HC Deb 02 February 1998 vol 305 cc774-85
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I beg to move amendment No. 395, in page 27, line 12, after first 'The', insert 'voting'.

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 85, page 27, line 16, leave out from 'shall' to 'be'.

No. 396, in page 27, line 19, at end insert— '(3) In addition to those members referred to in subsection (2). each committee other than the executive committee may co—opt non—voting members. (4) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (3) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly.'.

No. 397, in page 27, line 19, at end insert— '(3) In addition to those members referred to in subsection (2), each committee other than the executive committee may co—opt non—voting members. (4) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (3) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly. (5) The rules provided for in subsection (4) shall be drawn up having regard to the maintenance of party balance in each committee.'.

No. 398, in clause 54, page 27, line 27, at end insert— '(4) Each sub—committee may co—opt non—voting members. (5) Rules for the selection and co—option of those members referred to in subsection (4) shall be included in the standing orders of the Assembly. (6) The rules provided for in subsection (5) shall be drawn up having regard to the maintenance of party balance in each subcommittee.'.

7 pm

Mr. Llwyd

Amendments Nos. 395 to 398 are part and parcel of the same thing. Notes on clauses have a fairly long but inglorious pedigree in this place. The notes accompanying the Bill are a prime example of that genre. All human knowledge and science is there. They say: Clause 53 provides that the Assembly shall establish certain committees … and that it may establish any others which it considers appropriate. The second paragraph says the same thing, but in an even less useful way. [Interruption.] I do not for one second suggest that the Secretary of State drew them up, but somebody did. He is not forthcoming with any information that could be of great value to the debate, if I may say so with the greatest of respect.

The amendment might be considered in part to be a probing amendment, but it has a serious point as well. Its intention is to put on the face of the Bill the right and obligation on subject Committees to co-opt non-voting members on to the Committees. Before I am shouted at from various corners about that being a quango, I can foresee that, occasionally, people who have considerable expertise on a particular subject would be invited on to the Committees. The Committees might also include people who are well qualified in matters concerning local government. Those people might occasionally be elected councillors, but they would generally have an expertise on a subject, as opposed to the way in which quango appointments are made—only on party lines.

The purpose of this raft of amendments is to enrich the quality of debate and assist in the formulation of policy by the various subject Committees.

Under the Bill as it stands, the subject Committees will have a vast amount of work to undertake. The assembly should be a truly inclusive chamber—"inclusive" being the big word in use at the moment, I thought that I had better use it; otherwise, nobody on the Front Bench would listen to me—that is relevant to the people of north-east Wales, south-west Wales, and so on. We have heard the same argument before, although it was made in a rather jocular manner. It is extremely important that the national assembly gains credibility and the necessary respect of all the people of Wales across the political spectrum and geographical spread of the country.

One of the best ways to make the forum popular throughout Wales is to show that the policies are at the cutting edge and are based on the best research available, and that they are practical and practicable. The worst possible scenario would be for the decisions of the various subject Committees that will formulate policies to be challenged widely by the people of Wales as not being in the best interests of Wales. That would indeed be a step backwards.

Although I appreciate that the Government's response might well be to leave the matter for due consideration by the Standing Order Commission, nevertheless this is a fundamentally important point which needs to be debated at this stage.

There has been considerable speculation and discussion about co-opting on to the Regional Committees of the assembly, so the notion of co-opting is not new. It is as least as important to co-opt on to subject Committees. Most of us have had the benefit of being on a Select Committee, and in particular of having input from experts on a given subject. They do indeed enrich the proceedings and assist greatly in the evaluation of evidence and the preparation of reports and practical and achievable recommendations.

Mr. David Hanson (Delyn)

Given what the hon. Gentleman just said, perhaps he will tell the Committee whether those who give the benefit of their advice to the Committee have speaking and voting rights. I think that he will find that they do not.

Mr. Llwyd

The point of the amendment is to co-opt people who would not have voting rights. No doubt there will be others who will advise the Committee, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I also think that this would be a way to deal with the point in a slightly different and preferable way. Of course, civil servants and the like will assist the Committee, but my view is that the form should be strengthened, in the manner foreseen in the amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies

Let us make it clear that there is nothing in the scheme as it exists to allow any Committee of the assembly to call people to give evidence, and so on. If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that with his amendment, which suggests that the power of co-option should be available—I mean this in a genuine, inclusive way, and am not seeking an argument—it is necessary that he explains what he means by co-option. Does it mean that, to all intents and purposes, the individual is a full member of the Committee, but without voting rights? He really must explain precisely what he means by co-opting, as distinct from the ability of the Committee to call individuals to give specialist evidence.

