HC Deb 02 February 1998 vol 305 cc795-809
Mr. Livsey

I beg to move amendment No. 12A, in page 30, leave out lines 36 and 37.

The First Deputy Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 90, in page 30, line 36, leave out from 'establish' to end of line 2 on page 31 and insert—

'five regional committees for each of the five regions of Wales. (2) The areas comprising each of the five regions shall be determined from time to time by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales.'.

No. 13A, in page 30, line 38, leave out 'also'.

No. 14A, in page 30, line 38, leave out 'other'.

No. 15A, in page 30, line 39, after 'Wales', insert ', listed in subsection (3) below,'.

No. 17A, in page 30, line 41, leave out from 'constitute' to end of line 1 on page 31 and insert 'North Wales, Mid Wales, West Wales and South East Wales'.

Mr. Livsey

These are some of the most important amendments for debate tonight. They refer to the regions of the assembly. No offence is meant to north Wales by our proposal in amendment No. 12A to leave out reference to it. Our aim, expressed in amendment No. 17A, is to have four regions of Wales—north, mid, west and south-east. We want to restructure the Regional Committees. That is necessary to ensure inclusivity throughout Wales. Every region of Wales must feel that it is included in the running of the assembly and that it has a part to play.

Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr)

The four areas that the hon. Gentleman has referred to have different populations. Would not the mid-Wales Committee be exceptionally small? It would have only Powys and Ceredigion and would be unbalanced.

Mr. Livsey

As a Member for a mid-Wales constituency, I cannot accept that view. Powys alone runs for 132 miles—equivalent to the distance from the Severn bridge to Hammersmith flyover. On top of that there is Ceredigion. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), but the Development Board for Rural Wales considers his constituency to be part of that area as well.

The population is not evenly spread throughout Wales. There has to be redress, because some areas are very rural—more rural than anywhere else in Great Britain below the highland line in Scotland. There are special needs of geography.

The Liberal Democrats want the four Regional Committees to have the right to provide the assembly with advice about their region and to take on powers delegated from the assembly. We want to remove all references to north Wales, not because we want to be unkind to north Wales but because we want to put all the regions in the Bill and have fair play for the other regions to establish an inclusive assembly.

The Bill establishes Committees for north Wales and the regions and states that they may provide advice, but it does not specify where they will be. It provides that Standing Orders will be used to determine the regions; we want to go further and specify them. Why is north Wales mentioned when none of the other regions are? We realise that it might have been felt that the people of north Wales were left out of the referendum process. We are sure that that was not the case, but there was a specific reference to reassure the people of north Wales that they would be included.

The proposals in the Bill could stigmatise the north and suggest that it is inferior to the south. Of course it is nothing of the sort, but the proposals are not good for the north and make other forgotten regions, such as mid-Wales, even more forgotten. We do not want that. That is why we want to omit the references to north Wales.

Amendment No. 90, tabled by the Conservatives, has some good points. It would remove references to north Wales and introduce five regions. We would support that, but the amendment would also remove the right of the regions to provide advice to the assembly about the area. We cannot support the amendment because of that provision.

To have real teeth, the Regional Committees should be able to have responsibilities delegated from the assembly. We want local accountability, subsidiarity and true devolution. We want to bring devolution home to the regions of Wales.

Our proposals are particularly relevant to the difference between rural issues and urban issues. How can a majority of south Wales urban Members take sensible decisions about rural affairs that affect mid-Wales and north Wales? Such debates need to be informed. Amendment No. 16A would help. It is important that Regional Committees should meet in the regions. Local matters should be considered as near as possible to the affected area.

The amendments deal with many issues. We feel strongly that the regions of Wales should be defined so that they can participate in the whole and make a worthwhile contribution to a successful Welsh assembly and the successful government of Wales. People should feel involved in the decision-making process.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

The clause goes back to the dark days of the summer, when the devolution project was doing very badly in opinion polls in the north. The White Paper made specific mention of north Wales only. It was a clear plug to keep the doubting north Wales voter on side and an acknowledgement that the project was not going well in the north. The referendum result showed that the Government were right. Only Gwynedd and Anglesey voted for devolution.

