mind. It is part of our constant search to improve the way in which Parliament does business. When we changed the procedures of the House more generally, in the fashion to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred—my right hon. Friend the Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was present then—and discussed and implemented large parts of the Jopling proposals, no one asked why we did not do it 15 years ago. Equally, I do not recall anyone arguing that in relation to Scottish Standing Orders, the Scottish Grand Committee, the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee or the improvements that we have been making to the way in which legislation is considered. We are simply seeking to improve the way in which the United Kingdom Parliament responds to the changing perceptions and circumstances of the way in which the House and its Committees do their business.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

One immediate improvement that the right hon. Gentleman might like to put in train is to allow Welsh to be spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee. A couple of years ago, we had lengthy deliberations on the Welsh Language Act 1993, which culminated in the Government saying that Welsh had equal validity with English. The Government are denying the people of Wales the chance of making the revamped Committee of some relevance to large parts of Wales. That is an insult to the people of Wales.

Mr. Newton

The amendment of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) relates to that. I shall talk about the matter in a moment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to advance his points during the debate.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has been going round Wales saying that the proposals are an alternative to a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Newton

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who, as I have suggested, will seek to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has muttered from a sedentary position that he does not accept that proposition. I am sure that ways will be found to put that point to him directly during the debate.

Standing Order C allows Welsh Members to initiate "short debates" in which speeches will be limited to five minutes or less on topics related to Wales. A Minister will reply to each "short debate", which will allow more detailed consideration of a specific question. It should be possible to cover at least two topics in the time available.

Standing Order D will allow a Minister from the Welsh Office or another Government Department to make a statement about a matter relating to Wales at the beginning of a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. Again, I should emphasise that, as is the case with Scotland, whether a statement should be made to the Welsh Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House is necessarily a matter of judgment in each case, but there would be significant advantages not least for Welsh Members in, for example, moving the annual statement on public expenditure in Wales into the Welsh Grand Committee. It would give Welsh Members a better opportunity to question the Secretary of State, as well as relieving one part of the pressure of business on the Floor at what tends to be a congested time in the Session. It is now the practice for the Scottish public expenditure statement to be made to the Scottish Grand Committee each December and that arrangement has worked to the advantage of Scottish Members and the House as a whole.

I can pass quickly over Standing Orders E and F, since they do no more than restate those provisions of the existing Standing Orders that govern the Welsh Grand Committee's consideration of Bills and matters relating exclusively to Wales.

Standing Order G has three principal purposes. First, it enables the Welsh Grand Committee to hold meetings in Cardiff or anywhere else in Wales. The Government recognise that such meetings need to be held in premises that meet the requirements of the Committee in every respect and I can give an assurance that we will not ask the House to approve a meeting in any venue that has not been thoroughly evaluated by the House authorities and found to be suitable.

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)

To return to the question of the Welsh language, the Leader of the House will know that many of the venues that are being suggested have translation equipment. It would be perfectly natural for him to agree that an experiment could be undertaken, so that when the Welsh Grand Committee met in chambers where translation equipment was available, Welsh could be used. If the amendments are defective, which we would understand, are the Government prepared to accept the principle of Welsh being used in the Welsh Grand Committee?

Mr. Newton

May I return to that? I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will comment on it, but it would probably be more helpful to the House if I completed my brief description of the Standing Orders before doing so.

The second purpose of Standing Order G is to provide for a calendar specifying the dates, times and places of meetings of the Committee, together with the business to he taken at each meeting. If the House agrees to the motion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales hopes to table a motion in the near future setting out a proposed timetable of meetings for the rest of this Session.

Thirdly, that part of the Standing Order gives a further opportunity for Welsh Members to raise matters on behalf of their constituents by providing for a half-hour Adjournment debate to be held at the conclusion of the business set down for each sitting of the Committee, as happens at the end of each sitting of the House. In addition, the motion makes some purely consequential amendments to two existing Standing Orders.

Finally, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr Davies) pressed me on the possible use of the Welsh language in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee—the hon. Member for Caernarfon also pressed me on that on behalf of the Welsh nationalists. A number of representations were undoubtedly made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on that point—my right hon. Friend has made that clear to me—in the course of what turned out to be the somewhat contentious consultations that preceded the bringing forward of this motion.

As the hon. Member for Caernarfon knows, even though he gave us some trouble over it—not for the first time, and probably not for the last—the Government have given the Welsh language consistent support for many years. It was this Government who took through Parliament the Welsh Language Act 1993, which establishes the principle that, in the conduct of public business in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. So, I can say straightforwardly that I certainly do not dismiss the point that was raised. However, it is a matter for the House and not the Government to decide. We have to recognise that it raises a significant question of principle since, apart from a few Norman-French survivals used principally for announcing the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament in the other place and one or two other purposes, English is and has been for centuries the sole language of the United Kingdom Parliament—[Interruption.] This is a serious point and I hope that hon. Members will let me continue.

Clearly, there are implications not only for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, but for its proceedings here in Westminster, for the Scottish Grand Committee and, indeed, for the Chamber of the House of Commons. A number of practical issues would also need to be tackled. The hon. Member for Caerphilly commented on one—the availability of translation facilities—and others include whether Committee papers, Order Papers, Hansard and the like should be produced in both languages.

It seems to me that everyone should agree that allowing the use of Welsh at Grand Committee meetings in Wales would be a major change in parliamentary practice. It would not be sensible for the House to contemplate taking a decision on such an important and potentially significant matter unless every issue that it raises has been properly investigated. The Government believe, therefore, that the appropriate course would be to ask the Procedure Committee to consider the matter and report to the House in due course. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues are well equipped to do so and I hope that they will be prepared to look into that question for us and give the House the benefit of their considered advice.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Newton

Perhaps I had better give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on the Opposition Front Bench first. Then I will submit to all the other interventions.

Mr. Ron Davies

The Leader of the House has made an important statement. I am glad that he acknowledges the seriousness of the matters that we have put to him—in contrast to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who was very scornful in his comments. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is prepared to allow the Select Committee on Procedure to consider the matter. Since there is some urgency—given the Government's motion—about getting the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Wales, will he agree one further concession? Would he expect the Procedure Committee to report before the Welsh Grand Committee next meets in Wales in a chamber with translation equipment? That is taking the argument a stage further. The right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable concession on the part of the Government. If he were prepared to go that one step further, he would find—for once—enormous support for the announcement that he has made.

Mr. Newton

Conciliatory as I always try to be—I am certainly seeking to be tonight—I am not sure that I can take that further step, or certainly not off the cuff.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Newton

I am in danger of being made to sound more tetchy than I wish to be if I am hardly allowed to get a sentence out.

I cannot go as far as that. Perhaps it would be unwise even to encourage such thoughts for two reasons. First, I want to get the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to the suggestion of moving at that pace. Secondly, I suspect that that issue should properly be dealt with on a more considered time scale than the hon. Gentleman suggests, unless the first meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales is to be unduly delayed.

In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, I am aware that the Procedure Committee is in the middle of a substantial inquiry into the way in which the House deals with secondary legislation, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance tonight and I doubt that I will be able to do so at a later stage. We will certainly not encourage delay in the examination of the matter, however.

Mr. Wigley

Does not that last comment show that the Leader of the House is just kicking the matter into touch? If the Select Committee on Procedure is involved in long-running business that will take time and then has to consider the ins and outs of the question, it will be months—certainly the summer recess—before we get any further and, no doubt, some time in the autumn before a proposal is made.

On the right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments—I tried to intervene earlier—there is a precedent, so he need not make all that fuss about procedures. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, chaired by Leo Abse, addressed this issue when it inquired into the establishment of the Welsh language fourth television channel. The Committee met in Caernarfon—at the weekend, I spoke to the people who prepared the simultaneous translation equipment for that meeting—and there was a translation of the proceedings, as necessary, for the official record.

Has the Leader of the House done his research on this matter? The principle is there and it has been accepted. The concept was accepted for a Select Committee, so why on earth is it not going to be used for the Grand Committee? Is this just a deliberate attempt by the Government to go contrary to the indications of the Welsh Language Act 1993, which says that public business can be undertaken in either language in Wales—and I intend to undertake it in Welsh?

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair to me. For once, I feel better treated by the Opposition Front Bench, which has at least acknowledged that what I have suggested is a conciliatory gesture. I am not attempting to kick this issue into the long grass, nor am I resting on mechanical points, such as whether the facilities are available. I am making the serious point that this issue has potentially large implications that should be properly examined. It is the kind of point which hon. Members would normally expect the Procedure Committee to examine properly before such changes are made.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

Will the Leader of the House look at the amendment that has been selected—which seems to be the most modest of the amendments tabled about the language? It asks that when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in Wales, and only in Wales, both languages can be used where translation equipment is available. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has said, there is a precedent for this and there are no difficulties for the House in accepting the amendment.

If the Committee meets in Westminster or elsewhere, great practical obstacles and difficulties will be in the way. There is a precedent for what is before the House tonight and it is a modest request. If it is not accepted, the House will be guilty of saying to the people of Wales what it has been saying for centuries: that the Welsh language is not worthy of consideration; that it is a second-rate language that should not be heard in the House. The Government, in the Welsh Language Act 1993, said that they wanted to elevate the language to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have been very tolerant so far, but hon. Members are making small speeches instead of interventions. Interventions should be brief and to the point.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)

rose—

Mr. Newton

I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman before I reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). In the spirit of your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if the attitude of the Government were the attitude that he has just attributed to them, they would not have passed the Welsh Language Act in the first place and I would not have made the suggestion about the Procedure Committee tonight.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

Does the Leader of the House realise that the suspicion is so great because it took so long for the Conservative party to come round to the idea of the Welsh Language Act 1993, on which there was unity everywhere else in Wales? Does he not realise that the translation facilities are quite simple? Is it not an irony that we have had a meeting of the all-party British-German parliamentary group at South Glamorgan county hall and debated issues quite competently and easily in both languages, but we apparently cannot agree to have a debate in Welsh and in English when the facilities are available for translation?

Mr. Newton

I cannot add much to that point. I have made it clear that I am resting not on what I might call the mechanical difficulties, but on what I take to be the genuine and potentially large issues that must be addressed in the way in which I have suggested.

Mr. Dafis

rose—

Mr. Newton

Given the background to this debate, everyone facing me wishes to make a speech. Therefore, I must make some progress in my speech so that they have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Dafis

Only in England would one expect such a big deal to be made about a simple matter: bilingual provision. I shall explain to the Leader of the House how commonplace it is in Wales for this sort of thing to happen and how easy it is to provide instantaneous translation equipment. I differentiate myself by the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). It is not where there is provision for translation that this should be made possible—provision for translation should always be made available whenever the Committee meets in Wales. It is perfectly easily done and it is something that is familiar to us.

I ask the Leader of the House a question about the referral of the matter to the Procedure Committee: why was it not possible for the Secretary of State to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee as soon as it was suggested that this might be part of the provisions?

Mr. Newton

I do not know exactly when the suggestion was made. However, I know that the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party—this curious animal that I have learned of for the first time in the lead-up to these discussions—took place on 20 February and today is 11 March. Within less than three weeks of that meeting, at which that suggestion would have been made, I have come to the House with the Standing Orders and with what the Opposition Front Bench has described as conciliatory remarks on the consideration of this issue. I very much welcome what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has said about the availability of facilities, which I suspect is due largely to the fact that we have passed the Welsh Language Act 1993.

Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy)

I assure my right hon. Friend that he is absolutely right in saying that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, because certain points must be considered further. For example, if a speech is made in Welsh, should it be recorded officially in Welsh, or should the translation be the recorded version, in accordance with the usual procedures of the House? Overall, I am sure that the electorate in Wales will welcome my right hon. Friend's decision that his mind is not closed on this issue and that he is seeking further advice in this regard.

Mr. Newton

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I referred—albeit briefly; perhaps I ought to have made more of it—to how Order Papers and Hansard reports of the proceedings would be dealt with. That is a good illustration of the sorts of question that need to be addressed and thought through before we make changes of the kind that are being urged on me tonight.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys môn)

rose—

Mr. Newton

Is there some sort of Welsh nationalist policy that all hon. Members have to intervene before I complete my speech?