Mr. Llwyd

I thank the Secretary of State for that question. Co-option means that the person becomes a member of the Committee, albeit a limited member. That is quite different from the position to which the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred. No doubt, there will be specialist advisers to each Committee, who would be members. They would not have voting rights, but would have speaking rights; otherwise there would be little point in having them there. To all intents and purposes, they would be members of the Committee, dealing specifically with the work of the Committee, and called on to advise it in that capacity. They would not be full members in terms of voting and so on, as that would be completely wrong, as the other members would have been voted on to the Committees through the ballot box, and it would make no sense at all.

Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West)

The hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Bar, will be familiar with the term "otiose", which has reared its head many times in Committee. Is not his amendment otiose in the sense that there is nothing to preclude the Committee from taking advice and from consulting more widely? Why is it necessary to formalise it in the amendment?

Mr. Llwyd

I do not know whether the people at large are getting the impression that barristers use the word otiose every time they get up, but the hon. Gentleman has used it a few times, as I have. I do not consider the amendment unnecessary; it would be a good step forward. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain why. I believe that the Committees will face an extremely heavy work load, and that another pair of hands—or a couple of pairs of hands—would help, not to vote but to deal with policy and to do the necessary work.

Mr. Gareth Thomas

That would not be democracy.

Mr. Llwyd

It would not be democracy if those concerned were full members, but—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he will no doubt rebut it later in his own way, and I respect the fact that he will probably wish to do so.

It is vital for the relationship between the Executive—or the Cabinet, or whatever term is decided on—and the subject Committees and the assembly to be spelt out clearly. As a matter of sound constitutional law, the Executive should be clearly separated from subject Committees, and should be responsible for the strategic direction of the national assembly as a whole. The subject Committees will probably combine—I say "probably" because it is not clear in the Bill—two functions. One might be a scrutiny function similar to that of Select Committees, although the Secretary of State has just said that the Committees would have no power to require evidence or to summon witnesses. Perhaps the Minister will explain.

The Committees will also have a wider policy-making role: without that, there would be little point in establishing them and requiring those serving on them to devote all their time, expertise and energy to their work. The Welsh Office buzz word nowadays is "inclusivity". I believe that, if that is to become a reality, the amendment will help.

On 27 November, at a press conference when the Bill was launched, the Secretary of State said: The National Assembly for Wales will be a new and effective form of government. It will be based on modern working and political practices for the good of the whole of Wales. I hope to see political parties working together in a positive way and the development of structures which will allow people as individuals as well as other groups—local government, both sides of industry, the voluntary sector—to get their voice heard. The new … Assembly will be modern, open and accountable. Neither Westminster nor local government will provide the model: the National Assembly will make a fresh start based on the best practices from around the world. It will harness new technology and modern working practices to take Welsh democracy forward to the new millennium. I would not argue with that. If that is a reflection of what is to come, I welcome it whole-heartedly.

The subject Committees will also be important in the national assembly set-up. In its document "Making the Assembly Work", the Institute of Welsh Affairs says: The work of the Subject Committees will be central to the Assembly's activities. Major briefs will have to be absorbed. The more Committees a Member serves on, the more demanding will be the task. There will be room for co-option of expert advisers"— I stress that— and the Committees should have the power to summon witnesses along the lines of the Select Committees in the House of Commons. I am not sure whether that is correct; the Secretary of State said that it was not likely.

It will be up to the assembly to determine the number of subject Committees. The Institute of Welsh Affairs thinks that there may be six, but annexe A of the White Paper refers to nine. I understand that they will include Committees on education and training, health, agriculture, local government, and so on.

Mr. Ron Davies

I am sorry that I could not respond to the hon. Gentleman immediately, but he was making a number of points. He questioned whether the assembly would have the power to require people to attend. It will. The power is specified in clause 73(2), which lists the persons and organisations concerned. That is, of course, different from inviting people to give evidence.