I live on the border and have relations near Wrexham. My experience is that those real doubts still exist. There is real concern in the north that the assembly will be dominated by the south. [Interruption.] Would the Secretary of State like to intervene? No. In the markets of Oswestry and Wrexham, there is no demand for a switch of governmental powers from Westminster to the south of Wales. That is a fact and it is acknowledged by the Secretary of State, whose razor-sharp mind is now being applied to the drafting of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has time and again proved how badly the Bill has been drafted. That may be because the Secretary of State has been distracted. He has had to put out a bush fire in his constituency party concerning the manner in which the referendum was conducted. He has also been scouring estate agents' windows in south Wales for a suitable site for the assembly.

It is the job of us in opposition, stuck in the trenches, to try to come up with a Bill that will work. The relic of the White Paper in clause 62 cannot be left as it is. It is woolly, vague and typical of the general muddle of the Bill. Amendment No. 90 clearly states that there should be five regions. These would be roughly equal in size of electorate to the European constituencies, which vary from 17.9 per cent. of the Welsh electorate to about 21.6 per cent.

I hope that that will satisfy the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), who rightly criticised the Liberal Democrats' amendment—No. 17A—which proposes four uneven regions. The regions that we propose would also give some framework to the additional Members, who are bouncing around without any clear framework in which to work.

Mr. Llwyd

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paterson

I would be delighted to.

Mr. Liwyd

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted when I have finished my intervention.

Is the hon. Gentleman honestly suggesting that a Committee should cover an area the size of the Wales Mid and West European constituency—from Eglwysbach, which is three miles from Llandudno, to Llanelli on the south Wales coast? Is he seriously telling the Committee that that is an adequate boundary?

Mr. Paterson

That is exactly the boundary that will be used for the election of regional list Members, which I understand the hon. Gentleman's party supports.

We should return to the ordinary Welsh voter who has a problem and wants it solved. The Secretary of State and I have discussed the matter in the Welsh Affairs Committee, but not to my satisfaction. Let us consider a project that could involve substantial inward investment—possibly from a European business—but could cause potential long-term environmental problems.

Does the voter go to his district councillor; does he go to his directly elected assembly man; does he go to the party hack—the additional Member—who is elected on the proportional list; does he go to his Member of Parliament, who will not be overtaxed by work once the assembly is set up; does he go to his Member of the European Parliament; or does he go to the great panjandrum himself, the Secretary of State, who will also be short of things to do once the assembly is set up? It is not clear. The rules have not been laid down. I particularly dislike the Liberal Democrat amendment, which adds yet more confusion to the muddle by proposing four areas, as opposed to the five that we propose.

The ordinary voter has to pay the bill, yet there is not a hint of what the Regional Committees will cost. There is not a whiff of how they will operate. The matter is left to the Standing Orders. I would like some information from the Minister—otherwise, the proposals are a pig in a poke. We want the Regional Committees to work, but we would like to be able to tell the people of Wales what they will cost and how they will work. In the meantime, the Bill would be immeasurably improved if the House accepted our amendment No. 90.

8.45 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths

I warmly welcome the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and congratulate him on his sojourn on the Front Bench. I do not know whether it is intended that another barrel be added to the gun that has been firing intermittently from the Ribble Valley. We shall have to see whether North Shropshire can meet the firepower requirements, which so far have not served the Opposition Benches well. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not get off to quite the start that I expected, given the confusion he showed while speaking to amendment No. 90 and commenting on those tabled by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey).

Clause 62 requires the assembly to establish Regional Committees of an advisory character for all parts of Wales, but specifically one for north Wales. North Wales was specifically highlighted because concerns were identified from the start that north Wales felt isolated from Wales as a whole. In order to show that the Government were determined that north Wales would be an integral and full player in the National Assembly for Wales, we specifically suggested a North Wales Committee. There will be Regional Committees in other parts of Wales. We have left the advisory group to suggest the configuration which would make most sense politically, economically and socially.