Mr. Jones

The Leader of the House has referred to the conciliatory measure. Will he tell us whether he has taken a view on the desirability of the use of Welsh in proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee? In other words, is he coming to this issue from the positive aspect that he would like to see the opportunity for Welsh to be used, but he wants the Procedure Committee to confirm whether it is feasible?

Mr. Newton

I have made a somewhat different point from simply considering the feasibility of the use of Welsh. I think that it would be appropriate, with an issue of this kind, for the Procedure Committee to consider the feasibility of the issue and some of the points that have been raised by hon. Members, and also the possible long-term and wider implications of going down this path. That is not unreasonable. Indeed, it is normal—as Labour Members have emphasised—to try to proceed as far as possible with this kind of change through the work of an all-party committee, such as the Procedure Committee, and seek to establish the widest possible consensus, even though complete consensus cannot always be achieved, as is obvious from tonight's debate.

Mr. Llwyd

Not on this side.

Mr. Newton

The suggestion has been made constructively and in good faith. The proposals contained in this motion preserve all the existing powers of the Welsh Grand Committee and give it a significant range of additional functions—they do not detract in any way from the rights of Welsh Members to raise issues on the Floor of the House, in Welsh questions, in Adjournment debates and the like. However, they provide new opportunities that will improve the way in which Parliament deals with Welsh business and bring Parliament closer to the people of Wales. I therefore commend the proposals to the House.

7.49 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)

Opposition Members welcome the concession made by the Leader of the House. I do not know whether it was done off the cuff or with aforethought but, whichever way it was, we welcome the decision to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee because it is the first concession of which we have seen any sign in our dealings on modernising the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee. I shall return to that point later.

Mr. Newton

I am in danger of, as it were, breaching my own comments by intervening so soon, but I feel justified in doing so in the context of the evening as a whole to say that, as must have been obvious, my remarks were not made off the cuff. They were made after discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who very much shared my view that that point should be examined, and represented, in that sense, part of his response to the consultation.

Mr. Morgan

I accept everything that the Leader of the House has said, but ask for further clarification, especially in the light of his last remark. Will he, as Leader of the House, refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, or will the Secretary of State do so?

Mr. Newton

I am not aware of a specific mechanism, but I plan to draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Morgan

I am grateful for those points of clarification.

A decision has obviously been made to take all five groups of amendments together in the debate, so that any hon. Member who speaks may choose whether to discuss the spirit of the amendments or speak to one amendment; we will make different choices about that. It is a leek soup and mutton stew of a debate, mixed together, which may make for some untidiness but means that we can finish by 10 pm without much difficulty.

Mr. Flynn

I apologise for intervening. I welcome the Government's concession. Would it be useful for us to agree that none of the other recommendations on the Standing Orders will be implemented until the Procedure Committee has reported on the status of the Welsh language?

Mr. Morgan

I am grateful for that suggestion, on which my hon. Friend may have the opportunity to expand, especially as one amendment stands in his name only.

The spirit of the debate will determine whether the new proposals work—whether they are regarded as acceptable on both sides of the House and throughout Wales. If the House and the people of Wales see the proposals for amending and improving the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee rammed down the throats of the Opposition Members who represent a very large majority of Welsh constituencies, it does not bode well for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee. That is why we ask for various other safeguards in the amendments that we have tabled.

There has been a little bit of give on the Welsh language issue. If there is no further give tonight, it will show that there will be no give in future—that the Government do not propose to take the Welsh Grand Committee any more seriously than previously and that the Committee will remain an impotent talking shop, unable to represent the views of the people of Wales on what legislative action is taken by the Government as it impacts on the people of Wales.

The fears that have been expressed were mentioned in the previous debate. It is feared that the Government intend to use the Welsh Grand Committee as a mobile press conference or mobile party political broadcast. Similar criticisms have been made of the Scottish Grand Committee. That is why we have asked for certain safeguards.

Let me run through some of the amendments in the way that the Leader of the House ran through the different Standing Orders.

Amendment (ff) deals with the size of the quorum. We were curious about why the proposals of the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House do not mention a special quorum for the Welsh Grand Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee has been given a special quorum of 10, making it different from usual Standing Committees. European Standing Committees have a special quorum of three. The Welsh Grand Committee is much more akin to the Scottish Grand Committee and European Standing Committees than to usual Standing Committees, which have a quorum of 17 or one third, whichever is less. If one applied that to the Welsh Grand Committee, it would give us 14 now, or 15 after the next general election because of the two additional seats.

The Welsh Grand Committee is not like a conventional Standing Committee, dealing with legislation, but is a general scrutiny Committee, much more like the Scottish Grand Committee or the European Standing Committees, so we propose a quorum of seven. That is also a useful safeguard against the danger that the Government, and especially the Whips' machine in the Government, would seek to exploit the Welsh Grand Committee. Obviously, any meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee requires a much larger head count on the Opposition side than on the Government side. The consequences of the enormous electoral success that Labour has had in Wales and the catastrophic failure that the Conservative party has had in Wales are that the Conservatives, to reach a quorum of 15, do not have to have many bodies away from Westminster on those days when the Committee meets in Wales, whereas the Opposition would expect to have many bodies away from Westminster.

We therefore consider that a quorum of seven, similar pro rata to the Scottish Grand Committee's quorum of 10, would be far more reasonable, more suitable for both sides and a safeguard against exploitation by the Government Whips Office during tight votes, which might hope that many Welsh Labour Members would be stuck in a snowdrift halfway up Snowdon and unable to return to London.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)

Surely the argument for a low quorum is that the Grand Committee will take no decisions and have no powers; it will be only a talking shop, so attendance is likely to be low. To enable the Committee to continue in session, it must be right to have a low rather than a high quorum.

Mr. Morgan

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend made the point exactly as I would have done, taking the words out of my mouth.

The Boston tea party was based on the principle of no taxation without representation; our amendment is based on the principle of no representation without legislation. The Government must bear that in mind. If the Welsh Grand Committee is a scrutiny Committee and does not have the ability to block or amend Government legislation, it is unreasonable for it to be treated in a similar way to a Standing Committee. That is why we chose the figure of seven.

The Leader of the House made no attempt to explain why the Scottish Grand Committee has a quorum of 10 and the Welsh Grand Committee has the conventional quorum, as though it were a Standing Committee considering legislation after Second Reading. That cannot be right; it is an omission.

We believe that the proposal came from the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not want to criticise the Leader of the House, but as the Secretary of State for Wales did not introduce the debate, he will have the last word at the end of the debate and, as a result, apart from asking him to allow us to intervene, we have no opportunity to ask him why he did not insert provision for a quorum, unlike the Scottish Grand Committee or the European Standing Committees.

The Welsh Grand Committee is not a very grand Committee. It does not deal with legislation; it is much less important than Standing Committees. When it meets in London, it does not set the Thames on fire; when it meets in Cardiff, it does not set the Taff on fire. It probably should have been named the Welsh bonsai committee rather than the Welsh Grand Committee, for the good that it is seen to do. It enables the people of Wales and Members of Parliament representing the people of Wales to ventilate grievances but not to do anything about them. That is why we have made that proposal concerning the quorum—one cannot expect maxi-attendance with mini-importance. Therefore we believe that the quorum is unnecessarily high.

Amendment (a), standing in the name of Labour Front Benchers, reduces the number of "offcomers", to use a Cornish term—Members of Parliament who do not represent Welsh constituencies—in the membership of the Welsh Grand Committee. Unlike in the Scottish Grand Committee, there is provision and, I believe, always has been, for hon. Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies to serve on the Welsh Grand Committee. The number for the Scottish Grand Committee is zero and for the Welsh Grand Committee, five. We understand why.

The Committee would become almost unworkable, under a Conservative Government, if it were impossible to include Members of Parliament not representing Welsh constituencies. Obviously, the Secretary of State is not from Wales, and it is frequently the case—indeed, has always been the case in the past few years—that the parliamentary private secretary and the Government Whip are not from Wales, but the Government also want to be able to pack the Committee with an additional two people.

We are not sure whether five is the right number; we recognise that the figure of five has been used before, but we think that three would be enough to conduct Government business. The Welsh Grand Committee has been structured in a way that is already more generous than the Scottish Grand Committee to what might be called country members—is it necessary to have five of them? A Secretary of State, a parliamentary private secretary and a Government Whip should be enough. If that is not enough, why is there no provision in the Scottish Grand Committee for any Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies? That is a legitimate point for discussion and justification, although we shall not hear the Secretary of State's comments on it until the end of the debate.

I shall let my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) speak on the group of amendments that he tabled. We have noticed that the departmental report of the Secretary of State for Wales has not been made available to Members as early as it used to be—there has been a slippage in its production. Two years ago, the report was available in time for the annual one-day debate on Welsh affairs. The Welsh Office departmental report was usually published in late February so that it could be discussed in the annual debate on Welsh affairs. We could then discuss what the Secretary of State was proposing to spend the money on in the forthcoming financial year.

Last year, publication of the report slipped slightly; this year, it is to be produced very late this month so that the financial year will virtually have commenced by the time that the departmental report is produced. As a result of that slippage, the points that I am sure will emerge during the discussion on that group of amendments are important. The Opposition believe that the Secretary of State has allowed publication of the departmental report to slip so that it cannot be discussed in our annual debate. The Welsh Grand Committee can play a valuable role. It is also important to try to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales—when he replies to the amendments—to undertake to publish the Welsh Office departmental report before St. David's day each year so that its provisions can be discussed in the annual Welsh debate.

The last group of amendments which we have tabled, and which has been chosen for debate, involves the legislative function of the Welsh Grand Committee, and is perhaps the most important group. We want to know whether the Government genuinely desire to treat the Welsh Grand Committee as a mature Committee for the discussion of legislation or whether they simply want to confine it to being a talking shop.

If a Bill is sent to the Welsh Grand Committee because it relates exclusively to Wales and the Committee believes that the Bill should not pass on to the statute book, what happens? What would the Government's attitude be if there were a special poll tax measure in Wales, as there was in Scotland a year before the measure was introduced in England and Wales, and if—as would be almost inevitable—the Welsh Grand Committee were to decide that it did not like the Bill, did not think that the people of Wales would accept it, and so turned it down? What would happen to the Bill at that stage under the new Standing Orders? That is the acid test of whether the Welsh Grand Committee is meant to be taken seriously or whether it is viewed as a travelling circus for the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister.

Sir Wyn Roberts

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify Labour's policy on the taxation powers of a Welsh Assembly? Surely, any decision on the poll tax would be a tax decision and, as I understand it—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak about the Welsh Assembly because it is not the topic before us tonight.

Mr. Morgan

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to buy me a pint in the bar later, when I can answer his question, much as I should like to do so now. I entirely accept your verdict, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I can see why the former Minister of State was prompted out of his torpor to make that intervention. We have raised the question whether the Welsh Grand Committee would be able, not to block the legislation, but—having discussed it and turned it down—to prompt a debate on the Floor of the House. We believe that if the Welsh Grand Committee is to be taken seriously, it must be given the ability to recommend that a Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The House would have the right to overturn that decision after further, proper debate—taking account of the views expressed in the Welsh Grand Committee.

If the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales do not intend the Welsh Grand Committee to be taken seriously, the new Standing Orders, as amended, should remain. Under those Standing Orders, the members of the Welsh Grand Committee ventilate their feelings, blow off steam in Cardiff, in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllanti siliogo-gogoch, Monmouth, Machynlleth, Pontrhydygroes, Pontrhydfendigaid or Llanaelhaearn or wherever. I am sure that, when the Secretary of State winds up the debate, he will wish to run through that Automobile Association map of Wales, as I am sure that he has been well coached in such matters for the purposes of the debate. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), is leaving the Chamber to obtain some coaching for the Secretary of State on how to pronounce Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwilllantisiliogo-gogoch.

When the Welsh Grand Committee has let off steam, what is the House supposed to do about the measure when it returns to the House? Under the present arrangements, the Secretary of State can simply say, "You have had the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee." The Government believe that there is a choice; a two or three-hour debate can be held in the Welsh Grand Committee, but the measure must then be passed on the nod when it comes to the Floor of the House and there can be no further debate, or the debate can be held on the Floor of the House, in which case there will be no debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. There cannot be a debate in the Committee and on the Floor of the House.

