Lords Sitting of 6 June 1978

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN AREAS
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to utilise for residential development, waste land and derelict houses in urban areas, some of which have remained vacant since war-time bombing; and what is the total acreage involved.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's initiatives are aimed primarily at the inner city partnership areas where the problem is most serious. Each partnership is conducting a general review of its land problems. The nationalised industries are currently carrying out surveys of their land holdings to determine which sites could be either released for development or put to temporary use. It is, however, for the partnership authorities to decide the appropriate uses for sites, and not all sites are suitable for residential use. The recent extension of derelict land clearance areas to the West Midlands and London docklands will also help to tackle the problem of waste land, as indeed will the Inner Urban Areas Bill. A figure for total acreage is not available.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether the Government are aware that some 40,000 to 50,000 acres of land are required each
1060
year for housing? Would it not be far better to try to utilise first the many areas now existing that are either derelict or are serving no useful purpose, rather than continually to expand, encroaching upon good agricultural land, or to enlarge country villages to the extent that the character of them is diminished?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there really is no simple, uniform solution to this. Local authorities have been asked to look very carefully at each vacant site to determine whether it can be brought into housing use within the planning framework. So far as agricultural land is concerned, again it varies from place to place. There are farmers who wish to sell some of their land for development purposes.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while I endorse the plea of the noble Viscount for a minimisation of the use of agricultural land, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that, in some of the derelict areas, like the mining areas and salt mining areas, an injudicious use of derelict land might lead the local authorities into greater expense, as has occurred already in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, where modern buildings have been put on mining subsidence land and have cost the ratepayer many thousands of pounds more than if no buildings had been put there at all?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, this is perfectly true. This is why I have stressed that there is no single, uniform solution. In addition we have to look at the need to improve access to existing stocks. There is still room for improvement in the repair and rehabilitation of dilapidated dwellings, which, if properly treated, could provide lasting homes. There is a whole range of options which have to be taken up, and not just one or another.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, among the range of options, have the Government considered the necessity to make it incumbent upon local authorities and statutory bodies to declare annually the amounts of derelict, despoiled and otherwise unused land available for housing and other purposes?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to a registry of land, my

1061
right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in reply to a Question on 10th May, said that he did not intend at the present time to compel local authorities to publish registers. He went on to say:
"My immediate aim is to concentrate efforts to identify and secure early development of unused land in those areas where the problem of derelict and waste land is most serious".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/78; col. 1158.]
Quite frankly, we are more concerned that the land should be located and put to constructive use, rather than that local authorities should spend their time and money making lists which may not be very useful at the end of the day.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that in times of financial stringency dual carriageway schemes will use up extra agricultural land because the authorities cannot afford to straighten out the old wiggly bits? This may sound a slightly flippant remark. But is not the noble Baroness also aware that the Rothschild report, the Think Tank, pointed out that we were using 75,000 acres of good agricultural land each year? That land, which could be used for the benefit of feeding our people, is permanently lost.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that I have already covered that point. Without developing the debate into one on transport, may I say that transport is also part of the infrastructure which has to be considered in trying to make good use, residential and industrial use, of waste land. It is really not as simple as the noble Earl has indicated.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that local authorities go into this business very considerably in pre-acquisition, where sites such as my noble friend was asking about are very carefully considered? Is she aware that the history of the sites, what lies around them and particularly under them, is carefully examined before purchase. I ask this question because I was involved in such work myself when I was working in County Hall.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his intervention, which is a great help.

TERRORISM AND HIJACKING
2.44 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the steps which have been taken in conjunction with other nations to combat the growing dangers of terrorism and of hijacking.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Government are playing a full part with our partners in the European Community, in the United Nations and in other international organisations in improving the means to put an end to all forms of terrorism, including the hijacking of aircraft.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is not my noble friend thoroughly upset about the present situation in view of what has happened in places like Italy and more recently, for example, in Jerusalem, where the PLO, which is one of the arch criminals in this connection, is boasting about the fact that it is blowing up passenger-carrying buses? Is he satisfied that we are taking all the necessary steps? Furthermore, as regards hijacking, is it not essential, in view of what happened at Orly Airport some little time ago, that the Montreal Convention should be strengthened to cover people who are travelling as passengers or crew towards an airport or towards the place where they have to embark an aircraft so that they also will come within the terms of the Convention itself?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said about the inclusion within the intentions of the Convention of the steps which he has described. As to his expression of concern about the situation, we all share that. As regards the steps we are taking, we are taking all the possible steps that we can in association with our partners in the EEC and, indeed, through-out the world—through the United Nations and other organisations, including the ICAO—to secure the worldwide

1063
ratification and implementation of The Hague, Montreal and Tokyo Conventions, which between them would go a very long way to deal with the incidence of terrorism in all its forms. As regards the further steps which we are taking, we have instructed our embassies in every part of the world to talk to the Governments to which they are accredited with a view to the fullest possible implementation of the recommendations of British Airways as to safety in the airports of those countries.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister agree that international conventions and national legislation are quite useless unless the police forces are strengthened in our democratic countries and given support both by the Government and by the people?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is, of course, not the first time that the noble Baroness has inserted the question of the treatment of the police force of this country into somewhat recondite questions. She and her Party have not a monopoly of concern for the future of the police force of the United Kingdom. She can rest assured that this Government will deal honestly and fairly with the police force as with all other sections of the community.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, in answer to the previous question and the criticism of this Government, will my noble friend mention the actions of the previous Government in the case of the well-known terrorist, Leila Khaled?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take what my noble friend has said as a supplementary answer to the noble Baroness.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, will the Minister say whether any progress has been made as regards a question that has been raised here before; namely, that the national airlines of countries that harbour hijackers should be prevented from landing at airports of democratic countries? In other words, would he not agree that it is not very popular with the majority of people in this country
1064
that Libyan Airlines should have a brand new airline office in Piccadilly, as Libya harbours terrorists?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that I am speaking for the entire House and most people throughout the country when I say that there is considerable sympathy with the view which the noble Earl has expressed. There are, however, very real difficulties. Anything which smacks of unilateral sanctions raises more problems than it seeks to solve. I shall not address myself at this moment to the specific case and the specific country to which the noble Earl has referred. However, I assure him that the point he made in the first part of his supplementary question continues to have our very serious consideration.
Lord HARVEY of PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the Minister say when the Government last had discussions with the British Airline Pilots' Association? Have its views been taken fully into account as regards this difficult problem?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as regards the second part of the noble Lord's very informed question, I assure him that we are in constant consultation with the airline pilots' organisation, especially regarding the steps which it is proposed should be taken for presumed security on aircraft. It has its expert views to which we have deferred. I need only refer to the suggestion, which has its superficial sanction, that personnel should be armed. The noble Lord will know that there are very grave difficulties and dangers attending on that matter. As to when we last had formal discussions with the Association, I could not answer. I think that we have very frequent discussions. I shall endeavour to let the noble Lord know when last we had an inclusive discussion with the Association.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider it in order, and helpful, if I suggested that perhaps in some suitable way the Government could insert the latest figures of ratifications of the Conventions in our record?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, indeed. Among other things, my noble friend has experience of the

1065
technique of the Question for Written Answer. I invite him now to put down a Question for Written Answer which will elicit precisely and fully that information.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating the anxiety and concern of my noble friend and all Members of this House and, indeed, all civilised people about this matter, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the PLO, which is one of the main international bodies for the purpose of creating terrorism throughout the world, has actually been given observer status at the ICAO? Will he ensure that this serious position is remedied in so far as he can help?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the reasons why the ICAO—which is a body of international reputation and neutralism —saw fit to do what my noble friend suggests. As to the role of the PLO, of course it is a matter for consideration precisely what activity of the PLO or its satellites comes within this Question. I take his point about the ICAO. I shall seek to elicit the information that he needs.

UN LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE: CONCLUSIONS
3.52 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the seventh session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, final conclusions must await the concluding stages of the Conference. The negotiations in the seventh session concentrated mainly on aspects of deep seabed mining, vessel pollution and access to fisheries for States with limited fishing zones or none. We shall seek improvements to the negotiating texts on these and other matters of specific concern to the United Kingdom when the negotiations continue in August.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, although welcoming the progress towards agreement regarding tanker oil pollution, may I ask the Minister to say whether there has been any progress towards solving the claims of the land-locked countries, apart from the derisory concession of a share in unused fish? Also, has any progress been made in the control of seabed mining by multi-national companies rather than by the international authority?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have naturally come together at various stages of the Conference to press their claims to the right of transit to the sea for goods originating from or bound for land-locked States, the right to be regarded as having a special interest in the international seabed régime and also the right to share in the exploitation of the living resources of neighbouring States' exclusive economic zones.
On the question of transit and the question of their interests in the international seabed régime, I think that we can say that these two points have been broadly settled at this and earlier sittings of the conference. Access to the living resources of the economic zones of neighbouring States, however, is a slightly different and very much more difficult question. This has been discussed at length in the seventh session, but so far no agreement has been achieved. So my noble friend may feel that two-thirds of his objectives have been or are on the way to being achieved.
As to what he said about multinational companies, we are, of course, concerned that the international zone of the high seas should be properly exploited by a balance of initiative from private companies, public corporations, including State trading corporations, and also the international enterprise which is proposed. There will probably be a parallel procedure on this: a one-for-one division of the ocean as between national or private interests and the international enterprise. I should imagine that the role of the multinational companies would be subsumed in that of the private company interest. I see no danger from proceeding in this way; indeed, there is a good deal to be said for the parallel movement forward

1067
whereby private initiative and public purpose are united in the exploitation of the deep seabed.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, has the noble Lord been informed by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, that during his absence we gave a Third Reading to the Tuvalu Bill, the territories of which extend for 360 miles—an axis about which they propose to throw a 200-mile limit—while their dry land area extends to only 10 square miles? As we have recently learned in Africa, that natural resources are a magnet for very considerable trouble, what thought will Her Majesty's Government give to preserve this sort of area from becoming the next cockpit of war?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are well aware of the point which the noble Lord has so properly made, especially in relation to developing countries, and he has given a very good example of this. Subject to the decisions of the UNLOSC, our view is that a limit of 200 miles would be reasonable for international acceptance. However, a number of countries —I shall not specify them—including developing countries, have already asserted or propose to assert a somewhat longer limit for their economic claims in the ocean. We shall seek to support the principle of the norm of 200 miles, which is reasonable, but will address ourselves to specific questions, problems and needs in various parts of the world. Without going much further than that at the moment, I think that the noble Lord will agree with me that, on the basis of a generally accepted 200-mile limit, it may be possible to vary the provisions of such a norm favourably to underdeveloped countries.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, do the Government think that the text, as it is coming along in UNLOSC, will give the Government sufficient power to enforce in our own offshore waters regulations and conventions which have already been internationally agreed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that we should
1068
proceed to the next Question. I detect that noble Lords have had an interesting discussion.