Mr. Paterson

The Minister has not addressed the problem that people in north Wales are worried that the assembly will be weighted towards south Wales. If we leave the division of the Regional Committee areas to the assembly, south Wales will have the final say. That is the concern in north Wales.

Mr. Griffiths

I fail to see how the configuration of two, three or four Regional Committees in the rest of Wales can have any significant bearing on the role of an Advisory Committee in north Wales. We identified specifically a part of Wales which should be most definitely recognised as a region with an Advisory Committee of its own. For the rest of Wales, where the matter was not so clear, we felt that it would be best to consult on the boundaries.

Amendment No. 90 suggests that we should use the European constituency boundaries, which have a political role given the election of people on the additional Member list. We do not see any necessity to be constrained by that political situation when trying to make sense of the economic and social needs of Wales. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out that to use the European constituency of Wales Mid and West would create a regional advisory Committee for almost all of west Wales—from north to south.

Mr. Gareth Thomas

Does my hon. Friend accept that the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) display an ignorance that is extraordinary even for somebody who purports to be the nearest thing the Conservative party has to a Welsh Tory?

Mr. Griffiths

That is a burden the hon. Member for North Shropshire has to bear. He is obviously cracking up under the strain.

All the north Wales Members of Parliament campaigned for the National Assembly and they clearly felt that there was a positive aspect to having a Regional Committee for north Wales.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan

Recalling the debate on the Floor of the House on the boundary commission report that led to the creation of the five current Euro-constituencies, on which the most recent Euro-elections, in 1994, were fought, can my hon. Friend confirm that, whereas coherence is a desideratum in boundary commission reports, it is only a secondary desideratum to trying to achieve an equal population in each region, whereas, in any committee structure that we devise, coherence must come first and population equality would be only a subsidiary consideration?

Mr. Griffiths

I can confirm that my hon. Friend is correct on that point. The report resulted in much heart-searching in political parties in Wales about how best to configure the Euro-constituencies, bearing in mind the population requirements and the fact that, perhaps for other reasons, the boundaries that were chosen were not ideal. The advisory group will consider what the best configuration of regional advisory Committee boundaries in Wales will be.

We need to bear in mind—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy did not mention it this time, but he has in the past—the local debate that is going on about the way in which his constituency and local authority area should be located for these purposes.

The advisory group will be able to consider these issues, take advice from around Wales and come up with a proposal that can be debated more widely. Eventually, the commission that is established will be able to make formal proposals to the assembly. I think it is best for us to await its conclusions.

Mr. Llwyd

The Minister mentioned my constituency. Can he confirm that the commission will not be bound solely by counting the population in each area, which would do a disservice to the process? As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) just said, in some areas, due to geographical factors, life is quite difficult and different from that in, for example, a valley area. I hope that the commission will have the widest possible remit to allow it to come up with the best possible answer.

Mr. Griffiths

Yes, it will have a wide remit. We would not want to make population a primary consideration, but obviously that can be considered alongside all the other issues that can make most sense out of where the boundaries of the Regional Committees should be.

I hope that the amendments—with the agreement of the Committee—can be withdrawn. Let us see what conclusions the advisory group reaches; then we can debate on them.

Mr. Livsey

I think that the Minister should know that, in parts of Wales, there is extremely strong feeling on the subject of Regional Committees. I understand that he is saying that the advisory group will devote time and effort to try to define the regions more satisfactorily than, for example, the Euro-constituencies are now defined.

I would not have welcomed the idea of the five regions in amendment No. 90 if I had known that that meant the Euro-constituencies because, as has been said, the Wales Mid and West Euro-constituency has an extraordinary geography. It stretches from one end of Wales to the other, encompassing not only the western seaboard but mid-Wales and the eastern boundary with England. I know not how we got it, but it covers a vast area of Wales.