Mr. Llwyd

I am obliged to the Secretary of State. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said initially that there was no power, so let me say—with the greatest respect—that I am not sure whether he is correcting me or himself. I did not mention summoning; he did. However, I accept what he now says without reservation, and welcome his statement of fact.

The White Paper suggests that there will also be a secondary legislation scrutiny Committee, an audit Committee, and the regional Committees, about which we already know. There will also be a European Committee. It is entirely possible that there will be 15 or 16 Committees, and an even larger number of Sub-Committees.

7.15 pm

Let me return to what was said by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). My point to him is this: there will be so much work to be done that it will be vital for the Committees to work well, and for their members to be able to handle their work load.

The case for the amendment is well made. It is made on the basis of the need to bring expertise and assistance to bear, but also on the basis of purely logistical considerations. How on earth is a Member of the Assembly expected to sit on three or four Committees which, of necessity, will have to specialise? I believe that that would be far more onerous than sitting on three or four Select Committees, and, in my respectful submission, it is therefore a nonsensical proposition.

I should be obliged if the Minister would respond to my arguments in detail. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will give due consideration to an amendment that I believe would improve the workings of the assembly.

Ms Julie Morgan

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some important points, some of which I want to take up.

We have emphasised the need to involve as many people as possible in the assembly, and I think that we must use a range of measures to do that. Non-voting co-options is one possible method. That would aid the workings of the assembly by, for instance, addressing some of the problems that will be caused by the possible lack of representation of certain groups. For example, a Committee may be discussing disability, which will clearly be a major issue. A successful strategy for people with learning disabilities was pioneered by the Welsh Office, involving such people and their carers. We could enrich and improve the assembly's workings by allowing people with disabilities to come on to the Committees as non-voting members, but to contribute to their workings over a period.

I do not think that any Committee can plan or discuss, for instance, a Wales strategy for disability unless it contains people who are disabled themselves, perhaps representing organisations for the disabled. That is relevant to a number of areas that the assembly may cover. For example, I hope that it will discuss a race equality strategy for Wales, and I hope that no such discussion will be held without the presence of black people. Indeed, I hope that both black and disabled people will be Members of the Assembly, although, given the way in which things work out, the odds are against it. I think it important for people who experience the issues that we shall try to address in the inclusive assembly that we are establishing to be part of the decision-making process.

I believe that non-voting Members should be co-opted for a period, so that they can take part in the discussions and give the Committee the benefit of their experience. Someone else could then be co-opted for another period, depending on the subject area. Perhaps the assembly will be able to do that, but these points are very important, and should not be lost in the debate.

Mr. Öpik

The Liberal Democrats support the amendments, which strike a chord of common sense. Non-voting members add great value as experts, and are sometimes more impartial observers than voting members. It could be said that non-voting members, unburdened by the stresses of political careers or their own egos, at times add more value, and may be the voice of reason on committees when others around them are losing their heads in internecine disputes. Non-voting members can be regarded as a check or a balance for the debate as a whole.

The amendments would enable non-voting members to know where they stand. The danger of not having these conditions enshrined in the legislation is that non-voting members would be uncertain about their rights, which could harm the contribution that they could make. Being put on the Committee through established formal structures would give them a certain gravitas.

Mr. Gareth Thomas

The hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience of student union politics and debating societies. Does he accept that the subject Committees will have to make hard decisions—they will have to weigh up the niceties of the argument—so they must be accountable to the electorate?

Mr. Öpik

I certainly do accept that. Indeed, that serves to emphasise my point. Those hard choices may lead to stress and conflict, and to very charged meetings. Surely, a non-voting member will be much more likely to contribute positively if she or he clearly understands that she or he has a formal role on the Committee, albeit without a vote. In my experience in student unions, and in my own party, the formal co-option system gives non-voting members confidence that they can make a meaningful and reasoned contribution, and, even more important, that they will be respected by voting members.

The system proposed in the amendments would enable officers to advise voting Members that certain co-options would be within the structures established for the assembly. We said earlier that we did not want to transfer the weaknesses of this House to the assembly, one of which is the etiquette that we have to use to make decisions. The assembly is in danger of inheriting a system of co-option without a clearly defined process. If we want a modern, advanced assembly in Wales, we should make the procedure as clear as possible.