RHODESIA: AFRICAN ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
2.59 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider offering to the Executive Council of Rhodesia a team of experts to help with the registration of approximately 3 million Africans in order that a General Election can fake place at the end of 1978 as proposed.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, such assistance might be appropriate following a transfer of power to a transitional Administration which had earlier been established under the Anglo-United States proposals or was other-wise impartial and acceptable to all. However, as we have made clear in the past, the Executive Council in Salisbury does not meet these criteria.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very unsatisfactory Answer. Does he not think that it would be a gracious act to put this proposal before the Executive Council and obtain its reply before actually turning down my, I hope, sensible suggestion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness and most Members of your Lordships' House would agree that before we make such a suggestion we must be assured that it will be against the background of participation by the widest possible range of African opinion in Zimbabwe. That, unfortunately, is not the position at the moment. However Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low are in Southern and Central Africa at the moment endeavouring to achieve what we call a round table conference of all concerned, so that the Anglo-U.S. programme of transition,

1069
within which such assistance could effectively and properly be given, will he made possible.
I do not wish to argue too partisanly about this. I know the motivation of the noble Baroness. I sympathise with it. But we must bear in mind that the situation at the moment is not conducive of anything like a credible, efficient, effective, British form of assistance, as is suggested. Moreover, we hold a position of potential mediation. As the paramount Power we must very carefully guard that position. Once we lose that by, perhaps, a precipitate movement—and I make no criticism of the suggestion—then, indeed, the situation will become much more difficult. It may, indeed, lend itself to other external intervention in a way that at the moment it does not.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, since it is the position of all the parties concerned, including the Patriotic Front, that there must be an election before independence takes place, and since it is the declared intention at the moment of the interim Government in Rhodesia to have an election with complete adult suffrage, would it not be useful for the Government to offer to help this register along?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord would not put it quite so strongly. We are faced with the situation in which the United Kingdom might, for the best of reasons, intervene with assistance on registration. In what conditions?—A condition which at the moment is one of war, occupation and settlement in very many parts of Zimbabwe, involving the population and the potential electorate of those areas; a situation in which censorship of the Press and the media is a continuing fact. Do we intervene on that basis, and offer assistance on that basis, in a situation in which discrimination still persists and where political detention, although reduced, nevertheless persists?
I do not see that at this stage we can effectively and honestly offer assistance of the type suggested by the noble Baroness. As I said in my substantive Answer, it may become appropriate when the conditions I have mentioned, including the full implementation of the fifth principle, are a fact.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, when the Minister gave his substantive Answer he said that the Patriotic Front in Rhodesia was not prepared to enter into the proposed General Election of the interim Government. Is the Minister therefore saying that, because certain people will not take part in an election, therefore that election should not be given his maximum support?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much regret if anything I said suggested what the noble Earl said. Perhaps I was not so clear in my Answer. It is a fact that the Patriotic Front has said that it is in favour of free and fair elections. It is again a fact that it is prepared to attend a round table conference. It is equally a fact that, so far, the Salisbury régime has, at the least, reservations about joining such a round table conference. I hope that they will change their minds, after talking to Mr. Graham and Mr. Low, because the Patriotic Front is ready and willing to join in such talks, and, indeed, to join in free and fair elections.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, as long as the major instruments of power remain in the hands of the minority and illegal régime, no General Election held in those circumstances can reflect the will of the people? Would he further agree that the minimum conditions for such free and fair elections are the international guarantees and protections offered in the Anglo-American plan?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes. I think I agree entirely with what my noble friend said. I tried to put it as unabrasively as possible because there is a distinct chance that constructive sense will set in. We hope very much that the Anglo-American visit of Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low these days will assist the position. But I must repeat that the conditions at the moment are not conducive to our being helpfully involved in any way alongside the Salisbury régime. We would hope, I repeat, that that will become appropriate when certain things have been done. We are straining every nerve to see to it that there is a consensus —a round table conference—which will make that possible. I am not without hope that this will be done.

1071
I think that on all sides there is a growing realisation that the future of Zimbabwe depends upon everybody—Patriotic Front, Salisbury parties, and others—sitting down together to adopt substantially the Anglo-United States policy, which has stood the test, so that there is a properly organised transitional stage involving credible elections, in which we shall be delighted to assist as far as ever possible.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, would the Minister repudiate Dr. Andrew Young's extraordinary statement that the Cubans form a stabilising influence in Central Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware of the precise terms of this statement. I am certainly not a contributor to it.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, I ask this question constructively and helpfully. Can the noble Lord think of a better means of ensuring fair, just and truly representative elections than by the system offered by the noble Baroness? I ask this question really trying to be constructive.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord is constructive about these matters. I am trying to emulate him in his virtues. I can never hope to emulate him in his vices; they are too picturesque for me. I do agree that there is in all these ideas —and particularly in the ideas put forward by the noble Baroness—the germ of helpful British assistance which we all deeply want to see effective in Africa.
However, the timing of this is everything. At the moment it would have only one effect: to make it clearer to the rest of Africa—all of Africa outside Smith and his coadjutors—that we have taken sides against them. We must not risk that. There are two practical reasons against it. The situation is not such that we could be effective in our assistance. Secondly, we must not, I repeat, as the paramount Power with specific duties, unwittingly throw away the very strong mediative position which we have and which we hope to exert—and I expect we will exert—for the permanent benefit of all the peoples of Zimbabwe.

NATO MEETING AND UN SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will repeat a Statement on the North Atlantic Council Meeting and the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon.
DINNERS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I also remind the House that dinners will be available during evenings when the House is in Committee on the Wales Bill and also on days when the Scotland Bill is being considered on Report.
FILMS BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

WALES BILL
3.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Welsh Assembly]:
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the noble Lord, Lord

1073
Lloyd of Kilgerran. In all essentials, this is the same Amendment as was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill on 4th April and to which your Lordships agreed by an overwhelming majority. It is designed to ensure that elections to the Welsh Assembly take place on a basis of proportional representation.
The issue is a simple one. Whatever merits or demerits there are to a proportional representation system for voting for the Westminster Parliament, opinion outside this House and inside this House sees the strongest possible reasons why this system of voting should be applied in the case of the devolved Assemblies—in this case, the Welsh Assembly. This was the unanimous view of the distinguished Royal Commission on the Constitution presided over by the noble and Learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. This was an all-Party Commission, and a non-Party Commission.
The fundamental reason for this was, and is, that such an Assembly should represent as nearly as possible opinion throughout the Principality as a whole, including minority opinion, and that it should generally act upon the consensus of a majority of the electorate. The first-past-the-post system which is enshrined in this Bill will not ensure that. Indeed, it must almost inevitably give a majority in the Assembly to one Party even though it has polled a minority of the votes. Only through the purest fluke could an election under that system represent the true division of opinion in Wales.
What this Amendment and its related Amendments will do is as follows: they will provide for 50 constituency Members elected by the first-past-the-post system. These will be joined in the Assembly by 25 additional Members to bring the Parties up to overall proportionality. The constituency Members will be elected for the first election on the basis of one per the 22 smallest Parliamentary constituencies, and two per the largest 14 constitutencies, making a total of 50 in all. This is to obviate the necessity of the Boundary Commission redrawing the constituencies, with consequent delay, and it employs the same principle of quota as has been adopted by the Government in this Bill.
Next, the 25 additional Members will be allocated to bring each Party with more than 5 per cent. of the popular vote up to as nearly as possible overall proportionality. This is achieved by the use of the largest average formula described in the Schedule to the Amendment, with additional Members allocated by region. The additional Members, under this Amendment and its related Amendments, would be drawn from a priority list, democratically drawn up, published by each Party in each region in Wales.
Each voter has two votes or, in the case of a two-Member constituency, three votes, as is the case under the system which operates in Western Germany. That is to say, you can vote for the single candidate, or the two candidates of your choice in two-Member constituencies, and then you have a further vote which you give to the Party of your choice. It is this vote—the Party preference vote—which is counted towards the total for the allocation of the additional Member seats.
During the debate on the similar Amendments to the Scottish Bill my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn attempted, in my view very bravely, to describe the method by which the calculation is made for the allocation of additional Member seats. I do not think that he was too confident that all the Members of your Lordships' House had clearly got the gist of it because he suggested that his speech be read in Hansard on the following day. If reading that speech also does not make it totally clear how the method operates, I would advise noble Lords to read Appendix 2 to the Hansard Society Commission's Report—presided over, remember, by the noble Lord, Lord Blake—in which the system of counting is set out. I followed it closely—and my mathematics are pretty rusty—and I came out with the right answer. I would not quite say that a child of six could do it, but I would suggest that a child of nine could.
However, I should like to emphasise here that, so far as the voter is concerned, the marking of the ballot paper is simplicity itself. As I have indicated, you vote for the one candidate, or the two candidates of your choice in a two-Member constituency, and then you have an additional vote which you give to the Party of your choice. I have gone into some detail about the voting system because it is sometimes