Especially among the agriculture community, given recent events, people are aware of the benefits of a Welsh assembly. They believe that, if the Regional Committees of the assembly represent an area that means something to them, the assembly may have the germs of some of the solutions that are needed to tackle the huge economic problems of the agriculture community. They believe that, in those circumstances, the assembly may ensure the maintenance of the structure of farms and the farming community and that resources to the agriculture community will not be reduced if there is a transfer of resources from production support to environmental schemes, for example. People want those matters to be debated in the Welsh assembly.

People in some parts of Wales also want the Regional Committees of a Welsh assembly to allay the fears that a south Wales-based assembly would take away some decision-making powers from them; their fear that they cannot contribute adequately to the efficient and effective running of their region within Wales; and their fear that they cannot contribute as well as they might to the running of a Welsh assembly. The assembly must be a sensitive body because of the great variety of regions in Wales, it is very important that people feel included in the process.

I believe that people will be persuaded that they are included in the process if they are given genuinely meaningful Regional Committees within the assembly and if those Committees can take decisions in the region instead of in the assembly building, far away. They need to be connected to the assembly. We believe that to be extremely important and I believe that I would let down people in some parts of Wales if I did not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Livsey

I beg to move amendment No. 16A, in page 30, line 40, after 'region', insert 'and carry out any of the functions which the Assembly has delegated to the regional committees following a majority vote of Assembly members.'.

The First Deputy Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 67, in page 31, line 14, at end insert— '(7) Each regional committee shall hold regular meetings at a location in the region which the committee represents.'.

Mr. Livsey

Amendment No. 16A is the amendment that refers to the meetings of the Regional Committees within the regions of the assembly. I made that point—I beg your pardon, Mr. Martin—in my summing-up just now, and I should have made it as a separate proposal that meetings take place in a region.

Mr. Win Griffiths

We have debated clause 62, providing for the establishment of Regional Committees in all parts of Wales, and it might be said that amendments Nos. 16A and 67 try to provide a little icing on the cake.

Amendment No. 67, the principle of which we have no problem with, is unnecessary. Again, I ask the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) to imagine the members of the Regional Committee not opting to hold regular Committee meetings in their region. Of course, there may be times when they will want to hold a meeting at the assembly building, whether it is in Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham, Abercynon, or even Bridgend. I believe that Bridgend has proposed five sites. There are plenty of places where the assembly may meet, and the Regional Committees of the assembly may, because of pressing and urgent business, want to hold a meeting there from time to time. However, we believe that the Regional Committees will want to meet in their regions, and that there is no need to specify that in the Bill.

Amendment No. 16A provides for Regional Committees to have executive functions. That clearly goes beyond the advisory and representational responsibilities that we envisage for those bodies and which were envisaged in the White Paper. Local government will have its own functions and decision making at the local level. The National Assembly for Wales is a strategic body looking at the whole of Wales. The Regional Committees are designed to enable the regions to feed back specific advice to the Welsh assembly when it makes its decisions.

We invite the Committee to reject amendment No. 16A, because it goes beyond what was envisaged in the White Paper, and to reject amendment No. 67, because we believe that all the Regional Committees will want to meet regularly in their regions anyway, so there is no need to specify that in the Bill.

9 pm

Mr. Livsey

We thought that the functions of the Committees should be stronger in the regions. The Minister dealt with that in his response. Perhaps there should have been more emphasis on the matter in the Bill, but I accept what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigley

I beg to move amendment No. 400, in page 30, line 40, at end insert— '(2A) A committee established under this section may nominate persons for membership of any non—departmental public body mentioned in Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 and of which the responsibilities lie wholly or partly within the geographical area covered by the committee.'. We are somewhat concerned about the role of the regional dimension in Wales. If we are to fill what is perceived as a partial vacuum in regional terms, we believe that assembly Members should have a specific, constructive and reasonably full job to do in their regions, as well as in Wales as a whole.