The purpose of the amendment is to raise the fundamental issue of whether the Welsh Grand Committee is meant to give the Government guidance on how the people of Wales feel about a piece of legislation. Having been given that guidance, the Government should think again, amend the Bill or drop it. The Government will still have the final say; they will be able to decide whether they want to ram through the poll tax or the Welsh Language Bill because they have a majority in the House. But will the Government take any notice of the Welsh Grand Committee's proceedings? That is the important question. That is why we say that if the Welsh Grand Committee decides that a Bill should not be given a Second Reading, that should encourage, not eliminate, further debate on the Floor of the House to take account of the views expressed in the Committee.

I am hoping that, by the time the Secretary of State winds up the debate, he will realise that, when the Leader of the House made his mini-concession, it was accepted as a significant movement. The Government were saying, "We will not give you what you want, but we will refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure." The Opposition gave that concession a tremendous welcome; it did not give us immediate satisfaction, but we welcomed it. We are willing to work to improve the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee by consensus if there is a bit of give and take. We are not willing to have our noses rubbed in the ground just because the Government have a majority of the votes in the House. We do not expect the Government to give us everything that we want, but we expect some give.

Despite the one small concession that we have received from the Leader of the House—which I accept was given after due consideration behind the scenes and in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Wales—we have been worried that the proceedings in preparation for the changes to the Welsh Grand Committee have not been characterised by give and take by the Government. Today's concession was the first evidence we have had of the Government's ability or willingness to consider what the Conservative party needs to do to avoid a wipe-out in Wales as the general election approaches. That is a serious possibility and the Government are beginning to realise that they will have to make the occasional concession—when they do, we respond well. I hope that the Government have learnt that lesson and will realise that, over the next two hours of debate, if they give further concessions, those will be welcomed by the Opposition as evidence that the Government are beginning to realise that they must not try to ram their legislation, views and changes down the throats of the people of Wales, who are overwhelmingly represented by parties opposed to the Conservative Government in Westminster.

We are not asking for the moon in relation to the Welsh language; if we have a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Machynlleth, Aberystwyth or Caernarfon, we are not expecting the Secretary of State to dress up in long, green bardic robes and utter his speech in 15th-century Welsh poetry. We are merely asking for a simultaneous translation of his English.

We like to think that, in the spirit of the little chink of light that the Leader of the House has given us tonight, the great cry of "A oes heddwch?"—"Is there peace?"—that goes up before the final crowning of the bard in the eistedfodd, which I am sure he watches regularly, can be changed. We hope that it can be changed to "A oes consensws?"—I am sure that I do not need to translate that for him—or "A oes chwaranteg?", which means "Is there fair play?" A little fair play will produce a lot of consensus. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has learnt a lesson from the reaction to the tiny concession that we were given tonight, and I hope that there will be more concessions when the Secretary of State winds up the debate.

8.9 pm

Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy)

I apologise for not being present at the unscheduled debate that took place earlier today. I was in Cardiff, on parliamentary business with the Welsh Affairs Committee, and returned only just in time to hear some of what was being said. I think that I caught the flavour of the debate, however. There was an air of make-believe in some of the arguments that I heard.

I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in respect of the Welsh language, which is to be treated on a basis of equality with English in Wales. I feel that it would be appropriate for speeches in Welsh to be heard in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales—although, as I suggested to my right hon. Friend, I agree with him that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that finer points are involved, which merit further consideration.

I wholeheartedly endorse my right hon. Friend's proposals to enlarge the scope of the Welsh Grand Committee, and to increase opportunities for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to give an account of themselves—and for Welsh Members of all parties to hold them to account, as we are empowered to do by this United Kingdom Parliament. It is important to note, however, that, while there is to be a significant extension of the Committee's role, there is no fundamental change in its constitutional status. Its overall function remains to check on the Executive by questioning Ministers and criticising constructively or destructively, as necessity dictates.

The Committee's proceedings will, of course, be reported to the House wherever they take place, and its presence should be welcomed in different parts of Wales. I am bound to add that whether it will be welcomed is another matter; the Committee may well act as a honeypot for publicity seekers of all kinds.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that I asked the Leader of the House earlier? Why does he suppose that, after 17 years, the Government have proposed these changes to the Welsh Grand Committee? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not advance such proposals during his long and distinguished service in the Welsh Office?

Sir Wyn Roberts

On the basis of that argument, no one would do anything. As my right hon. Friend has said, one can always be accused of not having thought of something before. Throughout the years, however, we have thought in terms of improving the Committee's performance, and I know that the Government have been very conscious of some of the criticisms that have been made of it. In any event, my right hon. Friend's proposed changes will extend its scope.

Opposition Members give the impression that they wish that the Committee—when they have a majority, of course—had real power to do their will. That is what is behind all this, and the debate that took place earlier this afternoon. Alternatively, they wish that the Committee had the power to force the Government to do their will. Such a division of executive power would, however, mean a fundamental change in the country's unitary constitution, and would result in conflict between the Welsh Grand Committee and the House of Commons when there was a Conservative majority. I believe that that desire for change and for power inspires Opposition Members.

The same serious defect can be seen in the devolution scheme encapsulated in the Wales Act 1978, which was subsequently rejected by the people of Wales in a referendum, and the same deep fault lies in Labour's current plans for an executive assembly. There is also the prospect of conflict with local authorities, many of whose powers would be absorbed by a Labour party assembly. [Laughter.] I am speaking to, and justifying, my right hon. Friend's proposals. I am not speaking to the amendments. There is every reason why I should be allowed to support the proposals, and to tell the House what I think is wrong with the motivation behind the amendments.

The Opposition regard criticisms such as mine of their proposals for the Welsh Grand Committee and an assembly as constitutional niceties—as problems that will go away in time. I believe that they will be exacerbated over time. The Labour party puts its trust in the maintenance of its power, not only here but in a Welsh Grand Committee or assembly. I warn Labour Members that their plans contain the seeds of their own destruction. [Interruption.] They will not satisfy hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, and their supporters in the country, any more than the Scottish National party can be satisfied in Scotland. Opposition Members are triumphant in Wales now, but I warn them that their proposals contain the seeds of their destruction.

I said that I would be brief, and I shall be. Let me simply say that I consider my right hon. Friend's proposals to be consistent with the unitary principle on which the United Kingdom's constitution is based.

Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke)

The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that the amendments contain the seeds of destruction for the Labour party in Wales. In that case, why on earth does he not support them?

Sir Wyn Roberts

It may well happen after my time. It is a fair warning to the Labour party. Yes, the Labour party has a strong, monopolistic position in Wales, but it must be very careful about how it uses its position. It is already refusing to share any power with the minority parties. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talked about the meeting of the all-Wales party, but he and I know that that was preceded by a meeting of the Labour party caucus and that everything was decided in advance. The Labour party must not abuse its strength in Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies

We should get the whole story on the record. The right hon. Gentleman was present at that meeting, and he voted with the majority, so he was certainly party to that decision.

Sir Wyn Roberts

I did not vote with the majority; I was one of two who objected. May I also make the point that I made proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at that meeting—for example, that the Welsh Grand Committee might discuss some of the consultative documents that the Welsh Office issues. I did not expect him to change the Standing Orders in any way, but I am sure that he cherished the thought that I gave him because I saw him make a note of it, and I am sure that it will be valued for the future.

The proposals should be welcomed in Wales as similar proposals have been welcomed in Scotland. I am sure that they will contribute to the better government of Wales and show the electorate that the Government are sensitive to their needs, even though they cannot always be met.

8.22 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

In his curious and convoluted way, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) made a bit of an admission. The Leader of the House has also been surprisingly coy about the situation. The fact is that these proposals are meant to be the Government's defence, when the time comes, against a Welsh Assembly. I do not understand why they are so coy and so unwilling to admit it.

Quite a bit of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Conwy represented the beginning of the argument that we shall hear in coming months that the proposals are the alternative, in the Government's eyes, to the Welsh Assembly. Because of that, perhaps I have cast a much more critical eye over the proposals than have some of the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I am critical of the context in which they have been presented, because they are meant to act as a substitute or an alternative for the devolution proposals that the Labour party will put before the electorate.

Any student of the creation of institutions in Wales in the past 60 years will recognise the operation of the same ploy. A common characteristic of almost every debate on Welsh institutional change that has occurred in the past 60 years is that the establishment—usually a mixture of Whitehall officials and Ministers—offers substitutes for the demands made by the Welsh people and by Welsh representatives.

I shall give the right hon. Gentleman two very brief historic examples of that. In 1944—believe it or not—towards the end of the war, the Welsh parliamentary party, which was chaired by a Conservative Member, submitted to Ministers and to Prime Minister Churchill a proposal that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales and a Welsh Office to promote the reconstruction and regeneration of Welsh political, social and economic life after the war. The reaction of the Government and the establishment to the proposal was interesting and a classic of its kind. They felt that they had to give something towards meeting the demand, which was unanimously made by all hon. Members in the Welsh parliamentary party, and that they had to assuage public opinion by finding an alternative.

Until the past week or two, after reading the War Cabinet minutes on its discussion of it, I did not realise that one of the most fascinating and intriguing proposed alternatives was that, on her 18th birthday, the then heir to the throne, Princess Elizabeth, should have conferred on her the title of Princess of Wales. That was the sop to Welsh opinion.

I did not want to raise that point too strenuously because of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—[Laughter.] It is obvious that, in 1996, as opposed to 1944, the Secretary of State or the Government could not propose that option because it would be much more contentious than it was in 1944. I cite that case only to demonstrate that a repeated characteristic of debates on Welsh institution making is that the establishment of the day reacts by offering an alternative or substitutes for the demands of the overwhelming majority.

In 1944, there was a demand for a Secretary of State for Wales and for the establishment of a Welsh Office. That demand was made through an all-party group, so I am not trying to make any points in a partisan spirit. Although the Labour party committed itself to the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales and the creation of a Welsh Office in the 1945 election, the Government of the day did not implement the proposal but again came up with an alternative that was less than what was demanded. That was when the idea of a council of Wales was born.

The characteristic offering of other options was repeated at various times in the 1950s during the debate on the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales. Prime Minister Macmillan suggested that Henry Brooke, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, should be given the title Secretary of State for Wales, but backed off when Butler and others in the Cabinet opposed it.

These proposals are a classic illustration of the phenomenon that has occurred over the past 50 or 60 years of debates on Welsh institution making, in that a substitute has to be provided to meet the demand made on the day. In this case, the substitute for a Welsh Assembly is a revamped Welsh Grand Committee. I do not like these proposals because I see them in that context—as a paler version of a Welsh Assembly, to be contained within the context of Westminster parliamentary life.

Let us examine the proposals. They try to recreate in the Committee what we currently do on the Floor of the House. Other hon. Members may support that, but I am not in favour of replacing Question Time on the Floor of the House with a paler version of it in the Welsh Grand Committee. I do not see the point of duplicating a procedure that is available to us in the House. I can appreciate the case for minor statements occasionally to be made in Committee, but I should like all significant and major statements on expenditure to be made in our presence on the Floor of the House. We should not accept these proposals on a Welsh Grand Committee because they offer us a pale version of a Welsh Assembly, set in the context of the Westminster parliamentary model.

For those reasons, I take a more cynical view of the proposals. I suspect the motive behind the proposals, the context in which they have been presented and the fact that they may have been offered as an alternative to the idea of a Welsh Assembly. Why have we not dealt with the problems and defects of this place? Anyone who was in the Chamber during the debate on Welsh local government finance could surely see the case for devolution. There were announcements about a billion pounds and more, and every Welsh local authority was facing council tax increases of 25 per cent., yet only a handful—three or four—hon. Members had the opportunity to make speeches to explain the impact that those proposals would have on their constituents and local communities.

If anyone needed a demonstration of why we should have a Welsh Assembly or why the Welsh Grand Committee should re-examine the way in which it scrutinises the issues of major Welsh public finance and public expenditure, it was provided by that debate and those arrangements. In a couple of hours, we debated something that will have a profound effect on every authority, community and individual in our constituencies. It was an illustration of the House's inadequacies and deficiencies in dealing with matters of great importance to our constituents. If we are looking for additional ways to revamp the Welsh Grand Committee, the first would be to consider the detailed way in which that Committee could scrutinise major elements of expenditure and estimates.