1075
suggested by opponents of proportional representation that it would confuse voters. I shall come back to this in a moment.
Supporters through thick and thin of the first-past-the-post system advance as their main argument that it provides a clear majority for a single Party, which, in turn, provides strong and stable Government. Recalling recent circumstances in this country I suppose that that argument sounds almost laughable today, and on another occasion and in a different context I should be prepared to demonstrate that it produces exactly the opposite effect. But there is no need to deploy this particular defence on this Amendment because we are not here talking about the formation of a sovereign Government. We are talking about electing Members to an Assembly with severely limited powers; fewer even than under the Scotland Bill. So much for that objection.
The second argument sometimes used is the "thin end of the wedge" argument, but, in my view, the case for proportional representation for the Welsh Assembly must, and I think can, stand on its own merits. If it seems the correct method for a devolved Assembly, as was unanimously concluded by Lord Kilbrandon's Royal Commission, and as was overwhelmingly concluded by a majority in your Lordships' House on the Scottish Bill, then it should be adopted. If it is the wrong method for electing MPs to Westminster, then it should be rejected for that purpose. Each must be judged on its merits.
I know there is a body, I hope a very small one, of conservative opinion which thinks that all change is bad—that the thing to do is to stick to old methods come hell and high water—but that is not my view; indeed, I think that is a recipe for political extinction. If clearly, in new circumstances, a new system should be adopted, so be it. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the principle of proportional representation for certain elections in Northern Ireland and it was a Labour Government who followed that example; it seemed to both of them that it was the best system to apply in Northern Ireland in those circumstances, although it could have been argued at the time that it was a new system and—a phrase I have heard from time to time—an unfamiliar one;
1076
but they thought it was the right system. We believe that the system proposed here is the right one for a Welsh Assembly and I hope it will receive your Lordships' wholehearted support. I reject the thin end of the wedge argument.
I return to the objection that the system is unfamiliar and confusing to the electorate. I have always regarded that argument as rather insulting to the intelligence of the English and Scottish people and, in this case, the Welsh people. Proportional representation was introduced into Northern Ireland and the people had no difficulty in understanding or operating it. A system of proportional representation is used in all Scandinavian countries, and they have no difficulty. It is used in Holland and Belgium, and they have no difficulty. It is used in the Irish Republic—I do not intend to make any jokes about that—and they have had no difficulty in understanding or operating it. It is used in Germany, Italy, Malta and Israel, and they have no difficulty.
More significantly, perhaps, it is the method that has been introduced for elections in those three countries which have recently emerged from dictatorships and have become democracies; namely, Portugal, Spain and Greece. Evidently the Governments of those countries did not think their voters were incapable of understanding it. We should therefore reject with a measure of contempt the argument that the people of Wales are so ill-educated and stupid that they would not be able to understand this system of elections.
A final word on the merits of proportional representation in the context of this Bill. It has the tremendous advantage of making every vote count. We all I think recognise that in the context of General Elections in the United Kingdom the complexion of the Government is decided in about 100 marginal seats; vast majorities piled up by the Conservative Party in South-East England, or by the Labour Party in, say, Durham, have not the slightest effect on the result of the Election. Similarly, Labour voters in a minority in the South-East of England or Conservative voters in Durham know that their vote will have not the slightest bearing on the number of MPs sent to Westminster.
If we adopt this proportional representation system for the Welsh Assembly, every voter in Wales will help to determine the result of the election and the composition of the Assembly. That, in my view, would be a great gain for political participation and true democracy. I therefore urge your Lordships to support this Amendment and its related Amendments.
3.25 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: As the third signatory to the Amendment, I intervene at this stage to support it. Its object has been clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech; the object is to change the electoral system of voting for a unique Welsh elected Assembly, the first that Wales has ever had in its long history, and so to obtain in a Welsh context a more accurate reflection of the wishes of the Welsh electorate than the present first-past-the-post system can do in that country.
I should perhaps at this stage apologise for not being present for the Second Reading of this very important Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, explained, I was abroad for some months prior to the fixing of the date for the Second Reading of the Wales Bill. I had been committed to forsake temporarily the modern problems of my country to study further the ancient and modern problems of Greece, Israel and Egypt.
As noble Lords will be aware, there are several proportional representation systems, though in this Bill we from these Benches support the added member system. It is, in our view, infinitely preferable to the first-past-the-post system, but I do not propose to deal with the system in any detail in view of the many discussions about the same kind of system before your Lordships during the past weeks in relation to the Scotland Bill. However, it may be interesting to noble Lords to note the unfair position which arose at the last election in Wales arising out of the first-past-the-post system, and if the Committee will bear with me I will recite a few statistics. The Labour Party received 49·5 per cent. of the votes in Wales and secured 23 seats; the Conservative Party had 23·9 per cent. of the votes and secured eight seats; the
1078
Liberal Party secured 15·5 per cent. and got two seats; and Plaid Cymru had l0·7 per cent. and obtained three seats.
The unfairness of the first-past-the-post system is reflected in those figures; the whole picture in Wales is distorted. Over 50 per cent. of Welsh voters voted for the Conservatives, the Liberals and Plaid Cymru, yet altogether they received well under 50 per cent. of the seats. Of course this anomalous position was even more acute in 1906 when the Liberal Party had all the MPs from Wales except for one, Keir Hardy, and there were no Conservative Members at all. Under the proposed system, the proportion of seats will be related to the number of votes and thus produce a more accurate and fair reflection of Welsh public opinion. As I have indicated, similar Amendments were passed by your Lordships when we debated the Scotland Bill. The proposed Amendments to the voting system are, in my view, even more appropriate for Wales, in the special circumstances in Wales, than indeed they are for Scotland.
I should like to try to take the matter a little further and endeavour to enlist the sympathy of the Government, and particularly of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I see in his place on the Government Front Bench, for making at least some concession in a Welsh context. The characteristics of the Welsh and the history of Wales were reiterated by many noble Lords on Second Reading of this Bill. I have read with admiration the brilliant and moving speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, who has himself made such a splendid contribution to the life of the Welsh people. I endorse the observations of another of our great Welshmen, the Lord Chancellor, when he said that he could not over-praise that great speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in support of this modest Bill. I have also read and admire the exciting and happy speech—if I may so refer to it—of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, steeped as he is in Welsh culture and history.
In the light, therefore, of the reception of these speeches about Wales may I presume to try and press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept some concession, because these

1079
concessions will reflect to so many people in Wales what they recognise as fairness in the voting system. There is a real fear in Wales that this Welsh elected Assembly, the first that Wales has had in its history, may be dominated by one Party. These fears were expressed in strong terms and in detail by Welsh Members of Parliament at the recent Welsh Grand Committee, and again in the course of a debate on the Wales Bill in another place. It was felt by them that the first-past-the-post system of voting in Wales could be unfair.
The Welsh have a word which is usually translated into English as "fair play". It is the word chwarateg—a word very difficult to translate into English. It has a more domestic, more cultural, more persuasive significance in Welsh life than the rather stilted translation "fair play". A change in emphasis in parts of the Welsh word, a change in the euphony or the cadences in the pronunciation of part of this Welsh word introduce a different meaning and a sensitivity of language which cannot be obtained by the use of the English words "fair play". Fair play, in this sense, in Welsh, embodies a basic philosophy, and fair play for minorities has been a basic quality of Welsh life throughout its history.
May I also add this. Wales is a small community with only one-twenty-fifth of the population of the United Kingdom. In any small community kinship and friendship and family ties can play a large part in local and national Government, and where a community such as Wales may become dominated by one Party in a unique and new Assembly then the problems of kinship and friendship can appear more sinister. Minorities in the country can become increasingly restless unless they are recognised in some way in the voting system of the Welsh community. In my view, this can be done only by having a system of proportional representation. In my view, fair play in the voting system for Wales means a great deal to the Welsh community. As the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, pointed out, the Crowther and Kilbrandon Commissions were unanimous, after hearing all the evidence, that proportional representation was the most suitable system for a Welsh Assembly. I hope that the noble and
1080
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can see his way to make at least a concession in the unique circumstances pertaining to Wales in relation to this Amendment.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I want very briefly to support this Amendment. In recent weeks I have been in Canada, and anyone who studies the situation there about the future of the Province of Quebec will understand how dangerous a situation can develop with a system of first-past-the-post elections where constitutional issues, even including separatism, divide the political Parties very acutely indeed. Although a Party with separatist intentions may not feel strong enough to carry separation through its Parliament, it feels strong enough to prepare for it. Coming into office with a Parliamentary strength out of proportion to its electoral support one finds that the governing Party, while promising a referendum on the subject of separatism of Quebec from the Confederation, begins to prepare for that step to be taken. The first thing it feels able to do is to draft and pass through its provincial Parliament the referendum Bill, which is not intended to make it more difficult to get a vote for separation—as we are doing in the case of Scotland—but rather less difficult.
I think that in any situation where separatist tendencies are part of the politics of the region concerned the case for proportional representation is much stronger than elsewhere. That is why, while being firmly in support of a change in our electoral system, I believe that the case for it in Scotland and in Wales for the new Assemblies to be created is far stronger than in the case of the Westminster Parliament. I believe that it is only by providing some entrenched interest in Parliamentary government in areas of that kind that efforts of a separatist Party can be curbed, which otherwise are given fairly free rein by the system of first-past-the-post election. I do not want to add to that. I was on the Kilbrandon Commission, not right to the end but long enough to associate myself with the comments that have been quoted by the two noble Lords who have spoken before me regarding proportional representation in the regional Assemblies. Therefore, as in the case of Scotland for which this House voted for a form of proportional representation, I believe that in the case of Wales it is justified too.

1081
My concluding words are these. I believe that certainly in the case of Scotland, and probably in the case of Wales, even though we begin with a first-past-the-post system, in the end we shall come to some form of proportional representation. There are some situations —Northern Ireland's is certainly one—where I believe it is highly dangerous to have a first-past-the-post system; political Parties are divided so deeply on the future constitutional position of the area concerned that there is no reconciliation to be found in the ordinary course of first-past-the-post. It can be either that a Government Party not supported by a majority of the votes of the electors forces the matter ahead and provides grounds for serious internal unrest, or alternatively, there is a failure, complete deadlock in Parliament, to achieve any worthwhile result. I support this Amendment.
3.39 p.m.
Lord PARRY: It seems to me that, in his peroration, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, undermined the strength of what was a positive and balanced argument in support of proportional representation. Your Lordships will remember that he said that every voter in Wales will help to determine the issue, arguing that proportional representation automatically ensures that every voter in the nation where this system is introduced in fact takes part in the ensuing elections. I have made very careful inquiries from the Proportional Representation Society and other sources, and I find no evidence from anywhere where proportional representation has been introduced that the total number of people voting increases after the introduction of proportional representation. Indeed, what happens is much more nearly what my kindly and gracious friend the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said; that is, that a more accurate reflection of the views of the Welsh people who actually vote might follow from the introduction of proportional representation.
It seems to me that the real dilemma of democracy in Wales, in Britain, in the world, is a question of getting all the people in the democracy to involve themselves with their Government and involve themselves in the support of, or opposition to,
1082
the policies of that Government. What we are arguing about in introducing separate Assemblies for Wales and Scotland is precisely that—to give more government to the people at the level where it can be most effective. If, in fact, one is only sharing out in a different way the votes that are actually being cast, one can end up, as has happened in some of the cases of the nations quoted with rhetoric and truth by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, with a situation in which the vote is in itself stalemated, and in which there is a weakened democracy, and that in itself makes way for some other form of Government which is not acceptable to any of the democratic Parties previously taking part in the elections.
So, while there is considerable strength in the last words we have heard, relating as they do to a province with some similarities to Wales, I believe that if all the voters of Wales were to take part in an election, the voters of that nation are demonstrably so intelligent in the Government and in the Parties that they have so long supported—radical Governments in the past—that we would not be worrying at all about an Assembly for Wales. We are trying to establish from the beginning a policy supported by all those people who are interested enough, and sufficiently motivated, to vote. I could give a great many figures for the various constituencies of Wales which show that the third largest element in every constituency is that group of voters who do not vote at all. It seems to me that it is precisely these people whom we are wishing to involve by taking government closer to the people through a devolved Assembly, and to argue that we should have proportional representation from the beginning is, in my mind, begging that question.
Lord HARLECH: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene for a few moments. I do not know from where he got his statistics about the number of people who vote under a proportional representation system going down, while under a first-past-the-post system the number goes up, but in fact the direct opposite is the case. If one looks at the elections that have taken place in West Germany over the past 20 years, one sees that the number of people voting under a proportional representation system has consistently gone up, while in this country it has gone down.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I shall be brief. It is rather pathetic that we are trying to apply logic to politics. Just look at your Lordships' House. Just look at the system of Government that Britain has had over the last couple of centuries. It has been the most stable system of Government in the civilised world. It has made mistakes. It uses reason instead of logic. If noble Lords cannot follow the nuances of the difference between logic and reason, I must say that I cannot in this brief speech expand on the difference. Economists have made the same mistake. They have tried to make economics a science by introducing fractions, or binomial theorems and the calculus, but it does not make any difference. We are not dealing in a science, and this baby, this Assembly, is the wrong place for the neophiliacs. If noble Lords are worried about my use of the word "neophiliacs", I should say that a neophiliac is a lover of anything new; or to put the matter in a colloquialism, I should say that such a person "knocks" something because it is old.
We know that under the Bill there is to be a referendum and the Assembly will come into existence, but it seems that in this brief Bill we are trying to introduce a massive reform. I believe that one should wait if one wants to get proportional representation. Irrespective of the statistics, and of the broad canvas of the speech of my noble friend who has just spoken, I want to point out that proportional representation, and indeed all voting, applies only to the people who take the trouble to vote. Whether new people will be brought in under what is proposed is a moot point, and I believe that we should be very careful here. This type of Bill is the wrong place to try to introduce proportional representation. I believe that before we enter into that we should pay a tribute to the Hansard Society, and others, and have a full-dress debate on the issue of proportional representation, rather than try to slip it in at this juncture. This is the wrong moment to introduce it. Despite the three muskateers, and the noble Lord from the house of Harlech whose song led us into the Zulu wars, with the awards of Victoria Crosses, I shall go into the Lobby against the Amendment.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in order to hear the Statement at present being made in another place, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NATO MEETING AND UN SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
3.46 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on my visits last week to Washington for the North Atlantic Council meeting, and to New York to address the UN Special Session on Disarmament. Copies of the NATO communiqué (with accompanying documents on the NATO study of East/West relations, and on the Long-Term Defence Programme) and of my speech to the UN, have been placed in the Library.
"The North Atlantic Council meeting took place against a background of concern about world economic problems and about the state of East/West relations. There was agreement that the strength of our defence in NATO is related to the strength of our economies, and on the need for the major industrial nations at the forthcoming summit at Bonn to stimulate economic recovery.
"Our discussion of East/West relations was based on a study undertaken since our meeting in London last year. The communiqué makes clear that we remain determined
"to pursue as constructive and positive a relationship as possible with the Soviet Union and the other East European countries".
We discussed the reasons for the decline in confidence since the Helsinki Conference in 1975. Among them are human rights and the unacceptability of continued Soviet and Cuban exploitation of particular factors of instability