The rationale behind the establishment of the assembly comes in part from the problem of dealing with the quangos. We heard about that in earlier debates today. That is undoubtedly an important aspect of the role that the people of Wales see for the assembly. Some quangos can be abolished entirely, as is the case with Tai Cymru if it is to be subsumed into the assembly. Others, such as the Arts Council, may remain at arm's length.

There remains the question of how we are to deal with the lack of democracy in some of the regional quangos. That does not seem to be addressed in the Bill as drafted. Let us consider, for example, the health service in Wales and the health trusts. Either we should move forward, as we would like, to make the health service fully democratically answerable within its area, but that lies way beyond the scope of the Bill; or at the very least, there ought to be a specific attempt to ensure some democratic input into the health service, not just on the all-Wales level, but in bodies such as the North Wales health authority and health authorities for other parts of Wales, if they are to continue to exist.

A few months ago, in the autumn, I attended a public meeting that takes place once a year of the community health trust in my area. There were eight members of the trust, four with specialist knowledge from the health service, and four lay people who had been made quango members of the trust. I am certain that the vast majority of my constituents had not the remotest clue who those members were. I have no doubt that the trust members were doing an honourable job according to their lights, and that they were asking questions at the appropriate time, but there was no direct access from the electorate to the members of the trust. The electorate could get at officers, of course, but not at people who were supposed to be there as the long stop on behalf of the public.

Given that in north-west Wales there will be four assembly Members,it seemed Obvious that if those four slots were available,they could go to their elected assembly Member And take up matters that could be followed through in the meeting of the trust. Equally,one could appoint Members to the health authority for the whole of north Wales.

I realise that Minister have considered the matter and decided that there may be some difficulty with regard to the health authority being answerable to the assembly centrally. I recognise that answerability, but there is also a day-to-day answerability for the detailed functions in the area itself—the sort of problems that we encounter in our constituency surgeries, such as difficulties in getting a booking for time in the hospital, or difficulties with the services provided by a trust. Those could be answered on a local level, with no need to go to the all-Wales level.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan

I want to be sure that I understand the construction that I should put on the wording of the amendment. Is the right hon. Gentleman in effect saying that the Regional Committee of elected Members shall form the non-executive directors of the trust or the health authority, or is he saying that they shall offer people for nomination whom they know well and who can therefore be seen to be indirectly accountable to them? There is a crucial difference between the two.

Mr. Wigley

We had explored the possibility of the Committee taking over that role, but that would entail a major change to primary health legislation. I can see arguments for that, but, if we are going that far, we should democratise the entire structure of health care in a different way from that for which the Bill provides.

Our idea was that nominations should come from among elected Members. I realise that there may be a deficiency in the wording of the amendment in that respect. The present nomination process is rather vague. I do not know how it will continue, once the assembly has come into existence. The regional body should be responsible for that, and the elected Members should go through to provide at least some elected link to public bodies.

The proposal may not be necessary or appropriate for many of the bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4. They may not have a dimension into which elected Members would easily fit. Nevertheless, some of those bodies do operate on a regional basis in Wales; one thinks of the Welsh Development Agency—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones

Or the TECs.

Mr. Wigley

Yes, although they are not listed in the schedules. Perhaps the Bill could be amended later to include them. In any case, there must be better accountability at the regional level, as well as better democracy for the whole of Wales.

The Minister may reply to the debate by saying that the power we seek already exists. If so, well and good. If, however, the Minister says that this is not regarded as a suitable job for the regional bodies set up under the assembly, how will some democratic legitimacy be achieved?

Mr. Win Griffiths

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), I am still not quite sure whether the amendment is intended to enable members of the Regional Committees to nominate representatives from among themselves to health authorities, trusts and other regional quangos; or whether it is intended that they should nominate other people who they feel are particularly suited to the jobs.

Mr. Wigley

The amendment is intended to cover a range of circumstances under schedules 3 and 4.

We certainly hoped for nominations to the health trusts and TECs from among the elected regional Members themselves. Schedules 3 and 4, however, contain quite a mixture of bodies on which there may be a slot for only one person with specialist knowledge from a particular region of Wales to serve as a member—possibly a United Kingdom body. Some semblance of answerability to an elected regional body would, in our view, produce better democratic links.