I am an old-fashioned parliamentarian. This place was born to debate estimates and Supply. Wars fought in the 18th century were successful because people were prepared to raise taxation. They accepted that there was a legitimate way to account for it through parliamentary procedure. In the 30 years that I have been a Member of Parliament—30 years at the end of this month—I have seen that principle eroded in various ways, partly because of Europe and partly because of a lack of interest or lack of will to do the job here, within the procedures of the House. There was, therefore, a case for revamping the Welsh Grand Committee to scrutinise in more detail the development of public expenditure plans for Wales.

I do not criticise the present Select Committee, which does a fantastic job. It takes longer-term views than I am suggesting and looks into matters in the broad and the round. It has not scrutinised Welsh public expenditure and finance to the extent that one might have expected but, in fairness to it, it sought a different platform, as did so many Select Committees.

The Welsh Grand Committee should fill a gap in our scrutiny of Welsh public expenditure rather than duplicate much of what we do on the Floor of the House at Question Time. That is the reason for my having a shot at making at least one suggestion as to how we might ensure that that happens. In a non-partisan spirit, I submitted a proposal to the Secretary of State immediately after his statement. I received an appalling one-sentence reply, saying that he would not take my suggestion into account, that he was not really interested and that he was going ahead with his proposal. There was no consultation, and my sensible suggestion was not given serious consideration.

That is all the more astonishing because my proposal would have brought to the Welsh Grand Committee a procedure that we already operate. I was not inventing anything; my proposal is, word for word, the basis on which European Standing Committees A and B operate.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is a member of a European Standing Committee and I am an occasional visitor. They are among the most interesting Committees. The procedure that they have adopted makes Ministers work for their corn. Detailed documents are put before the Committee and, for an hour, hon. Members can pose any question relating to them. Ministers are made to get up and down. They do not like it—it must be most uncomfortable. I am glad that it did not form part of ministerial experience in my time and that I did not have to go through it, because it is wearing.

Ministers have to do their homework in a way that is not required in a general Welsh Grand Committee debate. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has clearly been through it and will testify to its interest, value and, indeed, the discipline that goes with it. I am suggesting that we adopt the same procedure for at least two sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee.

I suggested that the documents put before the Welsh Grand Committee—the equivalent of the European documents, or directives, put before European Standing Committees A and B—should be specific sections of the departmental expenditure reports, which should be subject to the same scrutiny as material put to those interesting new inventions, European Standing Committees A and B.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath)

I agree with my hon. Friend—I whip the European Standing Committees for the Labour party. It is a characteristic of those Committees that Ministers are unable to wriggle off the hook easily because hon. Members can come back at them and tease out the reality behind the answers that they receive. There are few similar opportunities available on the Floor.

Mr. Rowlands

My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of the working of those Committees. I am sure that a combination of ministerial and departmental ingenuity maintains the Government line, but it is much harder to do so in those Committees than under any other procedures available to us on the Floor of the House or in other Standing Committees.

Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen)

Would not there be a problem for the Conservative party if what my hon. Friend suggests were to happen, in that there is such a lack of choice of Conservatives who could be Ministers? It must be a gruelling test—the Conservatives have already had four successive Secretaries of State from England and the Under-Secretary of State comes from England, too.

Mr. Rowlands

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We cannot build our procedures around the inadequacies of the present ministerial lot.

I read in a minute from 1957–58 that the objection to creating a Welsh Office was that, as one official said, there were not enough good or clever Conservative Members to fill the posts available. That was one of the practical objections in the 1950s even to the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales.

I hope that I have not spoken in a partisan spirit, but the European Standing Committee procedure is a useful way in which to scrutinise expenditure. It would complement other procedures and, unlike the proposed Standing Orders, it would not duplicate what we can already do on the Floor of the House.

Amendment (aa) refers to departmental expenditure reports because the current Secretary of State's predecessor, when submitting the previous report to the House, boasted in the foreword about the size of public expenditure in Wales. That was interesting coming from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is a curious mix in all sorts of ways. He said in the foreword: Public expenditure provision for programmes within my responsibility will be £6,644 million … equal to some £6,000 for every household in Wales. If that is the real level of expenditure per household, it should be subject to greater scrutiny than existing procedure allows.

I hope that my suggestion will be reviewed in the spirit in which it was made and that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members will agree that we should consider a different kind of Welsh Grand Committee rather than accept a pale substitute for the only real meaningful alternative—a Welsh Assembly.

8.37 pm

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on a strong and well-researched speech. We all look forward to reading the lecture that he has given at Bangor and which includes some of the same material. It was, historically speaking, a persuasive analysis of the situation. When we see the Conservatives dangling half a cake, we should be aware that there is a need for a substantial cake but that we are to get only some of the crumbs.

The question today is why we should have a Welsh Grand Committee at all. The answer is that the Welsh Grand Committee exists because Wales is a nation. The Welsh Grand Committee is given no powers in case Wales starts behaving like a nation and takes decisions for itself rather than having the ability to debate ad infinitum but, at the end of the day, is not able to take any meaningful decisions for the people of Wales.

There are two deficits in Wales. The first is a democratic deficit and the second is a deficit of accountability. The proposals that we are discussing do not, in any shape or form, deal with the fundamental democratic deficit. It might have been possible to try to go down that road by giving the Welsh Grand Committee additional powers. Some of tonight's speeches have touched on some of those powers, but clearly the Government are not prepared to tackle the democratic deficit in any shape or form. There are 38 Members of Parliament in Wales and the governing party, even having won a general election, has only six seats. If it loses a general election, goodness knows how many seats it will have.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

None at all.

Mr. Wigley

Perhaps none at all, as the hon. Gentleman says. The number of Conservative Members shows the Welsh electorate's rejection of the Government, who for the past 17 years have governed our country on a platform that has no support from the people of Wales, pursuing policies that are often diametrically opposed to their economic and social good. The structures of Westminster do not allow the people of Wales even to take a single decision on matters of concern to them.

That was shown two or three years ago in a most lamentable manner when a couple of Bills exclusively to deal with Wales were introduced. I accept that the Welsh Language Act 1993 was a modest step forward, but it was debated in a Committee that was packed with Tory Members representing English constituencies, who did not have the background to debate the subject or, knowledge of the subject and who did not have to live with the legislation's consequences. They were able, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, to make progress on the language agenda that was agreed by all Opposition parties. Legislation was imposed on us that was acceptable to the Conservative minority and not to the non-Conservative majority of the people of Wales.

That became more evident when Parliament debated the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. From the turn of the century, the Standing Orders of this place have allowed all Welsh Members to sit on Committees that consider Bills which exclusively deal with Wales. That was overridden by the Government to ensure that Welsh Members did not have a majority say when it came to the brass tacks and legislative decisions were to be taken. With these proposals, we make no modicum of movement forward in dealing with that democratic deficit. From now to kingdom come, we will have to accept laws and decisions imposed on us by a Conservative majority. That will apply for as long as a Conservative party receives a majority in England, but it never has and never will win a majority in Wales.

There is a modest movement forward on the accountability deficit. The Government are trying, I suppose, to allow the Executive to be a little more answerable to Welsh Members, but Welsh question Time—one of the tools available to Welsh Members to question the Executive—has already been undermined by the Government Whips getting English Conservative Members to hog the Order Paper on the one Monday a month when we have 35 or 40 minutes to ask questions on Welsh affairs. The agenda is set by the first question that is called and we must ask supplementary questions in the wake of that agenda laid down by Conservative Members. That is why we will have a little movement on answering questions in the Welsh Grand Committee—questions that we will have no time to ask on the Floor of the House.

I share some of the reservations of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that some of these issues will be shovelled upstairs, where the press will often not be present and where we will not have the powers of scrutiny or the attention that is necessary. That is why, in terms not only of the democratic deficit but of the accountability deficit, we should debate these matters in an elected Parliament in Cardiff that can make its own laws and not be a talking shop, which the Welsh Grand Committee has been and will continue to be if we accept these modest proposals.

I want to take up four or five specific points with regard to the powers that the Welsh Grand Committee should have. The first is to do with the type of motions that its members are allowed to debate. It is a farce that the Committee must consider "take note" motions, for example, on education in Wales. When at the end of that debate we vote against the Government, does it mean that we have not taken note of the issue of education in Wales?

Opposition Members cannot table any substantive motion that can call the Government or the Welsh Office to account. All we can table is a "take note" motion and take part in a meaningless vote at the end. The Standing Orders should allow us to debate substantive motions that can be tabled not just by Conservative Members, but by any hon. Member.

Mr. Rogers

My experience in this place gradually leads me almost to the same view as the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Welsh Grand Committee. He mentioned education. The comprehensive system in England or in certain inner-city areas has deteriorated, but in Wales it has made a substantial contribution to raising education standards. Although there may be small particular problems, generally in Wales it is of the highest standard, yet we must have policies imposed by English Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. This is becoming a very long intervention.

Mr. Wigley

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I agree entirely. The Welsh education tradition has been valued and developed over decades to respond to the experience of ordinary people in Wales. They have viewed education as a key to improving their lives in material terms and in terms of opportunities and enjoyment of the best things of life.

Over the past 100 years, we had to establish that to pull ourselves up by our shoestrings. At the end of the previous century, during the Liberal party's heyday, and in this century, when Labour has been the strength in Wales, education's importance has been a common thread running through radical politics in Wales. Sadly, that does not exist in England, although I do not make a strong point about that difference. We place more emphasis on education. We need to be able to fine-tune our policies—not just talk about things—and to take decisions in line with our values, which we are not allowed to do in the only forum that we have: the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Rogers

I do not know why the Government Whip is laughing.

Mr. Wigley

The Government Whip would laugh because Conservative Members know that they will get their way. Government Whips will marshal Conservative Members in the Lobby. Whatever we decide in the Welsh Grand Committee or in the Welsh Select Committee, the Tory majority from England will decide what happens in Wales. That is the reality of the mechanism of non-democracy in our country.

In the 1970s, we had opportunities to discuss and debate legislation in the Welsh Grand Committee. If I remember correctly, legislation on the Development Board for Rural Wales was debated there. If we are democrats, there is no reason why we should not debate legislation at Second Reading or Committee stages in the Welsh Grand Committee, but we are not allowed to do so in case we start taking decisions in the interests of the people of Wales and in line with their wishes. We can talk about things, but we are not allowed to decide anything. The governor general knows better than that.

Mr. Rogers

The viceroy.

Mr. Wigley

As the hon. Gentleman says, the viceroy. An hon. Member from outside Wales knows better than we do and he has the troops behind him. It is the majority of Tory Members from England who decide what is good for Wales, not the people of Wales.

The use of the Welsh language in Welsh Grand Committee meetings in Wales has been mentioned. I was glad that that has at least reached the agenda—as shown by the Leader of the House—and that it will be discussed further, but, as that matter has clearly been under consideration for a time, I would have expected it to move further down the agenda by now.

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is present. He steered the 1993 Act through Parliament. I make it clear to the Leader of the House—I would do so if he were here—and to the Secretary of State for Wales that I intend to speak Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee when it meets in Wales. I will do so in line with the law of the land that has been passed by the Government. That law allows public business in Wales to be debated in Welsh. If whoever is chairing the Committee deems that I am not allowed to do that, he or she will be in breach of that law. The Government should sort that one out before the Committee meets in Wales. I declare that it is my earnest intention to speak in Welsh when the Committee next meets in Wales. I rely on the law of the land to protect me and I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Conwy will be the first to ensure that support is given to that view.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney proposed using the device that has been developed in European Standing Committees A and B. That would be worth while and we discussed it for a short time at the Welsh parliamentary fleeting that some of us attended. I hope that important statements by the Secretary of State that he cannot make now because there is no time can be analysed in an hour of questions and answers and an hour and a half of debate.

I was a member of European Standing Committee B for four years. but I am no longer a member. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), was in that Committee when I tried to put questions to him and he knows that it can be a rigorous process. No doubt Ministers will try to wriggle, but they get fewer chances to do that when we come back four or five times on the same theme. One can nail them down and then make a speech.