1085
in Africa. I expressed my appreciation of the humanitarian operation which the French and Belgian Governments undertook to safeguard the lives of their and our citizens in the Shaba province of Zaire. But there is no intention that NATO should become involved in Africa. Instead, we emphasised that situations of instability and regional conflict in the developing world should not be viewed exclusively in an East/West context, and we reaffirmed the importance we attached to encouraging peaceful settlements through negotiation by the countries and regional organisations themselves.
"In response to the unremitting growth in Soviet military capability, the allied leaders endorsed the results of work on the Long-Term Defence Programme which they had commissioned following President Carter's initiative at their London meeting a year ago. The Alliance now has a clear guide to the improvements on which its members should concentrate and co-operate in defence plans for the years ahead. In our own case, the Government's decision, in line with others, to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. in real terms in each of the next two years, enables us to play our full part in this programme, which should lead to greater co-operation in research and production between the allies.
"I emphasised that both our security and good economic sense give us the strongest interest in controlling increases in armaments and securing a measure of disarmament. The NATO countries are committed to following this approach. But progress depends on a positive attitude on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries. In this connection I proposed, and it was agreed, that we should be ready to give renewed political impetus to the MBFR negotiations by lifting these long drawn out negotiations to Foreign Minister level at an appropriate moment. It was also agreed, on my suggestion, that we should make fuller use of the Alliance machinery for consultation on arms control and disarmament issues. This will be valuable as a means of following up the results of the UN Special Session on Disarmament.
1086
"In my speech to the United Nations I made clear that so long as it is necessary to strengthen our defences in the Alliance we shall do so. But we should prefer and will work for maintaining security at diminishing levels of armed force by means of multilateral, balanced and verified agreements on arms control. We also need—and this can be done straightaway—greater restraint by Governments in the use of armed force as an instrument of foreign policy.
"I emphasised the need for renewed effort to bring existing negotiations to successful conclusions.
"As an earnest of our own intentions I was able to tell the Assembly that in the interests of achieving early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty we were ready to put forward new proposals in the tripartite negotiations in Geneva. In my view these should open up the way to rapid progress on the outstanding issues. I stressed the central importance of a SALT II agreement if the world is to be saved from the risks of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race. I believe such an agreement can be reached.
"I also gave an outline of the new initiatives which the Government consider could be taken. These include the provision, with other nuclear Powers, of far-reaching and permanent assurances to the non-nuclear States that nuclear weapons will not be used against them; the establishment of further nuclear weapon-free zones; the encouragement of those States which prefer not to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to accept full-scale safeguards on their nuclear facilities; and how to work towards restraint of nuclear armouries in Europe.
"I also put forward suggestions for improving the control of conventional armaments and for increasing regional security by such means as the further exchange of information and of observers, and technical means of surveillance; agreement on restricting conventional arms sales; and a United Nations study covering the problems of peace-keeping and of converting arms production facilities to civil purposes.
"Through these and other specific practical steps the members of the

1087
UN could put into effect a Programme of Action on which we should be called to account at a further Special Session which, I suggested, should take place in 1981. I found a wide measure of support for this approach, and not only from close friends and allies. Our delegation to the Special Session will now work to achieve a consensus on a final document which will mark our commitment, state our objectives and provide machinery for achieving a safer world."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. I think all your Lordships who have read the Prime Minister's speech will welcome what he said to NATO. It sounded fine: I hope it was not just words. It is too easy to make fine speeches, and even easier to do nothing about it. But, my Lords, even if the Government spend 3 per cent. more on defence—and we shall look very carefully to see whether this is a genuine increase—they have a long way to go before we get back to the defence capabilities which this country had under a Conservative Government. Still, the sinner or the sinners opposite seem to be repenting, and that is something.
My Lords, so far as the Special Session on Disarmament is concerned. I think some small progress can be made, and I think we ought to welcome small progress. But do not let us assume that anything really significant can emerge from a session of this kind unless confidence and trust is created between the super-Powers and the two military treaty organisations; and it is, after all, ironic to notice, should anybody doubt what I have said, that the Prime Minister, in the week that he addressed the disarmament conference, made a point of reiterating that we were going to spend 3 per cent. more in real terms on defence. Of course, my Lords, no such confidence or trust is possible at the moment. We have only to look and see what is happening in Africa, and at the overt effort of the Soviet Union and Cuba to disrupt and to make trouble. We on these Benches have been warning
1088
of this for some time, and some of us have been particularly worried about some of the attitudes of the American Administration. I think it was a great pity that the Prime Minister should have spoken in what appeared to be such patronising terms about "new Christopher Columbuses" when Mr. Young, for the first time, has accepted, not that Cuba is a stabilising influence in Angola but is a real damage and danger to stability in the area as a whole. I think the Prime Minister was most unwise in what at any rate he appeared to say.
It may well be, as the Statement says, strictly speaking, that NATO is not going to be concerned and has no intention of being concerned with Africa; but if the West (and that, broadly speaking, is NATO) is going to ignore what happens in Africa, then I despair of its will or its ability to survive—and, thank goodness! there is someone in the West who has the courage to act. I applaud President Giscard d'Estaing for what he did. I hope very much that the Prime Minister did not mean what he appeared to say, and that he and the Government really do understand the importance of what is happening in Africa and are prepared to help to do something about it.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking for those on these Benches I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this important, if to my mind slightly complacent, Statement. I have two questions to ask the Government. In the first place, I would not wish to give the impression of being at all defeatist, hut would the Government not agree that no real progress is likely to be achieved in the present disarmament talks unless there is some prior progress in SALT and, more especially, some change in the Soviet policy in Vienna on MBFR? For, if there is no progress here, will it not be inevitable that the two super-Powers will continue arming their various satellites?—in other words, that the wretched arms race will inevitably continue.
My second question is this. Do the Government believe that, pending some real progress in the establishment of what I would call a convincing Western conventional defensive system in Europe, the only way that NATO can, if necessary,

1089
defend itself successfully is by the first use of nuclear weapons, with all the appalling risks that that would of course involve? But if they have any doubts about this, would they think that an eventual East/West struggle, which we cannot dismiss as impossible, not involving the use of nuclear weapons is at least conceivable? If it is conceivable, is not this rather a compelling reason for pressing on with some common Community defence procurement policy within the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance?
4.1 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who responded to this repeated Statement. Once more, I admired Lord Carrington's facility in damning with very faint praise what I regard as a very fine statement indeed of a very great achievement by our Prime Minister. It is a fact that his statement was received in a packed assembly hall with prolonged applause and practically universal agreement, not confined to our friends and allies but extending, very importantly, to the nonaligned neutrals and even into the ranks of the Eastern totalitarian countries. In that sense, I think that our Prime Minister has rendered a signal service not only to his country but to the cause of democracy.
The noble Lord referred to the question of words and then proceeded to prove that the words mean deeds when he referred to the genuine increase of 3 per cent. in real terms. This is the proof of the words. I agree with him, however, that confidence is of the essence and there must be confidence and, therefore, a feeling of balanced security, above all, between the two super-Powers. My right honourable friend said in his Statement that he expects that an agreement on SALT II will come about. I am delighted that he has used those words. Naturally, it is a point of anxiety among us all that the two super-Powers should come to an agreement on that vital point. I will not engage in any reference to my right honourable friend's friendly badinage about Christopher Columbus. All I will say is that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister so fortified the relationship between this country and North America during the period in which he has been Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister that that fortified alliance is well able to bear an occasional joke or two.
1090
In the first debate in which I engaged when I joined your Lordships' House, I tried to explain to your Lordships that as a consequence of the foreign policy conducted by another Party over the previous few years our relationship with the United States was not permanently imperilled. Nobody can make such a remark today, and the credit for that accrues mostly to Mr. James Callaghan. The noble Lord also referred to the question of ignoring Africa. Whoever thought of such a thing? We are profoundly involved in Africa. I take his point that NATO is not as involved as is this country. However, he will know that the Paris talks yesterday reputedly have resulted in a consensus as to policy for the future and, surely, we must all hope that the democracies of the West will, on the basis of those talks, be able to move together, and helpfully, in Africa. There is no question of ignoring Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rightly stressed that prior progress in SALT and MBFR, the talks in Vienna on conventional arms, are vital to the success of any move towards disarmament. This is very much a basis of my right honourable friend's Statement. He has expressed cautious optimism about the results of the SALT II talks. There are perhaps bases for optimism, equally cautious, about developments in Vienna in the talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction. I believe that in the next few months, particularly if there is agreement about raising these talks to Foreign Minister level, we may see advances.
This takes me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made. Indeed, if we can achieve something like a symmetical relationship of conventional forces in Europe—which after all is the major point of concentration of conventional and other forces—the climate for further advances in the grey areas, as they are called, the neo-nuclear and nuclear areas, will be clearly improved. I take both points. I do not think I am in any profound disagreement with him even on the second point. I am grateful to him for having made those two points.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this: is it not obvious that the one thing that emerged from the Washington Conference, apart from the verbiage about disarmament, the revival