The purpose of the amendment was to allow elected Members of the regional body to take over at least some responsibility and to be a conduit for public accountability on those bodies. The regional bodies could put forward the names of specialists to serve on some of the specialist bodies listed in schedules 3 and 4. Therefore, the amendment covers both options.

Perhaps the Government have a different vision of how the plethora of quangos in schedules 3 and 4 can be more responsive to the regions. If so, I shall be glad to hear about it. I hope that the amendment may tease out of the Government how they see things developing.

Dr. Marek

I would advise the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to be cautious. We should try to avoid amendments that would make the Bill even more detailed or intricate, thus trammelling the assembly even more. I should prefer a Bill more along the lines of the Scotland Bill, with its permissive powers. That is not what we have; we have another style of Bill. As it is, we are creating a fairly tight-fitting corset for the assembly, and it would be wrong to make it any tighter—

Mr. Wigley

I, too, would prefer the broad-brush approach of the Scotland Bill, but the wording in the amendment is "may nominate". There is no specific responsibility to do so. We are trying to remove an uncertainty that would otherwise exist.

Dr. Marek

I accept that. Secondly, we do not want the assembly—perish the thought—to be a local council, in which one councillor says, "I don't want you interfering in the planning decision on my agricultural bungalow; and in return, I won't mess with your patch." We must not allow that to happen. If we allow Regional Committees to decide these issues, we may descend—this is the danger—into a glorified county council.

This will be the National Assembly for Wales. Decisions must be taken by the assembly. A possible halfway house would allow the Regional Committees to suggest names and the assembly to nominate on the advice of the Regional Committees. I would not object to that, but ultimately the appointments must be for the assembly.

Mr. Win Griffiths

I am pleased that we have had a short debate on the amendment. When it began, I thought that I knew what the purpose of the amendment was, but, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke, I began to entertain one or two doubts.

The amendment would give the Regional Committees nomination rights in respect of public appointments to quangos. I had thought that the amendment's intention—the right hon. Gentleman agreed that it could be so understood—was to give the Regional Committee the right to nominate people to serve on the quangos listed in schedules 3 and 4 and on regional or local quangos, such as health authorities and trusts. In that context, the amendment is unnecessary. Anyone can nominate a person for a non-departmental public body in Wales. The post may be advertised, and there is a proper procedure to ensure that the people with the best experience and qualifications are appointed. The Regional Committee will be able to nominate people who, although not elected Members of the assembly, are felt to be particularly suitable either as representatives of north Wales on quangos that operate solely within north Wales, or as the voice of north Wales on a national quango. That will happen without the amendment.

9.15 pm

I come to the idea that members of the Regional Committee could decide that, to increase democratic accountability, one of their number should serve on a quango. For example, someone who had previously worked as a GP in the health service might be thought suitable to be a member of a trust or health authority. Unfortunately, those non-executive directorships will be regarded—according to the rules that also currently apply to Members of this House—as offices of profit under the Crown, and such people will not be eligible to serve on the health authority or trust.

The issue is being reviewed in the context of the National Assembly for Wales. We are still considering disqualification and the posts for which elected Members of the assembly may be eligible. Given that, and because, under current legislation, Members of the Assembly will be disqualified from being members of health authorities and trusts anyway, I hope that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wigley

I shall respond briefly. I was intrigued by the way in which the mists of incomprehension surrounded the amendment when I spoke earlier. I hope that I do not always have that effect.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Obviously, I accept that anyone can make a nomination under the procedures, but the intention of the amendment was to go further. I noted that the Minister said that elected Members of the Assembly would not be able to serve on such bodies unless disqualification rules were changed. He said that the Government were considering that, and I hope that the change can be made, so that flexibility can be built into the procedures. In one way or another, quangos need to have greater local accountability.