The quorum in the Welsh Grand Committee should be determined in line with the number of Welsh Members—seven or whatever the figure should be. The last thing that I would accept is a quorum that is dictated by hon. Members from outside Wales, which is the practice in other Committees. When subjects are called for debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, there should be not only notional dialogue in the usual channels but an acceptance that the majority of Welsh Members should call the subjects for debate: they should not be subjects that are merely for the convenience of the Government. We should re-establish the ability of all parties to have subjects aired.

The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is excellent and has carried out much good work under the outstanding chairmanship of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). But its reports lie forgotten on dusty shelves although many of the good proposals in them should be taken on board.

Mr. Rowlands

I received a written answer from the Leader of the House on 4 December. I had asked how many reports had been received from the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and how many had been debated in the House. I was told that there had been 36 such reports and that none had been debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wigley

That shows the breakdown of the intentions that were put to the House in 1979 by the now Lord St. John of Fawsley. There was supposed to be a progression from the Select Committee investigation to debate in the House and decisions were to be taken. That system has broken down because the House does not have the time or the will to address such matters. That may be acceptable in the context of other Select Committees, although I doubt it, but it is certainly not acceptable to Welsh Members.

Let us use the mechanism of the Welsh Grand Committee to make proper decisions and to make sure that the Executive is accountable in some way to the people of Wales. The proposals to tinker with the Welsh Grand Committee do not answer the fundamental problems that are caused by the lack of democracy in our country. The Committee could have been made at least a little stronger if the Secretary of State had taken on board the constructive proposals by Welsh Members in our meeting with him. It is a disgrace that he is not willing to do that.

8.52 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

The status of the Welsh language in the House is the same as that of riotous behaviour. If we speak in Welsh in the House, as many hon. Members have done, we are called to order, and if we persist we are thrown out of the House. Many of us have considered that course and it is inevitable that it will be taken if the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) sticks by his threat. Many of us have great sympathy for that course.

The Standing Order that covers the matter is incredible. It says that speeches must be made in English but that quotations in a foreign tongue may be allowed occasionally although a translation should be provided. Where is Welsh in there? Welsh is not English but it is certainly not a foreign tongue. This is the only Parliament of Wales but the ancient language of Wales is not heard here. That is an ancient injustice that we can put right now. People have tried. Mabon in 1896 spoke in Welsh and quoted the illustrious Member for Rhondda, which is now represented by another illustrious person, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).

What is the present status? Even if the Standing Order is right, we are not allowed to quote in Welsh. A month ago during a debate on ferries I quoted from an account of a crossing of the channel that took place 50 years before the birth of Christ. Not unexpectedly, the account was in Latin and I quoted some 70 words, which was acceptable. My hon. Friends from Labour comprehensives understood what I was talking about, but I provided a translation for the Conservative victims of public school education. It is extraordinary that speaking in Latin was permissible whereas I would have been stopped if I had uttered more than two or three words in Welsh.

My constituency used to be wholly bilingual. The children in the town of Caerleon spoke Latin, but the children outside the walls of the town spoke Welsh. Today one does not hear much Latin on the tongues of the children in Caerleon but, happily, one can still hear Welsh. That extraordinary language has echoed down the centuries and is still with us as a living treasure of enormous worth and it means so much to so many of us.

I did not have the advantage enjoyed by many hon. Members of speaking Welsh from the cradle, but as an adolescent I had the good luck to have a marvellous teacher who introduced me to Gweledigaethau'r Bardd Cwrsg, y Gododdin, Dafydd ap Gwilym and to the wonderful, majestic works of T. Gwyn Jones and the lyrical beauty of the imagery of Robert Williams Parry. No one has written with more accuracy, feeling and inspiration about working-class suffering in Wales in the north and south and about the quarry workers and miners than the Gwenally in the south or those who wrote about the quarry workers in north Wales.

It is difficult to express to those who live in one language the experience of living in more than one. It is difficult to explain that the first language that one hears at one's mother's breast, the last one that is expressed in the final prayers before death and the only language with the tenderness to make love in or in which one can curse effectively is that mother tongue, the one—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am not sure whether it would be necessary in the Welsh Grand Committee to curse in Welsh or in any other language. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks more closely to the subject under consideration.

Mr. Flynn

We express strong words in the House. One of the disadvantages of a lack of simultaneous translation is that when curses in Welsh are made in the House—and I have heard them—there is no way that Front-Bench Members understand what is being said.

Mr. Michael

Or the Chair. One hopes they are not directed at the Chair.

Mr. Flynn

No, they are not.

Our request is modest. Is it unusual for the world's Parliaments to have more than one language? A review undertaken by the Inter-Parliamentary Union discovered that 51 Parliaments use only one language, 22 use two languages on a daily basis, six use three languages and four Parliaments, including Singapore, which is well known to hon. Members, use more than three languages. There is nothing novel about that. Simultaneous translation is provided easily, in a sophisticated manner. There is no reason why members of the Government Front-Bench team who do not speak Welsh should feel nervous about any lack of understanding in Committee. The people who provide the translations are extremely skilful.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones

Did the hon. Gentleman see the Secretary of State for Wales on television at the weekend in the Council of Ministers, where translation equipment was provided for him?

Mr. Flynn

Indeed I did. The European Community copes with half a dozen languages with great ease.

Amendment (y), which I am grateful has been selected, proposes a very modest concession. The main reason that we want to press it is that we know the extent of the difficulties when Welsh is spoken in the House. People from all corners of the world can sit in one part of the House where their companions can provide them with simultaneous translation. People have given evidence to Select Committees in a dozen languages.

There is a great danger that we shall continue the traditional disregard of the Welsh language and other minority languages that has occurred for about 200 years. Such disregard is part of the linguistic colonisation that has taken place in Britain and in many other countries.

Many of us are familiar with the sign in a Brittany classroom that said, "Défense de cracher, défense de parler Bretonne"—meaning do not spit, do not speak Breton. The little Bretons had sabots around their necks—exactly the same as the Welsh knot. One child who found another speaking Breton would pass the sabot. The petits delateurs were therefore turned against one another and into sneaks on the language in a positive movement to destroy the language.

In my constituency, as chronicled in "Brad y Llytrau Gleision", inspectors visited two schools in the middle of the last century and said that the children were all stupid because they could not understand a word that was spoken. The inspectors were unilingual in English and could not understand a word of the Welsh spoken by the children. They did not understand why Welsh was being spoken. As hon. Members have said, the children are part of a great educational tradition.

The language has survived. Waldo chronicled how by chance—it was miraculous—the language survived through the centuries because of the non-conformist Church, or because of the Catholic Church, as happened in Brittany. It survived not because people thought of it as a material reward but because they loved it, it was part of their lives and it was of genuine worth. They rejoiced in the literature of the language.

Mr. Rogers

In paying tribute to the various agencies that have kept the language alive, my hon. Friend ought to pay a great tribute to people such as the late Lord Heycock and other Labour Members who in the valleys of south Wales adopted Welsh language policies, started the system of Welsh comprehensive and primary schools and saved the Welsh language.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Rogers

The Minister who is shaking his head ought to be ashamed of his attitude to the Welsh language.

Mr. Flynn

I was building up to the climax of mentioning the great success of Welsh-medium education, especially in south Wales. For many of us who have worked in local authorities, it has been one of the great joys to give children who did not speak Welsh in their homes the chance to learn the language. Indeed, they had the chance to learn the language as their parents' generation never did—to read and write it. Many people of the previous generation were not literate. It is one of the great successes of Welsh education that the children have inherited the immense treasure of a second language—their own language. A second language is often the stepping stone to a third and fourth language.

I am disappointed that the Government will not see fit to accept the amendment, which, as I have said, is very modest. All it would do is enable translation equipment and translators to be made available in the Welsh Grand Committee, regardless of its venue. Translators are skilled and would be able to provide a service.

The difficulty is over what will happen with the Hansard writers. What will happen is what happens now when speeches of certain Members, whom I would not dare mention, are totally incomprehensible—to me, anyway. Some of them are from the far corners of these islands and speak in strange accents that I find very difficult to understand. By some odd process, we find that their speech is in Hansard in clear English. If the speech is not entirely understood, corrections can be made. I understand that in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, Select Committee reporters take down what the translators say. If the person who has spoken in Welsh wishes to correct that later, that can be done. There is no difficulty whatsoever.

I accept that there are difficulties in other areas, for example, if we are to have a report in Welsh and English. However, there is nothing in amendment (y) to prevent it from being accepted tonight without any difficulty. The Government have given us a problem with how to proceed tonight. I want to consider whether to proceed with the amendment. We accept that a concession has been made.

I take on board the comment by hon. Members that this is not a new issue. An early-day motion, signed by 66 hon. Members, was tabled as long ago as 1988. Something could have come from that. It is late in the life of this Parliament. I know that an hon. Member spoke to this Parliament in Chaucerian English. For almost every hon. Member it was complete gibberish—yet it was declared to be in order. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating what was said, but it was English. The Standing Order allows for hon. Members to speak in Chaucerian English, regardless of the fact that hardly anyone can understand what is being said. But the language of Wales is not allowed here. Fourteen members of the Welsh Grand Committee are fluent in the Welsh language; several others can understand a speech in Welsh. More than a third of the members of that Committee can speak fluent Welsh and more than half can understand a speech in Welsh.

The final words of our national anthem, which we sing with great passion, are: O bydded i'r heniaith barhau"— which means, "Oh would that the ancient language continues to live." "What we are asking tonight for Am yr uwch-bwyllgor Gymreig—the Welsh Grand Committee—is, O bydded i'r heniaith ddechreu."

9.6 pm

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

We should paraphrase the child's question on seeing a politician in full flow—"Mummy, what is he for?" The same question needs to be asked of the Secretary of State for Wales when he attends the Welsh Grand Committee. Indeed, it is the question that we need to ask about the Committee itself. What is the Welsh Grand Committee for? What is the Secretary of State present at the Committee for?

A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State gave the impression of wanting to be reasonable in this debate. As I chair the Welsh group of Labour Members of Parliament this year, I want to stress the generosity and reasonableness with which we responded to the suggestions of change. The tone of our meetings; the tone adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and his Front-Bench colleagues; and, above all, the tone that all Welsh Members brought to the Welsh parliamentary party when we discussed the issue with the Secretary of State, demonstrated the good will towards having a sensible debate about changes. It was said earlier that the Secretary of State went from that meeting promising to listen, but reneged on that within an hour, if not within minutes. That is a disgraceful response to the generosity of spirit shown by Welsh Members.

Why is not the right hon. Gentleman accepting a single one of the sensible amendments for change that have been put before the House tonight? They are not large and unreasonable changes; they are attempts to take forward the suggestions for change in a reasonable way. Surely it is unreasonable of the Secretary of State suddenly to become adamant that he will not accept anything other than the motion that he has put before the House.

I want to refer to two of the amendments. The first is that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), which I welcome. My hon. Friend suggests that we should examine the departmental report of the Welsh Office, thereby suggesting a degree of accountability. The Secretary of State for Wales should be willing to answer questions and to respond on the detail in the report before the Welsh Grand Committee. Surely that is what we are in Parliament for. We are here to legislate and to hold the Executive accountable. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would welcome the opportunity to account to Welsh Members for his report and that he would accept the amendment.

The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) suggested that the Labour party might lose its dominance in Wales and might, therefore, regret having suggested that powers should be given to the people of Wales through an elected assembly in Wales. It may have escaped his notice that the fact that the electors can elect whom they choose is known as democracy, and that the process can swing against a party as well as for it. The Labour party has no fear of democracy. If we lost our dominance, others would represent the people of Wales, and rightly so. I have no fear, however, of that coming about for many years, unless the Conservative party totally changes its attitude of intransigence to what the electorate in Wales wants. The right hon. Gentleman's comment demonstrated the Conservatives' lack of interest in accountability, and a wish to hang on desperately to power informed his criticisms.

It is right that we should pursue the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that there should be a small degree of accountability, and it is also right that the Grand Committee should study the reports by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The reports are often lost, although they raise important issues that interest our constituents. When we tell them that there is no proper debate in the House on many of the Select Committee's reports, they are surprised. When a Select Committee has gone into an issue in depth and produced a report, the Government have to make a response. Is it not sensible that there should be a proper and reasonable debate on the issues, and that the Welsh Grand Committee should be the place for those debates?