1091
of the SALT talks and balanced forces and all the beautiful and delightful phrases about humanitarianism, was the statement, clear and beyond any possibility of doubt, by General Haig that NATO is becoming comparatively weak against Moscow which is becoming comparatively stronger? That is the situation. When are we going to become realistic about this? It is not a question of unilateral action; that is out of the question. Anybody who has studied the problem realises that. This is a question of multilateral action vis-à-vis Europe and the United States.
Why does not the Foreign Office realise this? Why does not our new Foreign Secretary realise this?—he is still a bit of an apprentice, and I am not saying that offensively. He cannot help himself. Why does he not realise what is happening in the world at large? Why was it necessary to have emerged from the discussions at the Washington Conference that NATO would not intervene in the affairs of Africa? If ever there was a joke perpetuated in the context of military advance, that was it. There is an obvious reason why NATO would not intervene in the affairs of Africa which was demonstrated only recently when it was left to the Foreign Legion to intervene. They are not associated with NATO and not associated —so far as I know—with the Moscow Pact.
Will my noble friend realise that modern defence is terribly expensive and imposes sometimes excessive burdens on taxpayers, and that—apart from the possibility of nuclear war which I dismiss —with the possibility of conventional war, we, in Europe, have a larger population than the Moscow Pact, and combined with the United States could be overwhelming as far as conventional forces are concerned? Why do we not give our attention to the obvious facts of life? Is my noble friend aware that I am sorry that I have to speak in this fashion but that it is about time that we became realists and stopped indulging in shibboleths and beautiful phrases and got down to brass tacks?
4.11 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I regret to note that my noble friend today believes that discussions about disarmament are merely verbiage
1092
and useless talk about humanitarianism. I was brought up in my young days to listen intently to him speaking in a very different tone of voice indeed.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I still listen with very great care and respect to my noble friend; but he must take it as well as give it. He referred to General Haig. The Prime Minister stated clearly in his Statement what are the intentions of this Government as a member of NATO in regard to defence. They are unequivocal and definite. My noble friend talked about realism and multilateral action vis-à-vis Europe and United States. This is exactly the basis of our foreign policy. I think that we have strengthened both political co-operation in Europe and our relationship with the United States. I wish to study his reference to NATO and Africa. There are other organisations more closely related to Africa, such as the Organisation of African Unity, to which NATO would quite properly give precedence in dealing with Africa, for the Organisation of African Unity is African. He described defence as expensive: indeed it is, but it is essential and should be effective. Expenditure on its own does not guarantee efficiency.
I do not want to detain the House by historical comparisons going back to Suez and similar incidents. It is not enough just to spend on defence, one must work very hard for it diplomatically. My noble friend accused somebody or other of shibboleths. We are all guilty of shibboleths from time to time. We are now, as the Prime Minister has made quite clear in a very realistic Statement, poised for a possibility of a new beginning in détente and disarmament, always basing those two objectives on the essentials of proper defence and security. It is in that sense that my right honourable friend's Statement should be welcomed.
4.13 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, while one can only welcome very many

1093
parts of the Prime Minister's Statement however much one may believe that the kind of policies which he has enunciated should have been adopted some while ago, I feel that I must most strongly support my noble friend and leader, Lord Carrington, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. One had great sympathy with what one supposed was the Government's position in moving rather slowly in relation to the Soviet and Cuban initiative in Africa. One had a feeling that it was vital for this country to move in line with others and particularly with the United States. We now find in the Prime Minister's public Statement a condemnation—and it was a condemnation—of the very tardy—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this very partronising remark to the effect that the United States should not overdo things in relation to its attitude in Africa is not helpful to the development of a realistic attitude, even though that attitude comes late in the day?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with all respect, I cannot agree. I do not think it was a condemnation of anything said or done by our American allies. The remark was made in good nature and was received in that spirit—at least in the United States, if not in certain parts of this country. There is ample evidence of this and it is surely a proof of the firmness of friendship and, indeed, alliance that it will sustain good-natured remarks of this sort. As to the comments on the way to deal with Africa, there can be no doubt that there is total unity about the need to assert the Western democratic position and interest in Africa.
What my right honourable friend said —and it was right that he should do so — was that the East/West relationship, the presence of Cubans and Russians, was not the only factor which made the African situation one of difficulty. There are deeper historic, economic and social problems embedded in the African situation. My right honourable friend most sensibly recalled all those facts to our minds. Africans understand this. It was remarkable that when these remarks were made the greatest response to their wisdom came from Black Africa.
4.15 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how the Government reconcile their proposals at the United Nations disarmament conference with their sponsorship of the military equipment sales exhibition which is due to take place at Aldershot later this summer? The Statement which the noble Lord repeated spoke about restricting conventional arms sales by converting arms production to civil purposes. It seems a little strange to take that line at the same time as promoting some kind of arms bazaar at Aldershot. Would it not be rather more appropriate for the Government to promote the sales of the tools of peace?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we would all wish that to happen as quickly as possible. Contrary to certain impressions, this country's part in arms transfers throughout the world is very small indeed, particularly compared with that of the super-Powers. We have a role: it springs to some extent—and I speak in the presence of distinguished former Ministers of Defence and Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Affairs —from our obligation to certain countries on their accession to independence. It springs in part from our desire so to balance the position in certain points of potential explosion in the world that we feel that we should intervene in this sense rather than that others should.
It is a question of very fine judgment. I in no way pour any scorn on this and in no way minimise the importance of the point which the noble Lord has made. He will have noticed that one of the major proposals that the British delegation and our Prime Minister have made to the Special Session on Disarmament is for a constructive study of the ways in which arms production can be converted into production for civil use.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I would not have intervened in this exchange if it had not been for the speech of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. He knows that when I say "friend" I mean it. I am perfectly sure that the great majority of our Party take the view that the Prime Minister delivered in America a balanced, broad speech of depth. We all welcome that fact. Three months ago the Disarmament Conference appeared to be

1095
very hopeful. It has been prejudiced by human rights, by Africa and by Europe. But surely the Minister will agree that disarmament itself is the best solution to these three problems.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely endorse my noble friend's statement. Of course it is, and we shall endeavour in every way to obtain constructive, verifiable disarmament on a balanced basis. I can personally bear out what he said about my right honourable friend's efforts. There are no other Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary who have exerted themselves and studied this matter with such close attention as have our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Indeed, the reception—and I repeat "reception"; we should be proud of this in all Parties—accorded to Mr. Callaghan's speech at the Special Session on Disarmament at the United Nations was one to warm the hearts of every Briton present on that occasion.

WALES BILL
4.20 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 1.
Lord ELTON: I rise to speak at this juncture under the obligation of reminding your Lordships of what you already know: that there is no Whip on this particular matter and that I speak therefore as a private individual. I speak about an Amendment which is bearing down upon us like a ship under full sail borne by a fair wind from Scotland, with the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, harmoniously singing shanties on the poop and trimming the sails. I am much in favour of most of their efforts and I do not wish, as does the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to fling myself upon the tiller and turn it round about. However, I do wish to place my hand on the tiller and adjust the course of the ship so that it arrives with a full complement at the destination which it has in view.
Let me say first of all that this Amendment is one which suffers from the disability of not having been fully debated in another place. I know it is among
1096
those that were discussed and I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, with a shrewd and Scottish air, shaking his head; but if he will turn to the record in Hansard he will find that the debate started at 10 o'clock in the evening and finished at 11 o'clock. He will find that the first five minutes were devoted to procedural matters and the next 10 to discussing the remuneration which the Assembly-men, by whatever method they were returned, should receive. This great and fundamental constitutional issue, therefore, was the subject of some 45 minutes of rapid expression by five Members of another place. I do not think we could call that a full debate.
If we doubt that the first-past-the-post system produces unfairness, we need look no further than the examples produced by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. If we are still in doubt, let us look at Quebec, which has been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who, however, did not mention, I think, that it was a vote of 41 per cent. which produced a Nationalist majority of 70 per cent. in the Chamber.
As has already been said, the political conditions in Wales have within them the elements of separatism within which it would be dangerous to blanket and smother minority Parties. Indeed, that is the ill which exists in this Bill and which the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Harlech sets out to remedy. But it sets out to do that in a way which itself I think suffers from a particular weakness, because it rests upon the use of a supplementary priority list from which alternative Members are drawn, to balance the composition of the Assembly so as to resemble as closely as possible the balance of votes cast during the election. That is an admirable aim, but I have put down an Amendment which I think I am under constraint to mention and to refer to now, since the fate I expect that Amendment to receive later will very largely determine the way in which I shall feel constrained to vote and advise my noble friends to vote on the Amendment we are now discussing, should it go to a Division.
For a Party to have in its hands patronage of the order which is here suggested seems to me to be dangerous. It is a considerable patronage, and I know that

1097
in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16 of Part V of Schedule 2, as it will be amended by this Bill, there is a protection. It is said that the priority list shall be arrved at by democratic means; but we have seen that sort of term exploded time and time again in the past. It is not an enforceable criterion and the fact is that, whether in the hands of an individual or of a committee, there will be the patronage which will allow the appointment of people to sit at the top of the list, in a position which means that inevitably, whatever they do —provided they stay out of prison or that the Party they represent does not get a whole majority of the seats in the Assembly —they will automatically become Members of the Assembly. For what? One hopes it will be in recognition of services rendered, but one fears that it will be in recognition of services to come.
This is a form of patronage which I should be reluctant to give to the members of any Party and indeed to the leadership of my own. That reluctance, I am sure, would be shared by those who would be expected to exercise the patronage. Therefore, I have placed, as Amendment No. 17A on the Marshalled List, an alternative paragraph to that put forward as sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16 of Part V of Schedule 2, as listed in this Amendment. One argument that is often adduced against this method of selecting Members, which I shall describe, is that it results in placing "also rans" into the Assembly. I think I should explain to your Lordships what I have in mind. The priority list is to be made up of people who have stood and fought in the election but have not been elected. It is certainly possible to refer to them as people who have been beaten, because they have. But would your Lordships refer to Billie-Jean King as a "reject" because she was only runner-up at Wimbledon in 1963, in the finals in 1964 and runner-up again in 1965? To choose perhaps a more homely epithet, would your Lordships regard Sebastian V as an "also ran" in this year's National? He ran the race and she fought the sets. These people will have fought the election. They will have run the race and they are not simply being rewarded for services to come but are being put into the group of, if you like, horses that will be placed in the race. Therefore, to call them "beaten candidates", I think, verges on the facile.
1098
That is my principal reservation—indeed, I could say almost my only reservation—about this Amendment, and it would be interesting to me and useful to your Lordships if noble Lords who are to follow me could give some indication of where their intentions lie on this matter when they speak to this Amendment. But I do very warmly commend the Amendment itself to your Lordships. There is nothing more stultifying to democracy than when one Party remains in Office exclusively for too long; and noble Lords and their friends who can remember clamouring against "13 years of Tory misrule" are in no position to argue against that.
I have seen the effects of approaching Office, under interesting circumstances. Over the past three years I have spoken at the annual conference of the Norwegian Conservative Party, Hoyere—my Norwegian is a little better than my Welsh—and in the last year they have come from being a minority Party with no prospect of Office to a minority Party within one seat of coalition Office. It has been most marked how much more responsible have been the speeches and how much more mature have been the resolutions put before that Party. The prospect of Office wonderfully concentrates the mind. My noble friends on these Benches and noble Lords now opposite who have sat on them previously will remember that nagging voice, which impinges upon the ears somewhere half-way up from the Benches to the Box, which says "Yes, but I wonder, will I be able to act on the words that I am about to utter, if we win the next election?"
I have also, as it happens, nursed a Parliamentary constituency, in both 1966 and 1970. In the one case, I was constantly attacking a Government; in the other, I was as patiently defending it. They are different trades. But the one does give a certain skill in the other. If you are spending a lot of your time trying to push somebody into a hole in the road, with a friendly nudge, you come to know what to expect and where the holes in the road are. Equally, when you are devising stratagems to unhorse the other fellow, you remember that if you teach him tricks that are too nasty they may be turned against you all too soon.
Therefore, it is important that we should not generate in Wales a Chamber in which