The Liberal Democrats support the element of proportionality proposed in amendment No. 398. It is a form of insurance policy: it will ensure that committees are not packed with partisan non-voting members, whose objectives may be rather more sinister. A party should not be able abuse the system and hold up proceedings by refusing to supply its quota, so that it can argue that a Committee should not have any non-voting members.

With that proviso, it is sensible clearly and publicly to enshrine in the Bill the need for political proportionality in appointments. Many non-voting members will probably not have a political affiliation, but will be appointed for their expertise. In which case, I assume that the proportionality consideration would not be relevant.

We support the amendments. They may not be essential, but they are good practice. To say that such practice will occur anyway is no justification for refusing to take the opportunity to clarify and tidy up a part of the legislation that is vague. The Government should take these proposals on board: they are a common-sense improvement, and clarify the details of the process involved.

Mr. Hanson

I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) want to improve the Bill, and speak out of a genuine desire to make it a success. However, the proposals would have a serious impact on the workings of the assembly. One of the reasons why I was passionately in favour of the assembly on 18 September was because I was tired of the who-you-know, what-you-know quango state. There is a danger that the great and the good will be co-opted to the Committees through the who-you-know, what-you-know process.

Accountability is the important thing for the assembly: accountability for decision making, for politics, for expenditure and for the arguments. There is no problem about an individual putting a point of view to a Committee in strong terms and giving advice as a lobbyist inside and outside the chamber and in formal presentations to any existing Committees. That would be a healthy way forward. Individuals with legitimate interests in the matters being discussed in the Committees should be able to express their views. However, there is a world of difference between that and an individual being part of the Committee. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that this Committee of the House should have co-opted members to give an experienced view on the points that we are discussing. At 8.30, we would vote having listened to their views. They may influence the argument, but that would not be democracy.

Mr. Llwyd

How can the hon. Gentleman say that having a minority of experts without voting rights co-opted on to a Committee is undemocratic? I do not follow his argument. There would be accountability, because the elected Members would vote and would ultimately make the decisions.

With respect, I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the present constitution people are co-opted in the other place. I am not a defender of the other place, despite having a colleague there, but it has some very good working peers who are there specifically because they have an expertise.

Mr. Hanson

I believe in the principle of accountability: people should have a mandate from the electorate to speak on an issue in a particular forum, and should not merely be selected by a body and accountable to a Committee. Members of a Committee should be accountable to and get their support from the people of Wales.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee will have difficulty covering the issues in the time available even if only legitimately elected, mandated representatives speak? If a Committee must take account not just of evidence that it calls, but of co-opted members who sit on it as of right, its proceedings are likely to go on for ever.

Mr. Hanson

The hon. Gentleman has a point: perhaps he has been co-opted to this Committee because of his position as the representative of the New Forest. At least he has a mandate to sit in the Chamber, so his argument is valid.

I am not against the idea of outside expertise influencing the decisions and considerations of a Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. However, Members of the Assembly should be accountable for their decisions. The Committees should not contain people who might advance the prejudiced views of people who have not been elected to the assembly. There should be a clear division such as exists in Select Committees. Those Committees can listen to outside experts and invite written submissions but, ultimately, the members of the Committees determine the agenda, the political priorities and the outcome. That is what they have been elected to do.

Occasionally there may be conflicts of interest. People could be co-opted for a four-year term at the end of which their priorities would be different from what they were at the beginning. What happens when there is a clear division between elected and co-opted members? Elected members have to be accountable for their decisions but I am sure that in my area the Daily Post would make a meal of divisions between co-opted and elected Members. There is a danger of conflict being created where it does not exist.

7.30 pm
Mr. Öpik

The answer is clear. The elected Members must have the courage of their convictions. After listening to experts they must make informed decisions. There is no democratic conflict, but perhaps elected Members who ignored the advice of experts would be required to explain more unusual decisions.

Mr. Hanson

There is always accountability. Elected members on a committee are put there by crosses on ballot papers and not by the choice of another committee—a sort of self-selecting oligarchy. Accountability is what the assembly is all about. It is certainly what I campaigned for on 18 September.