Amendment (y), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), would allow the use of the Welsh language when the Grand Committee meets in Wales. Developments in recent years have allowed people the opportunity to use the Welsh language when they choose to do so. Those developments have been sensible. Increasingly, it has been a matter not of ramming the Welsh language down people's throats but of encouraging them to use it. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the way in which Labour local authorities have encouraged the teaching of Welsh, and encouraged people to exercise choice rather than dominating them.

I was brought up in a Welsh-speaking family in north Wales, but I lost the Welsh language during my years in school. I welcome, therefore, the chance of relearning Welsh through adult education, as a second opportunity, and I also welcome the fact that, whereas I am semi-literate in the Welsh language, my children have had the opportunity of bilingual education and are able to speak Welsh. As adults, they have exercised their choice about what they do with that education and what they do with the ability to use two languages.

Is it right that the House took the decision for public bodies in Wales through the Welsh Language Act 1993, but that it is unwilling to apply that decision to our own proceedings when we meet in Wales? Surely it is minimal progress for us to legislate for public bodies and to place requirements on them, yet not to observe those requirements ourselves when we meet in Wales. The Welsh Language Act is concerned primarily with the activities of public bodies in Wales. We should surely apply those requirements to ourselves when we operate as a Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. That is a modest proposal.

As I mentioned earlier in an intervention, there are translation facilities in council chambers in Wales. At a recent meeting, British and German Members of Parliament were able to communicate because translation facilities were available. Translation is provided in a variety of public and private bodies, so why not have it in the Welsh Grand Committee? The Leader of the House said that the matter would be referred to the Procedure Committee. I simply reinforce the request for translation that was made earlier. Please let us have a speedy answer. Let the Government not drag their feet in the same way that they did for the Welsh Language Act, when there was unanimity of purpose in Wales and in the House.

This is an opportunity to turn a pointless talking shop into a place for reasoned debate, where we can hold the Secretary of State to account and have real debates on issues that affect our constituents. In the House, under a Conservative Government, the Secretary of State always has the votes to ignore hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. That is a fact of life, but he will gain greater credit and enhance his reputation if he changes the attitude that he has shown since the Welsh parliamentary party met and listen to what is being said by hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies.

The saying to which the Secretary of State should pay attention is, "Bu ben byd bont," which means, "He who would be a leader must be a bridge." Let the Secretary of State listen to that and change his attitude, and help us to turn the Welsh Grand Committee into a place of meaningful debate, which will win respect from our constituents and the people of Wales as a whole.

9.15 pm

Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the proposed changes to the Welsh Grand Committee.

During my time in the House, I have felt that the Welsh Grand Committee is an underused creature. It meets irregularly, but potentially it is an excellent forum, and as it is made up of all the Members of Parliament who represent Wales, it should naturally deal with business that affects only Wales. Opposition Members felt deeply disappointed that the Welsh Language Bill was referred to Standing Committee, not the Welsh Grand Committee. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, many of the amendments that we tabled, which had all-party support among the Opposition parties and were popular in Wales, were voted down by English Conservative Members.

I very much wanted to be on the Committee that considered the Local Government (Wales) Bill, as did other hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. I naturally defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) because of their experience and constituency interest, but I felt it highly improper that I could not speak for the new Carmarthenshire and for its powers and so on, when many English Conservative Members, who had no constituency interests, were voting down amendments tabled by the Labour party and the Opposition parties in Wales.

I broadly welcome the changes that the Government propose. The extra Question Time would be lively, although 30 minutes would not be enough, as many Back Benchers—especially Labour Back Benchers, as there are so many of us—already find it difficult to participate in the 35 or 40 minutes of Welsh questions. The time allowed for short debates—five minutes for the proposer, five minutes for the Minister and three minutes for other Members—is very short. I have some reservations about ministerial statements, especially if it is the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer making an opportunist guest appearance. Such details need to be changed, but broadly the measures are good.

I support the amendments spoken to by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Indeed, I echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on the use of the Welsh language. It is no big deal. It should be straightforward. Simultaneous translation is widespread now, certainly in Welsh-speaking Wales and across most of Wales. It is easily practicable. In view of the precedent of the Select Committee, I cannot see why the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are making such a mountain of what should be a straightforward procedure and why they do not treat the Welsh language on an equal basis.

Another feature that is missing from the Standing Orders is the frequency with which the reformed Welsh Grand Committee will meet. At the infamous meeting of 20 February, the Secretary of State said that it would meet about eight times a year. We want at least that. The Labour party suggested that it should meet every other Tuesday morning—a regular spot, which we would all know to expect. That would be 15 or 18 meetings a year.

What will the people of Wales make of the changes, if the House votes for them this evening? The changes will give us a body with no powers that meets eight times a year for two and a half hours. That will amount to 20 hours a year. The people of Wales want something that meets at least 20 hours a week, with real powers to debate and exercise powers that are now the powers of the Secretary of State. That can come only when we have an elected Welsh Assembly.

The proposals are a tiny 1 per cent. of what we want. They are a small improvement. I welcome them for those reasons.

9.20 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

We have had an illuminating debate, even including the comments made by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and his particular concern to save the Labour party as the party of government in Wales. I can see which way he is veering on his retirement.

The presentation of the new Standing Orders and our amendments represent a missed opportunity for the Government to take a significant step forward in the conduct of Welsh affairs within the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spotlighted clearly in his speech the fact that we have here a fig leaf presented by the Government, in an effort to show that they are interested in extending in some way our opportunities to debate Welsh affairs. I suppose that we can go that far, because the changes in the Standing Orders will provide additional opportunities to debate Welsh affairs and to ask more questions about Welsh affairs, but they will do nothing more substantial. They will not allow Members of Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies to play a more practical and effective role in determining what happens in Wales.

The proposal made in a well-researched speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, our respected Friend with much experience, took one aspect of the business of the House dealt with by European Standing Committees, which could easily be used on the Welsh scene within the Welsh Grand Committee, to improve the ability of Welsh Members to question Ministers on their plans for any particular year in which they happened to be with us. They will not be there for much longer now, thank goodness. In view of what my hon. Friend said, some Opposition Members—no one knows who they may be—will be quaking at the thought of being on the Government's side of the Dispatch Box under the procedure that he has proposed and subject to questioning by him. Given that the procedure is already in use in the House, I hope that the Government will be prepared to support my hon. Friend's two amendments. We believe that they are worthy of support.

I was pleased that the Leader of the House was prepared to make a concession and consider the use of the Welsh language in meetings of the Grand Committee in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), although I missed the early part of his speech, seemed to be making an effective case about why it should be natural for Welsh to be used in debates in the Grand Committee when it meets in Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) argued convincingly that there should be no technical or other problems with that.

I would go so far as to say that section 3(2)(b) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 gives the Government a duty to ensure that Welsh can be used in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. It is fair to say that the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee are public business and that section 3 states that one of the functions of the Welsh Language Board is to advise persons exercising functions of a public nature on the ways in which effect may be given to the principle that, in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality". When the matter is referred to the Procedure Committee, the Government will have the opportunity to recommend, as the Leader of the House said, that it should consider positively the way in which the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West can best be put into effect. While I accept that that cannot be hurried through in time for a meeting in a month's time, the Committee should be asked to consider the proposal with a view to bringing a report to the House that can be considered before the summer recess. On second thoughts, that may put the Committee under pressure because of rumours, which I hope that we can set aside, that we are due to finish at the end of May because of the Government's fears of not being able to continue for much longer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards)

The hon. Gentleman should not bank on it.

Mr. Griffiths

I am still planning my holidays for August. The report should be made before the summer recess.

Given the angst that the run-up to the debate has caused, it is worth repeating that it was back in March 1993 that we first suggested that it would be worth reconsidering the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee to make it more effective. Since then, we have made several attempts to get a constructive dialogue going. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party—

Mr. Ron Davies

The Welsh parliamentary party.

Mr. Griffiths

I am sorry. I was unable to attend the Welsh parliamentary party meeting because of my duties elsewhere—I was at the Standing Committee on the iniquitous Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. It is most unfortunate that, within an hour of the meeting, the Secretary of State virtually rubbished all the proposals discussed there. When he replies to the debate, I hope that he will at least retrieve some of that ground, first, by reiterating the commitment that a report on the use of the Welsh language will be put before the House in plenty of time for us to consider it before the summer recess and, secondly, by accepting all the amendments that Opposition Members have tabled.

The first amendment is fairly technical and ought to cause no problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) outlined the argument for amendment (ff) on the quorum at the beginning of the debate. It simply falls into line with the practice in the Scottish Grand Committee and would certainly make sense, given the references already made to the fact that there are some parallels on certain basic points between the two Committees.

I hope that the Government will also accept amendment (a). Three members of the Committee with constituencies outside Wales ought to be a sufficient number when conducting the business of the Welsh Grand Committee. I hope that the Government are prepared to accept that—unless, of course, they think that a Conservative Government could come to power without any Conservative Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies. Otherwise, three members plus, from time to time, the one, two or three Conservative members of the Committee who might represent Welsh constituencies should be sufficient for them.

My hon. Friend also referred to amendment (p) and the need to ensure that the Welsh Grand Committee recommends that a Bill be read a Second time. A Bill should proceed only if it gains the assent of the Grand Committee. That would be a small but important step forward. It would establish a really democratic view of the Government's business in Wales.

Hon. Members cited a number of examples of how that might have helped the Government to avoid some disastrous mistakes, such as the poll tax, for which we have a permanent 2.5 per cent. increase on value added tax. The Government could have avoided that if they had tested the proposal in a Welsh Grand Committee that had the right to determine whether such a Bill should proceed.

A number of references have been made to the legislation to reform Welsh local government, the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen said, he dearly wished to be on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill; he had direct interests that he wanted to air in detail on behalf of his constituents. As a result of the way in which the Committee was structured, the present procedures of the House and the fact that the Government decided not to use Standing Order No. 86, which would have enabled them to hold the entire debate in an all-Welsh Committee, he missed that opportunity—much to the detriment of the way in which that Bill proceeded through the House.

I should have loved the opportunity to take part in the debates on the Bill—as would many other Welsh Members—but there were not enough places on the Committee for Labour Members. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head—he does not have local government responsibilities—and trying to claim that that is rubbish. Given the membership and size of the Committee, there was no opportunity for Labour Members to be properly represented on it.

Mr. Richards

Referring to the Local Government (Wales) Bill, the hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) wished to be a member of the Standing Committee. During the debate on that issue, I pointed out that that hon. Member, and many other Opposition Members, had shown no interest in local government in Wales, because they had not tabled written questions, asked oral questions or taken part in any debates on local government reform in Wales. Given that the hon. Member for Carmarthen had shown no interest in local government, why should he have been on the Standing Committee?

Mr. Griffiths

That is a facetious remark—and I shall treat it as such. There was obviously no intent to take the argument forward.

Mr. Alan W. Williams

As I am being discussed, may I point out that at that time my constituency had a strong interest in that matter, which involved Carmarthenshire county council? My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) represented Dyfed on the Committee; there was a strong territorial interest in being on it. That is quite different from what the Minister said. As the Bill affected my constituency, I wanted to be a member of the Committee that examined the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point and there is no reason for us to dwell on it.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

Might we dwell on that point just a little longer? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that Committee illustrated the frustration of Welsh legislation in the House? The Committee, with the support of hon. Members on both sides, defeated the Government on the issue of small counties in rural mid-Wales. The Government then chose to defeat the Committee on Report. However, the Government then decided to do exactly what the Committee had voted for in relation to Welsh local government, for English local government. What sort of a Government is that?

Mr. Griffiths

That was one of the ironies of the Local Government (Wales) Bill—Conservative members of the Committee were lobby fodder for the Government in terms of voting for a unitary system of government in Wales, but back home they fought tooth and nail to stop the local government boundary commission introducing unitary government in their constituencies. The reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill was the first occasion on which all the Opposition parties in Wales were united in the presentation of an argument against the Government's proposals.

The Welsh Grand Committee ought to be given the opportunity to have a positive say on Bills that affect only Wales. Of course, the Bills would then be considered in Committee, according to the normal procedures of the House. At least there would have been genuine approval of the principles of the measure by the Welsh Grand Committee.