1099
a significant group is knowing itself to be permanently in opposition and unable to influence events. We shall see, as our debates during the Committee stage unfold, that there is a certain concentration of authority—to which I and some of my noble friends referred in the Second Reading debate—into the Executive Committee, which itself tends to exclude contrary opinions from discussions on important decisions. This argument applies to the Assembly itself, and this Amendment commends itself as a way of overcoming that.
We have for a long time been very frightened of proportional representation and I claim no special ration of courage in this respect. On the other hand, it has for many years been advocated by Members of both Houses, not at all without distinction or intellect, who have given it a certain lustre. They have spoken of it as though it were some kind of panacea; others have spoken of it as though it contained within it hidden germs which might yet destroy the fragile frame of democracy in this country.
In any other context than a constitutional question we would long ago have embarked upon the normal procedure for such a situation. We should have conducted a controlled experiment. For a controlled experiment, you require a limited environment and limited effects. Wales is smaller than Scotland and so is its population. May I remind your Lordships that this Assembly is convoked for a purpose different from that of the Scottish Assembly. It is not a legislative Assembly; it is an executive Assembly. I myself see no difficulty in having for the Assembly a different form of Constitution in the latter case from what we have in the former. Therefore, if we are to have an experiment, this is a very convenient time to have it, and a convenient place as well. So that those of your Lordships who may hesitate about this should be reassured.
I have, I fear, spoken for longer than your Lordships would wish at the outset of a longish debate, but I ask you to bear these considerations in mind. The first is that the proportional representation principle, as such, seems to me better fitted for employment at this juncture than at any other we have yet encountered.
1100
But I personally find within it one fatal weakness, which would make me very unhappy to support it unless I had some kind of reassurance from those who bear the responsibility of piloting the principal Amendment through this Chamber—who will have to come to a decision about whether or not to press this Amendment—as to what will be their reaction when we come to Amendment No. 17A.
There may be a procedural means by which I could have tabled something to be discussed pari passu with this Amendment. But if there is I could not gain it, and all of us have been under the difficulty of trying to conduct in the Recess processes which would have been better conducted had we been able to lobby each other in the corridors in Westminster. But that said, and seeing that the noble Lord opposite is anxious to rise to his feet, I now give way to hear what others have to say.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I intervene as one of the signatories of an Amendment to the Scotland Bill, which had so much support. I merely want to reinforce what has been said here about the value of also introducing this into the Welsh Assembly. To me there is no argument about it. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek—and I mean that he is my noble friend, as Lord Brockway said about Lord Shinwell—talked about neophiles. There are such things as neophobes, and we see a lot of evidence of that in the conduct of this discussion; that is to say, we hate novelty. In the terms of the Welsh Assembly, as in the terms of the Scottish Assembly, I insist that this is an excellent opportunity to try an experiment.
4.35 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: I support this Amendment, if only to give some reassurance to the people—and I choose my words very carefully—who live in Wales, because what this Bill is destined to do is to govern the lives of the people who live in Wales. If you try to define as Welsh the people who live in Wales, you have an impossible problem. I ask your Lordships not to think, when we are talking about proportional representation, that you are pandering in one way or another to the extreme political views that are expressed in my country. I call it my country. What am I? My father is

1101
Welsh and my mother is a Scot. There are thousands of us like that and most of us speak Welsh—imperfectly, I admit. I might be regarded as Welsh. I suppose that being a Welshman means living in Wales, although I have happily resided in England for 30 years. But be that as it may, I should like the assurance embodied in this Amendment to get back to the people of Wales, because at the moment they need this assurance.
At the moment, what do they read? The first words in this Bill are "There shall be a Welsh Assembly", whether you like it or not. Then they go on to read in the Daily Telegraph:
"The Welsh Office decided nearly one month ago to use the Victorian Cardiff Exchange building, because of the need to have the Assembly ready by early 1978 "—
another accomplished fact. Then they go on to read:
"But whatever optimism there was then about the legislative timetable has since given way to realism. Preliminary work costing £258,000 was carried out on the Exchange, a listed building which coal and shipping brokers once made the city's commercial hub".
The article goes on:
"But the major £2·8 million contract has still not yet been allocated".
So in Wales they are asking questions. Who authorised the purchase of the leasehold of this building? Why was a building selected in a disreputable part of Cardiff called Tiger Bay? Was Swansea consulted about being the centre for the Welsh Assembly? Was Aberystwyth consulted? Were Machynlleth, Bangor or Newport consulted? If there is to be a democratic approach to the referendum, why were those places not consulted? Why was there not some kind of discussion as to the most suitable place for the Assembly of Wales? Certainly, the Exchange building will be no monument to the Welsh Assembly, surrounded as it is by the magnificence of the Cardiff Civic Centre.
The other questions which they will be asking are these. Who authorised the expenditure of over £200,000 on a building that was rapidly becoming derelict? In whose hands lies the power to allocate the eventual £2.8 million contracts? These are the questions that the people who live in Wales are asking, and they will want answers. They are not really interested in the overtones of the politicians, whether
1102
they be Conservatives, Liberals, Labour or Plaid Cymru. I support this Amendment, if only to bring home to the people who live in Wales that they should turn out at the referendum and stand up to be counted. Then they themselves will know what they have got, because all that they will get will be what they vote for.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I add a word from Scotland on the subject of the Amendment. I support the Amendment, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and other Members of your Lordships' Committee who are in favour of this form of proportional representation which was debated at great length during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill and which received a very large majority. I should like to feel that we can do the same for Wales.
I agree with those speakers who said how important it was to bring home to the Welsh people the fact that their vote and their interest in the result will be of vital importance so that they are not swept aside by an enormous majority gained by one Party or another. This Amendment means that there will be much fairer representation in the Welsh Assembly, and I believe that it is one which we should most wholeheartedly support.
I am afraid that I do not support my noble friend Lord Elton. I believe that he is unnecessarily unhappy, or nervous, about so-called patronage. It is very important that there should be the opportunity to bring into the Welsh Assembly people who may make a very big contribution indeed but who might not necessarily have submitted themselves for election under the proportional representation system. In your Lordships' House there are a considerable number of Members who have been appointed by their Parties. Whether one calls that patronage I do not know, but those Members are in this House for that reason. They are not hereditary Peers but life Peers like myself. Perhaps we should not be here; I do not know, but, anyway, we are here. The same principle of appointment, on the basis described by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, should apply to the Welsh Assembly, and I most wholeheartedly support the proposals put forward by him in his speech.
4.45 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): We were told a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that this matter was discussed in another place over a period of one hour, and that perhaps some part of that time was taken up with points of order. That is perfectly true, but may I remind the Committee that the additional member system has been discussed three times in the context of devolution. It was discussed first in relation to the Scotland and Wales Bill in January, 1977; it was discussed fully in relation to the Scotland Bill in November, 1977; and it was discussed in relation to the Wales Bill, for the one hour which was mentioned by the noble Lord, in March, 1978. On those three occasions, the other place voted against this system by very substantial majorities indeed, and it is right that the Committee should know this. First, in January 1977, the voting was 244 to 62, a majority of 182 against. In November 1977, on the Scotland Bill, there was a majority of 183–290 to 107; and, in the context of the Wales Bill, the majority was 263 against, the voting being 377 to 114.
May I therefore ask noble Lords to draw these conclusions. First, there have been—and one expects that there will continue to be—massive votes against the additional member system in another place. Secondly, there is no reasonable chance that this Parliament will accept proportional representation for Wales or, indeed, for Scotland in the context of these Bills. Thirdly, the argument was frequently put forward in the course of the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill—and no doubt it will be repeated here—that the guillotine in the other place prevented the discussion of certain issues. That may be true, but it is certainly not true of proportional representation. The matter has been fully ventilated and fully voted upon, and your Lordships may think that in the face of these massive votes by the elected House it would be something of a waste of time to press on with the issue. Indeed, in the face of such votes, it may even be an impertinence on the part of this House to do so.
Lord ELTON: At this point may I quote one point which was made in the debate by the honourable Member for
1104
Aberdare, for it brings out exactly what I am trying to say: that the guillotine has operated against discussion. He said, "I voted for the guillotine. If I had known what was going to happen I should have voted differently". There is a feeling in the other place that an opportunity has not been given fully to discuss this matter, and it is not patronising of this Committee to respond to that feeling when it is so clearly expressed. May I ask the noble and learned Lord to bear with those of us who have not been so deeply involved as he has—and, indeed, as have my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and many others—in the Scotland Bill. He cannot expect all of us to be apprised of arguments which have already been deployed, and the debate cannot be complete unless all of us know what the arguments are.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to the noble Lord for what he has said, but so far as the guillotine is concerned it did not truncate discussion of the issue of proportional representation, except perhaps on the occasion of which he spoke. May I explain why the Government have put into this Bill, as into the Scotland Bill, the system of first-past-the-post. The Government chose the traditional system because it is the traditional system; it has been applied for a long time, in both Parliamentary and local government elections; it is well known and well tried and it is perfectly understood; indeed, it grew out of our own political conditions and our own political traditions. In my submission, there would have to be powerful reasons for changing such a system.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said that the system contained in the series of Amendments was infinitely preferable, but he did not make good that assertion. Those who moved this Amendment would have to demonstrate tangible, certain benefits which would be derived from changing from the traditional system to this system. Are there such benefits? We have been reminded many times in the course of debates in this House, particularly in debates on the Scotland Bill, that large reforms often achieve the very opposite of what their sponsors and protagonists claim for them. One saw that in the

1105
reform of local government and one saw it in the abortive attempt by the previous Government to reform industrial relations by Statute.
May I ask whether the sponsors of proportional representation are really able to demonstrate that our political system will benefit from this importation? I can understand why the Liberal Party supports such a system. It hopes to benefit from it electorally. I understand to some extent why those who claim to be Unionists are drawn to it in the devolution context, because it seems to them to be a way in which they can "dish" the Nationalists. They can do them down. I can see why those who prefer weak governments to strong governments may support this system; undoubtedly it would tend to lead to compromises, to deals and to weakness in government.
To amplify one of these points, it has been argued that proportional representation is necessary in the Assemblies to prevent Nationalist parties from obtaining power on a minority vote. Indeed, that is the burden of the argument which refers to the Quebec experience. I would suggest to your Lordships, as I did in a similar debate in the context of the Scotland Bill, that such a short-term political consideration is not a sound basis for making such a major change in our well-tried electoral system, and I hope that in that respect I echo what my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has said. Moreover, the danger does not seem to be so acute in Wales, and apparently it is receding in Scotland, as may be evidenced by certain recent election results of which noble Lords will be aware.
Other noble Lords have said in the course of this debate that proportional representation will somehow give a fair and a just result, whereas the first-past-the post system does not. But that, if I may suggest it—and I think I said something similar on a previous occasion when we discussed this matter during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill—is altogether too stark a contrast. I am sure that the Committee will recognise that we are not dealing with a black and white situation.
Direct election systems, such as we now enjoy—the first-past-the-post system is one—do not necessarily produce a non-
1106
proportional result. They merely offer, in some circumstances, a higher probability of that result than proportional representation systems. Moreover, no workable PR system, and certainly not this one, gives an assurance of perfect proportionality. For practical reasons there always has to be some departure from arithmetical precision. Indeed, in this series of Amendments we see the 5 per cent. provision, which is in itself a departure from strict proportionality, for it recognises that there have to be some trade-offs and some compromises, and that principle is one which is valid for any kind of political system.
I should like to emphasise the point that was dismissed very lightly by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, but it is certainly a fair one; that is, that where there are a number of different political Parties and each political Party obtains a fraction of the votes but no political Party is able to command a majority of the seats, then what immediately follows the election is that the Parties have to meet together and start to make compromises and deals which might just scandalise the electorate, none of whom may have voted for the compromise programme which emerges. Of course that is a stronger argument when a Government or an Administration is being formed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has reminded us, and I acknowledge the force of that point in this context.
I wish also to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said. He appealed to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, supposing perhaps that he might be replying to this. He will be replying on many other points but not on this one. The noble Lord appealed to the Government to make a concession, but I want to make a point which I am sure the Committee will accept as valid; that is, that the Government have conceded a free vote here for reasons that are well understood. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded us that on his side of the Committee there is also a free vote.
So far as the Government are concerned, we can really do no more. It is unreal to suppose that the Government could impose a Whip and thus ensure that a vast majority of their supporters, either here or in another place, would troop