Co-opting is not a welcome practice in local government in Wales or elsewhere. Governments have not sought to encourage it and the model has not worked well in local government. The amendments seek to improve the Bill, to strengthen the democratic input to the assembly and to make it more inclusive. I fought for the assembly to end the quango state, but I fear that co-option would extend and develop the quango state. The issues that are in the amendments can be dealt with by Committees taking evidence, soundings and submissions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) raised the valid issues of disabled people and those from ethnic minorities. Those can be dealt with by presentation and sympathy and by listening to people's views. It will not necessarily be dealt with by co-opting people. In some cases, dare I say it, such a move would be seen as patronising. People who are co-opted to a Committee because are disabled or from an ethnic minority may have intrinsic gifts that could, as independents or members of political parties, enable them to play a role in a Committee.

Ms Julie Morgan

My hon. Friend makes an important point about people being patronised. It is always raised when efforts are made to be more inclusive and to have the views of minorities expressed in a committee. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but when we try to be inclusive and a bit more adventurous to make everyone in Wales feel that he has a stake in the assembly, we sometimes have to experiment and run the risk of being accused of being patronising or of not sticking strictly to a mandate. We must take such steps if we are to become more inclusive.

Mr. Hanson

I take my hon. Friend's comments on board because they are worthy of discussion. The debate has opened some bear traps and to be caught in them would not improve the process and would dilute my main reason for wanting the assembly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made a valid intervention about difficult decisions. Some decisions will be down to the elected Members who are accountable for them. Under co-option, people who do not have a mandate will be responsible for defending a difficult decision only to the people who co-opted them. People who owe their position to those who co-opted them to a committee are sometimes reluctant to speak out on difficult decisions that affect their interest group or their expertise group. Those who are outside the Committee structure can put a cogent case in evidence about why a particular stance should be adopted. Those who owe their position on a Committee to assembly patronage may temper their comments. The matter needs to be seriously considered, but on the basis of what has been said in the debate, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Jenkin

In part, the co-option that the amendments seek tries to compensate for the fact that the assembly is something of a monocameral legislature. The effort to bring in talent from outwith the political party maelstrom is not intrinsically objectionable. It is a good move and, as we contemplate parallel discussions on the future of the other place, we should keep it close to our hearts that there would be no point in having extra elected people in the Welsh assembly. The richness of political debate in the assembly could be enhanced by bringing in talent that is not imprisoned by party politics.

There is much to be said for the speech by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). We enter two caveats about the amendments. First, how far should the legislation determine the detail of the assembly's standing orders? That will be one of the themes of our comments. The Bill stipulates quite detailed arrangements but large areas will be left for determination by the assembly. How much is stuck in the Bill and how much is left to the assembly are arbitrary matters.

Secondly, if we stipulate the composition of the Committees, the concept of party balance is important. Amendment No. 396, unlike amendment No. 397, does not state that there should be party balance in the Committees. Our amendment No. 85 deletes part of Clause 52(2)(b) to exclude the possibility of even advisory Committees not having party balance. Why should we not stipulate that all Committees of the assembly should have party balance? Why does party balance become unnecessary in an advisory Committee?

All parliamentary Committees are advisory and Parliament can overturn a Committee's recommendations. All our Committees reflect party balance. Perhaps an alternative is to allow assembly Committees to operate an open-house policy similar to the one that applies to Committees that examine delegated legislation under which any hon. Member can attend and speak but may not vote. That may be one way to address the matter, but we cannot understand why subsection (2)(b) should read as it does.

Mr. Gareth Thomas

I did not expect that these amendments, touching as they do on co-option, would have generated so much controversy. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who, in his opposition to the amendments, displayed a deep knowledge of local government, which perhaps was absent from comments made by some Opposition Members.

Yes, the assembly has to be inclusive in the sense that it should reach out to all sections of opinion in Wales, but in my view, and it is shared by other Labour Members, inclusiveness should be achieved not in a formalised way, but by taking advice informally, by undertaking extensive consultation and by reaching out to people. In that sense, the amendments are unnecessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn put his finger on something significant. In their eagerness to enshrine inclusiveness within the workings of the assembly, perhaps accidentally, Opposition Members have confused the whole issue of accountability. By having co-opted members on a subject Committee, various problems arise. One has been alluded to by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). It involves the extent to which debating time could be taken over by a co-opted member. There is also a problem in relation to the influence that that particular co-opted member might have.