When the Secretary of State winds up the debate, I hope that he will accept all our amendments and perhaps elaborate on how he hopes to put into effect the procedure for ensuring that the Welsh language amendment can be considered in detail by the House before the summer recess.

9.38 pm

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague)

This interesting and varied debate has contained some constructive suggestions and a little synthetic indignation from time to time. I shall respond to the points that have been made. It is worth remembering that the objective that we are seeking to address with these motions is one on which there is a good deal of common ground across the Floor of the House—although one might not have thought so at times this evening.

It is common ground that the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee need improving; no one suggested otherwise tonight. It is common ground that the Grand Committee, as it stands, has not always been felt to be the most useful forum for discussion. It is common ground that it has not always been useful for Back Benchers because of the time that is taken up by Front-Bench speeches in the Grand Committee as it stands. It is common ground that, as a result, the Committee is not widely reported and has a ritual element. We should be clear in our minds about that at the outset.

Undoubtedly, the proposals that the Leader of the House and I have brought before the House will make the Grand Committee more useful for Back Benchers and their constituents. They will increase the time that is available for Members to question Welsh Office Ministers. They will bring in the concept of short debates, which will have the merit that the Grand Committee can discuss different subjects and do so within time limits. They will bring the concept of Adjournment debates—a procedure used by the Scottish Grand Committee—into the Welsh Grand Committee. All those things will enhance the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones

All that the Secretary of State has said in the past few minutes about the Welsh Grand Committee and its defects is true, and has been true for 17 years.

Why have the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland chosen this time to make similar proposals to change the way in which the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee discuss matters in Scotland and Wales respectively? Is it not the case that they have done so because they finally acknowledge that there is a case for devolution but are not prepared to answer it, so they are giving that answer to the people of Wales and the people of Scotland?

Mr. Hague

No. It is a completely separate argument from the constitutional arguments about devolution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) rightly said.

We know that the things I have said are common ground because many of the suggestions for changes in the Standing Orders were made by the Opposition. I might equally well ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) why he and other Labour Members produced their proposals for changes to the Grand Committee in the middle of November. We can all play the game of asking why things happened at a certain time.

I made proposals to the House on 30 November which largely, if not entirely, incorporated the Opposition's proposals. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) described my proposals as a fig leaf. If he believes that our proposals have been a fig leaf, what does he think he was wearing when the Opposition proposed their changes in the proceedings of the Grand Committee a couple of weeks before my proposals?

That is the background to what has been described as an atmosphere of confrontation and no consultation—Opposition proposals that have been largely incorporated into the Government's proposals.

We have proposed further changes in the Standing Orders, which would go further than the proposals of Opposition Front Benchers. One such change is for the Committee to meet in different parts of Wales. That system seems to work well in Scotland; the Scottish Grand Committee has met in a variety of places. The Welsh Grand Committee has already met in Cardiff in the past. It was a mystery to me why the Opposition's proposals did not include that proposition.

Mr. Rogers

rose—

Mr. Ron Davies

rose—

Mr. Hague

I give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).

Mr. Davies

The Secretary of State mentioned two points that are a matter of contention between us.

First, when we made submissions—initially in 1993, but several times since—we said that we wanted the Welsh Grand Committee to have substantial powers to make decisions, not only to engage in the ritualistic passing of question and answer between Opposition and Government.

Secondly, the Welsh Grand Committee was able to meet in Cardiff without a change in the Standing Orders, so it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to claim that we need to change the Standing Orders to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Cardiff. It already can meet in Cardiff; it requires no change in the Standing Orders. That is why we did not propose any such changes.

Mr. Hague

It nevertheless remains the case that that is a proposal that we made which was not made by the hon. Gentleman. He has not expressed any opposition to it, however, so it is one of the things on which there appears to be agreement across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Davies

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but we must get this clear. It was the Opposition who insisted, in 1993, that the Welsh Grand Committee should meet in Cardiff.

Mr. Hague

Then it is all the more surprising that that insistence was not carried through to talking about other locations. I am pleased that there is agreement across the House on that issue.

The second respect in which we took the proposals further is that we agreed that Ministers with United Kingdom-wide responsibilities—with responsibilities that cover Wales—should be able to attend the Welsh Grand Committee from time to time. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security, and my right hon. and learned Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, all have responsibilities that directly cover Wales and it is right that they should be able to attend the Committee.

Mr. Rogers

The Secretary of State talks about consultation. He must accept that when he came to the Welsh parliamentary party meeting that I chaired—we were thankful that he could come at such short notice—the Opposition thought that he had accepted some of the points made during the consultation process. We were amazed when he left the room and almost immediately reneged on some of the undertakings that he had made. If he talks about consultation and common ground, he must respect the statements that he made during those discussions.

Mr. Hague

Yes, and I shall come to that point in a moment and discuss some of the subjects that we debated at that meeting of the parliamentary party.

All the proposals are aimed at improving the Committee's workings. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) expressed scepticism about the changes. He thought that they were set in a different context and had a different motive behind them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said, this argument is different from a proposal to change the constitutional position. If a sinister motive to undermine the Labour party lay behind our proposals, why did the Labour party advance very similar proposals?

We do not need to change the Welsh Grand Committee and its proceedings in order to discredit the arguments for a Welsh Assembly; all that we have to do is to ask the hon. Member for Caerphilly to give another interview to "On the Record", where he treats repeated and authoritative reports of division in his party by saying that everything is clear. In one newspaper that I saw at the weekend, he was reported as saying that the Labour party's policy was clear and would become clearer. We do not need to change the Grand Committee in order to discredit such arguments.

Mr. Rowlands

In that case, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in any debate that we have on Welsh devolution in the next nine months or so, he will not submit the proposals as his alternative?

Mr. Hague

Certainly. This is not an alternative to devolution; it is an improvement in the workings of the United Kingdom Parliament in the context of a UK Parliament. The proposal creates a Committee which hon. Members will find more useful, to which people will want to listen and which will do a better job of scrutinising the work of the Executive. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney sees it in a particular context—if the measure were set in that context, I could understand his scepticism, but it is not. We have already incorporated many of the proposals made by Opposition Members, who have had many opportunities to add to them.

As my right hon. Friend the Lord President said, I wrote to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 14 December and offered a meeting. The hon. Gentleman says that I did not, but I have the letter, which states: I would welcome your comments on them"— the proposals— and would be ready to discuss the changes if you would find that helpful. If that is not offering a meeting, I do not know what is. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is offering a meeting, his difficulty will not be if the Committee uses the Welsh language, but if it uses the English language for discussion.

I met the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss the subject and clearly asked them what alternative proposals they had. To be fair, they all made it clear in their letters that they would have preferred the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, but that is not common ground across the Floor of the House. I asked them for specific amendments to the Standing Orders as proposed and there was much sucking of teeth and furrowing of brows. It was suggested that we should not lay down a time of 10.30 am for meetings in different parts of Wales, as that might prove logistically difficult, and that proposal was changed in the Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that nothing had been changed as a result of his suggestions, but that change has been made.

I was asked to discuss all those matters in the Welsh Grand Committee. That seems to have been the main bone of contention this evening. I have never deviated from my view that it is the House that has power to change Standing Orders, that the matter is of interest to hon. Members in general—not just Welsh Members—and that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. I recall expressing that view at the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, as well as in a television interview afterwards.

Mr. Ron Davies

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Wigley

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hague

I am spoilt for choice. I must give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Caernarfon later.

Mr. Davies

I hope that the Secretary of State is giving way to me out of choice rather than necessity, but I am grateful to him in any event.

If the Secretary of State believes now, and has always believed, that it is inappropriate for the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss such changes, why did the Government suggest—via the usual channels—that, rather than debating the subject on the Floor of the House, we should do so in the Committee?

Mr. Hague

I have made no such suggestion. I have consistently said that these matters should be discussed and resolved on the Floor of the House—and here we are, resolving them on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wigley

The Secretary of State will recall that a number of constructive proposals were advanced. I acknowledge that one, relating to the variation of the starting time in rural Wales, has been taken on board; but why did not the right hon. Gentleman take on board the suggestion relating to European Standing Committee procedure, which I believe commands considerable support in the House?

Mr. Hague

I was coming to that and, if I do not take too many more interventions, I shall be able to explain more about the Government's position.

In the meeting to which I have referred, we engaged in a constructive discussion of a number of matters. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked for reassurances about the timing and content of debates in the Welsh Grand Committee being determined by the usual channels, rather than solely dictated by the Government, and I gave him those reassurances. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and others made their point about the possible value of the Committee's discussing Select Committee reports; I agreed, and I am perfectly amenable to the idea of Conservative-led discussions over the coming months.

In the meeting, I specifically said that I was amenable to the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney with regard to European Standing Committee procedure, and said that I was amenable. Let me make it clear that the procedure can be adopted under the proposed Standing Orders: a debate in the Grand Committee on a matter referred to it by the House could be a debate of the type cited by the hon. Gentleman, and could be dealt with in the same style as a European Standing Committee debate. I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of using one of the Grand Committee's meetings for that purpose in the coming months—but, according to all the advice that I have received, we do not need to change the proposed Standing Orders to achieve that.

During the meeting, the hon. Member for Caernarfon and I discussed the number of meetings that should take place. I think that he was relatively reassured by what I said. Some hon. Members mentioned the use of the Welsh language; my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made an announcement about that earlier today. I do not think it fair to say that consultation has been ignored during the process that has taken place.

Mr. Rowlands

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Flynn

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hague

I must press on, because I want to comment on the amendments. If there is time, however, I will give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

We have heard some proposals this evening that were not made during our consultations, although there is nothing wrong with that. It has been proposed, for instance, that the Committee's quorum should be smaller. Given that the Committee became inquorate at various times during its most recent meeting, the proposition is not entirely unreasonable. The quorum of the Scottish Grand Committee is 10, as has been pointed out. That is a fair point, and the Government will accept the amendment.

Other amendments refer to the use of the Welsh language. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the matter could be referred to the Procedure Committee. We recognise that powerful points have been made. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) did not need to watch me on television at the Council of Ministers, listening to a simultaneous translation; he could have seen me chairing a meeting this morning in the chamber of Montgomeryshire district council, half of which was conducted in Welsh. I readily appreciate the ease, speed and simplicity with which those arrangements can be introduced and how many of the places in which the Grand Committee could meet already have the relevant equipment. All those factors must be borne in mind by the Procedure Committee which, of course, must also bear in mind the important change of principle that would be involved for the House as a whole. We intend the Committee to examine all those questions. There are other things—

Mr. Flynn

rose—

Mr. Hague

I must deal with the remaining points.

We have had frank disagreements on other matters. There were proposals for an increased or enhanced legislative role for the Grand Committee. Of course, the hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke from a completely different viewpoint on these matters. He has a wholly different perception of how the United Kingdom should be governed. We understand that; he wants to take the United Kingdom apart, so we approach the subject quite differently. We are making our proposals on the basis of the government of the UK as a whole.

There have been elections in which the Labour party won in the UK as a whole entirely because of votes cast in Scotland and Wales. Everyone accepted that, and I have never noticed Labour saying that English Members should make separate legislative decisions because they won a majority only because of votes cast in Scotland. The UK continues to be governed on the original basis.

Amendment (p) would set up the role of the Welsh Grand Committee quite differently from that of the Scottish Grand Committee, the European Standing Committees, Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation and Second Reading Committees, so we cannot accept it.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney wanted to intervene, and I now have time to give way to him.

Mr. Rowlands

I had intended to press my amendment to a vote, so I want further clarification from the Secretary of State. The key to amendment (dd) is the second paragraph which sets out a specific procedure about the first hour of questions. That provision does not appear in the draft Standing Orders, which contain many prescriptive procedural provisions. I cannot see how the provision that I seek can be added or informally agreed unless it is part of the Standing Order itself.

Mr. Hague

My advice is that it is possible to adopt the procedure that the hon. Gentleman envisages under the proposed Standing Orders. A Minister can make a statement and be questioned on it. That will be followed by a debate. The difficulty with the amendment is that it also contains other proposals, such as deciding matters on a substantive motion—perhaps that might be suggested in the amendment linked with amendment (dd).

I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that if any difficulty arises in the coming months in following the procedure that he advocates, I shall certainly want to introduce a further change by way of clarification. I assure him that all my advice is in the direction that he seeks.