1107
through the Lobbies and support proportional representation. It cannot be done. Electoral reform, like constitutional reform, is the art of the possible. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked us to engage in an experiment. I should also like to make a point that I made, I think, validly, in the context of the Scotland Bill; it is that the whole business of devolution is itself an experiment about which many people are quite fearful. But it is a real experiment, and to complicate it and perhaps to endanger it by introducing a further experiment of something else new and untried is, in my submission, quite unwarrantable.
Others have said that one can look at proportional representation in the context of Wales and say that it is different from Scotland and that it is different from Westminster. I think that may be a very dangerous argument indeed. After all, one is now able to point to proportional representation being introduced into Northern Ireland more than once, and it is suggested that it should be introduced in Scotland and in Wales and also for the European elections. So it ultimately may happen that Westminster is sticking out like a sore thumb as the only assembly elected on a first-past-the-post system. Perhaps the weight of argument for changing the system at Westminster becomes very formidable indeed and, accordingly, I would say that we are not at the thin end of the wedge; we are very much halfway up the wedge on the way these arguments have been presented.
I do not want to take up an undue amount of time, but for various reasons when we first discussed this matter the arguments were somewhat truncated towards the end of the debate and I want to make the general point that I believe there is something academic, arid and unreal about the notion that electoral and democratic justice are attainable by switching from a first-past-the-post-system to a system of PR which is untried here and which does not grow out of our political traditions. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said in the Scotland debate, and perhaps I might remind the Committee of it. He said:
"I do not believe it is possible to dogmatise and to say in advance This system is ideal and
1108
fair; that system is wrong and unfair'. I think that is pure will-o'-the-wisp".
Again, when people talk about PR and its advantages they speak as though the present political Parties were somehow immutable features of our democratic and political landscape. That is not so and I want again to emphasise what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said in the same debate. He reminded us that the existing Parties are to some extent at least the product of the electoral system: change the system and you will change the character, the strength and all the features of the political Parties. Is that something one wants to embark upon in this context?
I should like to remind the Committee of another argument that I used and which I believe has force. It is that the political Parties themselves are not monolithic single-minded institutions with all the unity of purpose that one finds in a Roman phalanx. It is simply not so. They are almost without exception broad coalitions themselves. Each Party has its Left and its Right; each Party has its radicals and its moderates; each Party has its idealists and its practical schemers, and each Party represents in some respect the thinking and the wishes of people who actually vote for other Parties in a general or other election.
There is one other point. Under the present system all the political Parties have to fight for the middle ground, and in office they have to fight to keep it. Therefore I believe that the present system, whatever its theoretical defects, actually delivers many of the benefits which the advocates of proportional representation assert—but assert with speculation—will be derived from proportional representation. I have taken up enough time in this debate. I would remind the Committee that we have a free vote and I ask your Lordships to think long and hard before voting for this system in this context. In my submission, what we are being offered here is something which is deceptively simple, but it is untried and it offers benefits which are speculative rather than real.
4.57 p.m.
Lord HARLECH: In my opening remarks in moving this Amendment I referred to a body of opinion which

1109
exists in the Conservative Party, and which I hoped was very much in a minority, which is against any change, irrespective of circumstances. I am bound to say that I thought the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was a rather good example of that particular type of opinion. Here we are not dealing with Westminster; here we are dealing with a new Assembly for Wales. In my view the circumstances are entirely different, as I tried to explain in my opening remarks, and I do not think that a change to an alternative system of voting would be bad in this instance. Indeed, I strongly urge it upon your Lordships.
The noble and learned Lord quoted a number of statistics to show what the feelings were in another place on this particular issue and therefore I think it is only right that I should remind the Committee what the figures were in your Lordships' House. On a very similar Amendment to the Scotland Bill your Lordships voted 155 in favour of the Amendment, and only 64 against. The question which arises in one's mind—and I do not think the noble and learned Lord really addressed himself to this point—is this: How is it that the Royal Commission, taking evidence over a long period of time, composed of members of all Parties and of none, unanimously came to the conclusion that proportional representation would be a better system in an Assembly of this kind? I am bound to say that, were I to consider whose opinion—unprejudiced opinion—I would follow in cases of this kind, I think it would be that of the Royal Commission rather than another place. The noble and learned Lord quoted certain sentences from speeches made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone in the debate on a similar Amendment to the Scotland Bill. What
he omitted to say was that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, did in fact vote for the Amendment which was similar to the one I am now proposing.
I should perhaps say something in answer to my noble friend Lord Elton. He indicated that his attitude on the first Amendment would be affected to some extent by anything that I or others might have to say on his Amendment No. 17. I am principally concerned that we should have a system of proportional representation for the voting for the Welsh Assembly. There are arguments, which I do not propose to put forward now, both for and against the particular method of selecting the additional Members which appears in the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There are arguments in favour, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, indicated, for having a Party list system. My own feeling is that both of them are perfectly good systems in their own way, and if your Lordships were to vote in favour of the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and that was then added to the substantive Amendment which I have been moving, I would vote in favour of the substantive Amendment as amended by Lord Elton's Amendment. I personally do not set enormous store by which method the additional Members are selected. I think the important issue which is before your Lordships' Committee is whether or not there should be a system of proportional representation in the voting for a Welsh Assembly.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Barnby, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Alport, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carrington, L.

Amherst, E.

Berkeley, B.

Cathcart, E.

Ampthill, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cawley, L.

Atholl, D.

Bledisloe, V.

Chelwood, L.

Auckland, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Chesham, L.

Avebury, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Chitnis, L.

Avon, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Clancarty, E.

Balerno, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Byers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Ballantrae, L.

Caccia, L.

Cockfield, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton, L.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Craigavon, L.

Ilchester, E.

Segal, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Selkirk, E.

Croft, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Cromartie, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sherfield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shinwell, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Denbigh, E.

Luke, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Sligo, M.

Digby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Somers, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Stamp, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mancroft, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Marley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elton, L.

Meston, L.

Strathspey, L.

Energlyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Swansea, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Swaythling, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Foot, L.

Moyne, L.

Tenby, V.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Terrington, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ogmore, L.

Teviot, L.

Gage, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Thurso, V.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Trenchard, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Perth, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Glasgow, E.

Platt, L.

Vernon, L.

Glendevon, L.

Rea, L.

Vickers, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Vivian, L.

Gray, L.

Robbins, L.

Wade, L.

Grey, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Walston, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Hampden, V.

Rochester, L.

Willis, L.

Hampton, L.

Romney, E.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hankey, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Harlech, L. [Teller.]

Saint Albans, Bp.

Winstanley, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alanbrooke, V.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Northfield, L.

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Bacon, B.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Balogh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Heycock, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Spens, L.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tranmire, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Wallace, of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, B.

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Ferrers, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Williamson, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: If I may take them together, the next Amendments merely give expression to the indication of how the proportional representation system would in fact work. We must distinguish in the Bill between constituency Members and additional Members. Therefore, the word "constituency" is added in various places.

1113
Moreover, in order to bring the total number of elected Members down to 50, in those places where "three" is in the Bill we propose to insert "two". The other changes are consequential upon those two points, namely, reducing the number of elected Members to 50 and calling them constituency Members rather than additional Members. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is able to help us by indicating which of those Amendments he regards as being consequential upon the one which has just been carried by a Division? I might be able to help him, but I should like to check my list against his.
Lord HARLECH: The Amendments which I think are consequential are numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Amendment No. 10 relates to the 25 initial additional Members. All of those Amendments come together. Amendment No. 12 inserts "constituency" after "initial". Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16 are consequential. Therefore the Amendments up to No. 17 are, I think, to be inserted for the reasons which I have given the Committee.
Lord ELTON: I quite accept that grouping, but is it not normal—it certainly has been as regards the Bills upon which I have worked in the past—to have the groupings agreed and circulated in advance? This makes it easier for some people who in a hurry join in the discussion on the Bill to pick up the threads of the argument?
Lord McCLUSKEY: That may be usual, but as the noble Lord will appreciate there was not time to do that after the publication of the list and the numbers. That was why I thought it might help the Committee if the noble Lord were to explain the grouping, which we are happy to have from him.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: It seems to me that another consequential Amendment is No. 25.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I would ask the noble Lord when considering that matter to consider No. 9 as well.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): If it is your Lordships' wish, we shall take the next three Amendments together.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")
Page 1, line 12, after ("initial") insert ("constituency")
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("125") and insert ("113").
5.16 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, after (" quota ") insert—
("( ) one initial member for each of those areas of which the electorate is less than 75 per cent. of the electoral quota").
The noble Lord said: This is by way of a small probing Amendment. We have not yet had adduced the reasons for the size of the Assembly which Her Majesty's Government have pitched upon, although I do not doubt that it has been discussed in some other place or in some other context. There are fairly strong arguments for keeping it smaller rather than larger. Obviously, if we get down to the fifties we shall have difficulty because if, as the Bill recommends, there are dozens of subject committees it will be difficult to man them without enormous overlaps and considerable inconvenience.
On the other hand, the number could become excessive, and obviously 250 would be too much. We have therefore tabled an Amendment which reduces the representation of the smaller constituencies where the electoral quota is 25 per cent. bigger than the electorate. In that case it seems to us that there are arguments within both the constituencies and the Assembly for favouring the reduction of representation. I know that I am in danger of appearing to argue against a case which I brought forward on Second Reading which was to avoid the giving of too much power to the urban and industrial South as against the rural and agricultural North.
The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the representation of Merthyr Tydfil, Ebbw Vale and Abertillery. I