Although patronising comments were made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the need for Committee members to take the advice of experts in their sector, but the fact remains that co-opted experts would not be accountable. That lies at the heart of the issue and it is why I cannot endorse the amendments.

Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)

I agree with the hon. Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). I do not believe that elected and unelected members mix well. For several years, I sat on a local authority, where there were problems initially with Church members who voted on the education committee. Then their vote was taken away, but some conflict always arose between those people and those who had authority and accountability.

It is possible to be well informed, to be well briefed and to take the widest possible view and have just elected members determine policy. One has to remember that members not only serve on a committee, but have a broader responsibility to the body corporate. Sometimes, hard and difficult decisions may have to be taken. Elected members know that, at some point, they have to take those decisions. It will be easy for an unelected member to take over the show and to try to showboat somewhat, going against what might be politically necessary for the assembly.

Overall, co-option is not sensible. Taking advice from the widest possible context is great, but elected members should debate and determine policy.

Mr. Win Griffiths

We have had a constructive debate; it is good to see the official Opposition again making a constructive contribution. Clause 53 provides for the establishment of assembly Committees. It establishes the principle that the membership of each Committee should so far as possible reflect the political balance of the assembly, but that principle is not to apply where the Committee exists solely to provide advice". Amendment No. 85 seeks to delete those words, so that all Committees of the assembly, whether or not of an advisory character, would have memberships reflecting the political balance of the assembly. Amendments Nos. 395 to 398 provide for assembly Committees to have co-option powers, albeit limited to the co-option of non-voting members.

We are not persuaded that Committees that are established by the assembly to advise it on a particular matter should inevitably be established on the basis of strict party balance. We think, for example, that the assembly might want to establish specialist advisory Committees where the interests or qualifications of individual members are more important than political affiliations. An example might be in relation to child abuse: an advisory Committee of Members with particular knowledge of how such a matter has been handled might considerably assist the relevant assembly Committee in formulating its policy.

Therefore, given that these will be advisory Committees, rather than Committees with decision-making powers, we would prefer to retain the flexibility in the present wording of the subsection. If the amendment were accepted, it might be difficult on occasions to establish the right sort of advisory Committee on a specialist matter that often does not have any specific party political aspect.

7.45 pm

The issue of co-option excited much debate. There are no provisions in the Bill for co-option to take place. The availability of such powers has been the subject of criticism in relation to local government. In 1986, paragraph 5.99 of the report of the Widdecombe Committee said: We consider that the membership of decision-taking committees should be limited to councillors, and believe that this would clarify accountability … It needs to be clear, whether or not there is a vote, that the decisions of a committee is a decision of councillors alone and this can only be achieved by limiting membership of decision-taking committees to councillors. We believe that, in the interests of clear accountability, that reasoning should apply to assembly Committees, so we have not provided for co-option.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) seemed at one point to imply that the National Assembly for Wales would be so overloaded with work and Committees that one of the purposes of having co-opted members would be to take some of the load off elected members. I do not think that that is an appropriate reason to have co-opted members. What is important—my hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) expressed this view, which was supported by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms)—is that there is a better way in which to include people and to make them feel that they are part of decision making. That involves specifically inviting them to give their views, whether on an issue relating to disability or to the needs of ethnic minorities.

Whatever the subject under scrutiny might be, there is provision for the assembly and its Committees to be able to invite people. Of course, they would not be able to force those people to be there unless they were members of the bodies that are listed in schedule 4, but co-option is not the appropriate way because there would then be some blurring of accountability. If a Committee had deadlines and one or two co-opted members took a greater share of the debating time, there could be recriminations. We believe that the obvious way in which to achieve inclusion is to be able to call people as experts to Committees so that their expertise is shared. We do not deny the need for experts, but we do not believe that co-option is the way forward.

We accept everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who rightly expressed concern about the way in which people from minorities—whether an ethnic minority or people who are disabled. The assembly's Committees will have to hear those people, but we believe that the best way to do that is by inviting them to give evidence.

I hope that the Committee accepts that the Bill provides for people who are not elected, but who have expertise, to play a full part. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Llwyd

When I moved the amendment, I said that it was probing. It has been an interesting debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Forward to