The changes are being proposed on the basis of government of the United Kingdom. That is the key to them, and it is the difference between our proposals and those of some Opposition Members. We have suggested a series of proposals to improve the workings of the Grand Committee. No one who has attended its meetings can fail to think anything other than that its proceedings should be improved. We have incorporated proposals made by the Opposition, but, in many respects, we have gone further, which is unfortunate for members of the Labour Front Bench who have struggled ever since to make this a party issue.

We have taken the proposals through a consultation process during which a number of additional ideas have been accepted. We have brought them for debate to the Floor of the House where we propose to accept further amendments which have only now been brought forward. That lengthy procedure, in which every Welsh Member has had the opportunity to participate, has been described at times as lacking in consultation or disgraceful. This full evening's debate on the Floor of the House has, oddly, been described by the hon. Member for Caerphilly as restrictive. This is the first time that a full evening's debate on the Floor of the House, as opposed to a debate in Committee, has been described as restrictive.

After examination, and given the range of reasons for improving the workings of the Grand Committee, we have now come to the right proposals. It is time to press ahead with them, so I commend them to the House and I hope that they will receive its support. Amendments that do not fit in with them, other than those that I have already shown flexibility over or that I have accepted, should be rejected by the House.

Amendment proposed: (a), in line 15, leave out 'five' and insert `three'.—[Mr. Ron. Davies.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 164.

Division No. 71]	[10.00 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Dixon, Don
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Dowd, Jim
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Flynn, Paul
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Foulkes, George
Bennett, Andrew F	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Bradley, Keith	Hall, Mike
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Hanson, David
Callaghan, Jim	Hood, Jimmy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Corston, Jean	Llwyd, Erfyn
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Dafis, Cynog	McWilliam, John
Dalyell, Tam	Marek,Dr John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Maxton, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Michael, Alun

Morgan, Rhodri	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pike, Peter L	Timms, Stephen
Rogers, Allan	Wigley, Dafydd
Rowlands, Ted	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Salmond, Alex	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Simpson, Alan
Skinner, Dennis	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spearing, Nigel	Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Greg Pope.
Sutcliffe, Gerry

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Gill, Christopher
Alexander, Richard	Gillan, Cheryl
Amess, David	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hague, Rt Hon William
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Baldry, Tony	Hampson, Dr Keith
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Harris, David
Bates, Michael	Hawkins, Nick
Bellingham, Henry	Heald, Oliver
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Booth, Hartley	Hendry, Charles
Boswell, Tim	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Horam, John
Bowis, John	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Brandreth, Gyles	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Brazier, Julian	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Bright, Sir Graham	Hunter, Andrew
Browning, Mrs Angela	Jack, Michael
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)	Jenkin, Bernard
Burt, Alistair	Jessel, Toby
Butler, Peter	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Carttiss, Michael	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney	King, Rt Hon Tom
Clappison, James	Kirkhope, Timothy
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Knapman, Roger
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Coe, Sebastian	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Congdon, David	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Legg, Barry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Leigh, Edward
Couchman, James	Lidington, David
Cran, James	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Luff, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph	MacKay, Andrew
Devlin, Tim	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Dicks, Terry	McLoughlin, Patrick
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Maitland, Lady Olga
Douglas-Hamifton, Lord James	Malone, Gerald
Dover, Den	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Durant, Sir Anthony	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Dykes, Hugh	Moate, Sir Roger
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Neubert, Sir Michael
Elletson, Harold	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Nicholls, Patrick
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Norris, Steve
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Ottaway, Richard
Evennett, David	Page, Richard
Faber, David	Paice, James
Fabricant, Michael	Pawsey, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel	Richards, Rod
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Riddick, Graham
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Robathan, Andrew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
French, Douglas	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Gallie, Phil	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Garnier, Edward	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Trend, Michael
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Walden, George
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Waller, Gary
Soames, Nicholas	Ward, John
Spencer, Sir Derek	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Spink, Dr Robert	Waterson, Nigel
Spring, Richard	Watts, John
Sproat, Iain	Wells, Bowen
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Whittingdale, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Willetts, David
Stephen, Michael	Wilshire, David
Streeter, Gary	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Sweeney, Walter	Wolfson, Mark
Sykes, John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Tellers for the Noes:
Thomason, Roy	Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Simon Burns.
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the remaining Questions relating to Welsh Business which she was then required to put, pursuant to Order [this day].

Amendment made: (ff), in line 18, at end insert—

'(1A) The quorum of the committee shall be seven, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))'.—[Mr. Ran Davies.]

Amendment proposed: (p), in line 116, after `committee', insert—

'the committee having recommended that the bill be read a second time'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 157.

Division No. 72]	[10.12 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea East)	Llwyd, Elfyn
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Bennett, Andrew F	McWilliam, John
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Marek, DrJohn
Callaghan, Jim	Maxton, John
Campbell-Savours, D N	Michael, Alun
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Morgan, Rhodri
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Pike, Peter L
Clarke, Eric (Midbthian)	Rogers, Allan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Rowlands, Ted
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Salmond, Alex
Dafis, Cynog	Simpson, Alan
Dalyell, Tam	Skinner, Dennis
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Spearing, Nigel
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Spellar, John
Dixon, Don	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Dowd, Jim	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Flynn, Paul	Timms, Stephen
Foulkes, George	Wgley, Dafydd
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Hain, Peter	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Hall, Mike
Hanson, David	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hood, Jimmy	Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Greg Pope.
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Alexander, Richard	Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Amess, David	Baldry, Tony
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Bates, Michael

Bellingham, Henry	King, Rt Hon Tom
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Kirkhope, Timothy
Booth, Hartley	Knapman, Roger
Boswell, Tim	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Bowis, John	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Brandreth, Gyles	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brazier, Julian	Leigh, Edward
Bright, Sir Graham	Lidington, David
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Burt, Alistair	Luff, Peter
Butler, Peter	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	MacKay, Andrew
Carttiss, Michael	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Chapman, Sir Sydney	McLoughlin, Patrick
Clappison, James	Maitland, Lady Olga
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Malone, Gerald
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Coe, Sebastian	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Congdon, David	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Moate, Sir Roger
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Neubert, Sir Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Couchman, James	Nicholls, Patrick
Cran, James	Norris, Steve
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Ottaway, Richard
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Page, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Paice, James
Devlin, Tim	Pawsey, James
Dicks, Terry	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Richards, Rod
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Riddick, Graham
Dover, Den	Robathan, Andrew
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Durant, Sir Anthony	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Dykes, Hugh	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Elletson, Harold	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Evennett, David	Soames, Nicholas
Faber, David	Spencer, Sir Derek
Forman, Nigel	Spink, Dr Robert
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Spring, Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Sproat, Iain
French, Douglas	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Gallie, Phil	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Garnier, Edward	Stephen, Michael
Gill, Christopher	Streeter, Gary
Gillan, Cheryl	Sweeney, Walter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Sykes, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hague, Rt Hon William	Thomason, Roy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Trend, Michael
Harris, David	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Hawkins, Nick	Walden, George
Heald, Oliver	Waller, Gary
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Ward, John
Hendry, Charles	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Heseltne, Rt Hon Michael	Waterson, Nigel
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Watts, John
Horam, John	Wells, Bowen
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Whittingdale, John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Willetts, David
Hunter, Andrew	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Jack, Michael	Wolfson, Mark
Jenkin, Bernard	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Jessel, Toby
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Tellers for the Noes:
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Derek Conway.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 50.

Division No. 73]	[10.25 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Alexander, Richard	Hampson, Dr Keith
Amess, David	Harris, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Hawkins, Nick
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Heald, Oliver
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Baldry, Tony	Hendry, Charles
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Bates, Michael	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Bellingham, Henry	Horam, John
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Booth, Hartley	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Boswell, Tim	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Hunter, Andrew
Bowis, John	Jack, Michael
Brazier, Julian	Jenkin, Bernard
Bright, Sir Graham	Jessel, Toby
Browning, Mrs Angela	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Bums, Simon	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair	Kirkhope, Timothy
Butler, Peter	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Carttiss, Michael	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Clappison, James	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Lidington, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Coe, Sebastian	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Congdon, David	Luff, Peter
Conway, Derek	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	MacKay, Andrew
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	McLoughlin, Patrick
Couchman, James	Maitland, Lady Olga
Cran, James	Malone, Gerald
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Moate, Sir Roger
Devlin, Tim	Neubert, Sir Michael
Dicks, Terry	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Nicholls, Patrick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Norris, Steve
Dover, Den	Ottaway, Richard
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Page, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony	Paice, James
Dykes, Hugh	Pawsey, James
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Elletson, Harold	Richards, Rod
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Robathan, Andrew
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Evennett, David	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Faber, David	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Forman, Nigel	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Skeet, Sir Trevor
French, Douglas	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Gallie, Phil	Soames, Nicholas
Garnier, Edward	Spencer, Sir Derek
Gill, Christopher	Spink, Dr Robert
Gillan, Cheryl	Spring, Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Sproat, Iain
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Stephen, Michael
Hague, Rt Hon William	Streeter, Gary

Sweeney, Walter	Waterson, Nigel
Sykes, John	Watts, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Wells, Bowen
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Whittingdale, John
Thomason, Roy	Willetts, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Trend, Michael	Wolfson, Mark
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Walden, George
Waller, Gary	Tellers for the Ayes:
Ward, John	Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

NOES
Ainger, Nick	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Llwyd, Elfyn
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	McWilliam, John
Barron, Kevin	Marek, Dr John
Bennett, Andrew F	Maxton, John
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Michael, Alun
Callaghan, Jim	Morgan, Rhodri
Campbell-Savours, D N	Pike, Peter L
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Pope, Greg
Clarke, Eric (Midtothian)	Rogers, Allan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Rowlands, Ted
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Salmond, Alex
Dafls, Cynog	Simpson, Alan
Dalyell, Tam	Skinner, Dennis
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Spearing, Nigel
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Spellar, John
Dixon, Don	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Dowd, Jim	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Eastham, Ken	Timms, Stephen
Flynn, Paul	Wigley, Dafydd
Foulkes, George	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Hall, Mike
Hanson, David	Tellers for the Noes:
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

1. (1) Standing Order No. 98 (Welsh Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders A to G below shall have effect;
2. (2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, after "business))", by inserting "or a motion in the Welsh Grand Committee under Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business))";
3. (3) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 3, after "business))", by inserting "Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))"; and
4. (4) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

1. A. Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)
1. (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Welsh Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
2. (2) The quorum of the committee shall be seven, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).
3. (3) The business of the committee shall include—
1. (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));
753
2. (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates));
3. (c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order D (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
4. (d) bills referred to it in accordance with Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (bills));
5. (e) such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)); and
6. (f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).
4. (4) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.
2. B. Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)
1. (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
2. (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee.
3. (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
4. (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
5. (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:
• Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
3. C. Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)
1. (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
2. (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Wales.
3. (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
4. (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
5. (5)(a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.
1. (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.
2. (c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.
754
6. (6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:
• Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
4. D. Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements)
1. (1) The chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Wales, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
2. (2) Ministerial statements may be made—
1. (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
2. (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
3. (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.
3. (3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.
4. (4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this Order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
5. E. Welsh Grand Committee (bills)
1. (1) A motion, of which at least ten days' notice has been given, may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a public bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it:
• Provided that no such notice shall be given until the bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office.
2. (2) The committee shall report to the House either that it recommends that the bill ought to be read a second time or that it recommends that the bill ought not to be read a second time, and in the latter case it shall have power to state its reasons for so recommending.
3. (3) Upon a motion being made for the second reading of a bill reported from the committee, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
6. F. Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)
1. (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
2. (2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the matter or matters referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said matter or matters.
7. G. Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)
1. (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Welsh Grand Committee—
1. (a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Wales, the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;
2. (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past ten o'clock, or at half-past ten o'clock and between four o'clock and six o'clock;
3. (c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above; and
4. (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;
755
5. (e) to consider specified bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (bills)) on certain of the days so specified; and
6. (f) to consider specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales) on certain of the days so specified;
• and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
• Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Wales, nor from considering at a sitting in Wales business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.
2. (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Welsh Grand Committee.
3. (3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
4. (4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.
5. (5) After the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.