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was worried that Members of the Assembly would become involved in local government matters. That is the last thing that I want. There may be a way in which some of those bodies can be democratised through local government, but that is not proposed in the Bill. As I understand it, the regional quangos will remain after the assembly is up and running; the Bill contains nothing to democratise them.

Mr. Win Griffiths

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the health trusts are currently being re-examined and there are likely to be fewer when that process is completed. He must recognise also that the creation of a National Assembly, with far greater scope to scrutinise the quangos that exist in Wales, will herald a new era of democratic accountability.

Mr. Wigley

I accept that entirely on an all-Wales level. I hope that many quangos will be abolished and I hope that there will be much better scrutiny of those quangos that remain, as well as better accountability on an all-Wales level. I do not dispute that point.

However, my question relates to regional Wales. The trusts are being reviewed at the moment, but unless the Minister foresees an all-Wales acute trust and an all-Wales community trust—heaven forbid, that would be centralisation rather than decentralisation—there will be some regional bodies. There may be a different configuration, but regional bodies will continue to exist in Wales. As far as I know, the brief given to the health authorities undertaking the review does not include the question of how they may be made more democratically accountable.

We have a solution on the all-Wales level, and no doubt there will be a role for local authorities at the local level. However, on the regional level—which the Bill recognises the necessity of addressing by creating regional bodies in Wales comprising elected assembly members—the legislation is afraid to allow elected Members to be involved in creating a democratic mechanism for regional quangos.

Mr. Win Griffiths

I said earlier that we were still examining issues relating to disqualification that currently prevent Members of the Assembly from playing any role whatsoever. We accept that there is a need to strengthen democratic accountability. That may be achieved by moving from the position whereby the Welsh Office, with the Secretary of State and two Ministers, has responsibility for all those matters, to the point where a democratically elected 60-Member assembly assumes that responsibility. That will enable the assembly to scrutinise those bodies more closely. I suggest also that Regional Committees will be able to examine what is happening in their regions and make recommendations and provide advice upon which the National Assembly may act appropriately.

Mr. Wigley

We are now starting to tease out some of the responses that I had hoped for. In other words, the Minister is beginning to understand our assertion that elected assembly Members can play a legitimate role regionally in order to keep an eye on regional quangos.

The Minister said that the Government are still considering how the process will work and are willing to contemplate changing the disqualification rules to allow freedom of action. In that way, the assembly may be able to move down the road in a manner that it deems to be appropriate. I want to ensure that that course of action is not ruled out. We must consider the legitimate question of regional democracy in Wales. Members of the Assembly may be able to contribute to improving answerability and scrutiny of regional quangos. That point has been made. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ancram

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak during the stand part debate because clause 62 goes much wider than the amendments that we have discussed so far. Indeed, the clause is central to the success of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) moved an amendment regarding the number of regions, and I congratulate him on his maiden voyage from the Opposition Front Bench. I assure him that it is a compliment to be savaged by the Minister—the only person I know who can waffle while reading an official brief.

In all seriousness, we are unhappy with the clause as it stands and with Regional Committees as they are proposed. We made that clear in the aftermath of the referendum and implied it in our reasoned amendment. The problem must be addressed if we are not to create yet another democratic deficit that, in the long term, could undermine the success of the assembly.

The Minister said that the proposal for north Wales was to make the Committees full players. I am not sure what definition he gives to "players". The clause merely creates Advisory Committees, which are hardly players in other than the most remote sense. We are faced with a sop to the real concerns expressed by the people of Wales in the divided result of the referendum vote.

The Regional Committees will be unable to initiate anything. They will have no ability to oppose or veto anything and they will have no Executive authority. Under any definition of talking shops, those Regional Committees would be included. Only the directly elected Members in the region are guaranteed a place on them. The rest will be elected by the assembly, so the geographical or numerical majority in the assembly could effectively dictate who else gets on the Regional Committees. If there are no directly elected Members for any parties in Wales, it could be decided that those parties could have no representation on the Committees. That is the dangerous power that the clause will create.

There is no protection against permanent geographical discrimination. The clause is purely cosmetic. It creates a democratic deficit that, if not addressed, will cause problems. I regret that my amendment No. 300 was so technically deficient that it could not be selected for debate. That was entirely my fault. I shall try to adjust it so that it can be retabled on Report, when I hope that it may be selected. The amendment covers one of the areas that we have been discussing—our desire to see a representative of each of the Regional Committees on the Executive Committee as a full member who has been mandated by his or her regional peers to represent the interests of the regions in the centre of what will be the decision-making process.

I know that this will be somewhat uncomfortable for those who see the proposed Executive Committee as a cosy arrangement. However, in terms of giving a real voice to the regions of Wales, I think that we are making an important suggestion, and I hope that we can return to it. It would give a greater power to the Regional Committees than just the responsibility of providing advice.

On the day after the referendum, the Prime Minister said in Downing street that the Government would take on board the fears expressed in the vote. There is no doubt that that vote was regionalised. A Labour Member said earlier in our consideration of the Bill, rather significantly, that the effect of the vote had been to move Offa's dyke westward. Against that background, we looked for change in the clause as against the White Paper, to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise that some means would be produced of addressing the fears that had been expressed in the referendum vote. However, there is nothing new to be found in the clause. Indeed, there is nothing in the clause that can offer any comfort.

We feel that there should be greater regional protection even than that which would be achieved by putting a member of each Regional Committee on to the Executive Committee. I should like to see regional powers of veto over certain decisions where demographic and geographic majorities can hold a perpetual sway in the absence of such a veto. We shall seek to introduce such a veto and such a power in a new clause, if it is selected.

In the absence of any of the arrangements that I have outlined, the clause represents a deceit on the people of Wales. It promises much, but in practice it will achieve almost nothing. The issue is central to all that we have been saying since the referendum. It is a matter to which we shall wish to return both in the House of Commons and, if necessary, in another place.

Mr. Livsey

I cannot agree with much that was said by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Many of his remarks were divisive. None the less, I am sure that the Minister will take on board the concerns that have been expressed about the importance of the regions within Wales. I am sure also that he and the Secretary of State will ensure that the Advisory Committee that is considering those matters will take the concerns on board and produce something meaningful within the regions of Wales so that true devolution can take place.

Mr. Win Griffiths

I should not have been surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who poured scorn on the idea of the Government accepting advice, just as the Conservative Government regularly scorned advice, with the result that there were disasters such as the poll tax. The point about the Regional Committees and their advisory role is that we believe in listening to people and in being able to accept advice when it is well targeted. We have made provision in clause 62 for Advisory Committees because we believe that, on balance, we shall get good advice from them. I can understand why a Conservative might regard the role of an Advisory Committee as deceiving the people in Wales, because in a Tory context it would. The Tory Government never listened to the advice that they were given. That is the only context in which the right hon. Gentleman's words can have any meaning.

9.30 pm
Mr. Ancram

I am sure that the Minister will define what he means by a "real player"—the words that he used earlier about the northern Regional Committee. He obviously listens to advice, but how many amendments has he accepted during the passage of the Bill—not just from me, because I understand that he probably does not want to accept amendments from me, but from his right hon. and hon. Friends, and from other hon. Members? From that, we shall learn whether he takes advice.

Mr. Griffiths

It is most apt that the right hon. Gentleman should have made those remarks this evening, when, in earlier debates, we have said that we want to listen. I pointed out that he had made constructive comments in the debate on amendments and that we wanted to examine ways in which we could, perhaps, take on board some of those ideas. I am quite sure that, at the end of the Committee's proceedings, we shall have accepted a number of amendments, or the ideas contained in them.

We believe that the Regional Committees will give Members of the Assembly the opportunity to focus on their areas and to give advice to the assembly to develop national strategies in Wales that take account of regional sensibilities. I know that taking account of sensibilities was not a strong point of the Conservatives when in government. I am afraid that I cannot scorn the concept of receiving advice in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government did when in office. I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to be added to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to