1115
do not think that those can be considered as widespread rural seats. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in what we are advancing. Moreover, there are interesting comparisons to be made with similar or comparable Assemblies elsewhere in the world. I have, as it happens, a rather formidable list but I propose to quote only two or three examples.
The Legislative Council and House of Assembly of South Australia runs to 69 Members for a population of 1·2 million. Alberta has 75 Members for a population of 1·8 million. However, I think that the closest example would be British Columbia which seems to cope extremely well with 55 Members managing the affairs for a population of just over 2 million people. That, of course, is very much the situation that the Welsh Assembly will be required to look after. On an occasion when there is an opportunity to redress imbalances of representation without waiting for the work of a Boundary Commission—which we are constantly being told will hold things up unacceptably—it would be interesting to know why the Government have not taken this opportunity to make this redress in the very small constituencies. I beg to move.
5.19 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendments Nos. 6 and 15 together. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that this was a probing Amendment. In fact, the Amendment which he has proposed would lead to a difference of only five in the size of the Assembly: it would be an Assembly of 74 Members rather than 79. The formula which is proposed by the noble Lord in the Amendment is, of course, for the initial Assembly, and it is obviously desirable to keep that particular point clearly in mind.
One of the principles underlying our proposals is to bring Government as close as possible to the people of Wales. That is why we propose that the Assembly Members should represent fewer constituencies than do Members of another place, and why, as a consequence, we responded to criticism, to which we were
1116
subjected, of the scheme set out in the White Paper and decided to drop the original proposal that the few constituencies—that is five on the basis of the 1977 electoral list—with less than 75 per cent. of the average electorate, should have only one Member.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred to three of the constituencies which would be affected by his Amendment. Let me mention the other two. They would be Merioneth and Montgomery, both of which are relatively large and thinly populated areas. I think that it would be difficult to justify giving them only one Member simply because of their relatively small population. That is indeed why we have come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to have two Members rather than one. Certainly I would concede at once that there is no right size for the Assembly. Some have suggested that 50 is the right number; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and his colleagues have suggested 100.
The Government have tried to strike a balance in the Bill which is based on the following rationale: first, that Assembly constituencies should be based on Parliamentary constituencies. In our view, any other system would give rise to severe practical difficulties. For example, local Party organisations are based on Parliamentary constituencies and a separate and different Assembly constituency pattern might inevitably lead to some confusion. Secondly, that each Member should represent fewer voters than do Members of Parliament; thirdly, that there should be some weighting arrangement to reduce disparities in the size of electorates; fourthly, that the 25 per cent. above the average entitlement to a third Member is justified because it represents the figure at which in straight arithmetical logic that area would become entitled to an additional Member. Lastly, that no comparable reduction should be made in constituencies 25 per cent. below the average, because some of them tend to be in rather thinly populated areas.
I would not argue for a moment that there is a simple figure which is clearly right and that all other figures are demonstrably wrong. But having explained the general principles under which we have worked, all I would say to the

1117
Committee is that this seems to be a reasonable basis for ensuring a reasonably representative Assembly—as reasonable, I think, as any formula possibly could be.
Lord ELTON: I should like to make a couple of observations. As we have got down to quoting individual constituencies, first, if we give to Monmouth the three Members at present proposed and distribute among them the 78,300 voters, each Member represents 29,000 people. If we give to Merioneth not the two Members but the one Member which this Amendment proposes, that one Member would still represent only 27,000 of the electorate. Therefore, there is really quite a considerable discrepancy there.
However, I am also interested in asking the noble Lord at what point—if at all—he proposes to deploy the rationale behind the size of Assembly that he has arrived at, beyond telling us that there is no perfect solution. I imagine that this should be—should it not?—when we have discussed the question of the committee structure. Obviously, the ideal size of membership is not related only to the number of voters who have to be represented; it is also strictly related to the amount of work that the representatives have to do. In one sense they are doing an enormous amount of work because they are representing 2 million people. In another sense, on the face of it they appear to be sharing out between them only part of the load of the Secretary of State for Wales, who has given them most of the functions which they are to perform. Therefore, there is an interesting reflection about how much they ought actually to do—not only about how much it ought actually to cost, but also about how many of them there actually ought to be. I take it that the noble Lord would prefer not to be drawn on this now, but that we should revert to the subject later when we have clarified our views. Therefore, unless any of my noble friends wish to intervene at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("two initial members") and insert ("one initial member").
The noble Lord said: This is what I call a consequential Amendment. If we have passed Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and, to some extent, Amendment No. 10 all follow in the same way.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Is it your Lordships' wish that I put Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 at the same time?
Lord RAGLAN: The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said that he thought that Amendment No. 10 followed "to some extent". It either follows or it does not.
Lord HARLECH: It follows from the words I used in proposing the original Amendment. That is to say, these Amendments are designed to set up an Assembly composed of 50 elected Members by a first-past-the-post system and 25 additional Members.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10:
Page 1, line 16, after first ("The") insert ("constituency")
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("constituency")
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
(" (3A) Twenty-five initial additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting set out in Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote, such votes being referred to in this Act as 'party votes'.
(3B) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number).").
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE moved Amendment No.11:
Page 1, leave out line 21.
The noble Marquess said: Perhaps I might speak for my noble friend Lord Morris. This being a probing Amendment, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us that the Welsh people and the putative Members of the proposed Assembly will be fully aware of their legal standing. Are the Government aware that, should the Bill

1119
go through, all they will have achieved is another tier of Government; in fact, nothing more than a glorified county council? This Amendment was tabled because of the wording that,
"The Assembly shall be a body corporate".
I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is looking inquiringly at me. I should like enlightenment as to what, in fact, is the precise effect of making a body a body corporate. As I understand it, it means that it is a body that is regarded in law as though it were a person, and I believe that it can be sued. However, I am very likely wrong because I am not a lawyer. I should like to be informed about this.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The provision which this Amendment would leave out declares the Welsh Assembly to be a corporate body. There is no need for any particular mystery so far as this particular provision is concerned. It is virtually standard practice to give corporate status to any public body which possesses executive responsibilities. The body then has its own continuing identity, separate from the identities of its individual Members. This serves a number of useful and sensible purposes. For example, property can be vested in the Assembly, which is dealt with in Clause 66 of the Bill; and legal proceedings can be taken against the Assembly, which is dealt with in Clause 70 of the Bill.
There is a parallel provision in local government where Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 declares that county and district councils are bodies corporate. In our view, if we did not have this provision there would be a number of quite significant legal problems; for example, regarding the ownership of property. It would be very difficult indeed were the Assembly not to be a corporate body. That is why the provision is in the Bill as drafted and why we think that it should remain there.
Lord ELTON: In that case, am I to understand that the Scottish Assembly will not be able to own any property? We are always having the Scotland Bill quoted at us to explain things we ought to know already. I think I am right in
1120
saying that there is no equivalent provision in the Scotland Bill. This seems to be a case where we, having properly done our homework, have properly a question to ask. I should have thought that if the provision is necessary for the one, it must be necessary for the other. But if the Scotland Bill is the paradigm, then this Bill must in some way be defective—must it not?—or else the explanation must go further than that which the noble Lord has already given.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No. The position as regards the Scottish Assembly is considerably different. This Assembly is to be a legislative and deliberative body with no executive functions. All executive functions will, in fact, be vested in the Scottish Secretaries. They are not given any sort of corporate identity. The effect of the constitutional provision of the Scotland Bill will be to put them in much the same position as is the situation of ministerial office holders in the United Kingdom, where one can, of course, sue—if one is of a sufficiently disagreeable disposition—the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The same sitution will apply to Scotland in exactly the same way. Wales is a very different matter, for the reasons that I have given.
Lord ELTON: Does this mean that noble Lords, if they felt so disposed, would sue the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the Welsh Assembly, as a corporate body, but they might not sue the Scottish Assembly? The reasons for this are a little obscure to me. It is a fascinating area of interest, is it not? The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has revealed himself apparently as the owner of considerable properties. Many of us would like to know where they are, whether the noble Lord is maintaining the properties and what the tenants feel about him as landlord.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am grateful for the noble Lord's interest in my property. I am saddened that it has been reported that I have indeed been sued as a Minister. I am not sure what the result of the action is. The Treasury Solicitor has not seen fit to inform me. I believe that the action is at this moment awaiting adjudication in one of the courts. I had better be careful not to breach in any way the sub judice rule. The situation

1121
is different, for the reasons, that I have given, in the case of a United Kingdom Minister and a Scottish Secretary. When the Scottish devolution Act is on the Statute Book the Minister himself will be sued. The Welsh Assembly will be a very different type of body. It will be sued in exactly the same way as would a local authority.
Lord ELTON: Would the noble Lord pay more attention to the outcome of the case than he appears to have done in the past?
Lord MORRIS: I must apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Amendment in my name came up. It came up rather faster than I had anticipated. Clause 1(4) of the Bill provides the legal definition of the proposed Welsh Assembly, namely, that the Assembly shall be a body corporate. I believe it to be of fundamental importance that the Welsh people and future Members of the Assembly are sensible of the true nature of what they arc about to embrace.
The old and delightfully worded definition of a body corporate or politic is:
… an assembly and joining together of many into fellowship and brotherhood, whereof one is head or chief, and this head or body, knit together, makes the corporation. Also it is constituted of several members, like unto the natural body, and framed by a fixture of law to endure in perpetual succession".
Thus, we see that a body corporate is to be the legal personality of the Welsh Assembly. As with the natural person, or another type of corporation aggregate, or company, a body corporate can sue and be sued, can own, sell or otherwise divest itself of property, take upon itself obligations, and enforce its rights.
If we look to Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill we see that these rights are partly entrenched in the Bill. Clause 26 of the Bill provides:
"Where it considers it expedient for promotion of protection of the public interest, the Assembly may institute in its own name, or appear in, any civil proceedings relating to matters with respect to which the powers of the Assembly are exercisable".
Clause 27 provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Assembly may do anything (whether or not involving the acquisition or disposal of property) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of its functions".
1122
Similarly Clause 66(1) provides:
"The Secretary of State shall by order provide—
(a) for the transfer to and vesting in the Assembly of property vested in him and appearing to him to be property used or to be used solely or mainly for or in connection with the exercise of functions which by virtue of this Act have become or will become functions of the Assembly;".
May I ask the Minister, in the light of the foregoing, whether a person suing the Assembly in a civil action may join a Member or Members of the Assembly, jointly or severally, in such an action in law?
It is apparent to your Lordships that the Welsh Assembly is nothing other than a large, amorphous county council. Mr. Tom Ellis, Labour Member for Wrexham, in another place, stated that this Bill sets up a glorified county council. Similarly, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, in another place, said that the Government's plans for devolution would lead to a glorified county council in Wales. Indeed, my Lords, I believe that is the case.
In this context, it will be recalled that Clause 23 of the Bill gives privilege to Members of the Assembly from prosecution for defamation for statements made in the Assembly, subject to defamatory statements published in documents proved to be made with malice. May I ask the Minister why the Welsh Assembly is given privilege, where other public corporations and other county councils, are not?
Indeed, Section 69 of the Bill, which provides that the Welsh Assembly shall be a public body for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1889 to 1916, further proves this point. In the Act the expression "public body" is defined as any council of a county or city or town, any council of a municipal borough, also any board, commissioners, select vestry, or other body which has power to act under and for the purposes of any Act relating to local government, et cetera. I think we should remind ourselves that each individual Member of the Assembly is covered under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889 and those of 1906 and 1916. In the light of that, may I ask the Minister whether he would make absolutely plain what is the nature of the Welsh Assembly? Will he

1123
consider that the Assembly should not be signified with a name, "Assembly", but rather should be called "Council"?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not think that the name of the organisation really relates directly to this particular Amendment.
I think that the noble Lord will find that some of the particular points which he raised were dealt with in the speech which I made when, unhappily, he was not with us. Certainly I shall look carefully at what he said. If there are any particular issues with which I have not dealt, I shall write to him before the next stage of the Bill. The answer to his specific question as to whether individual members of the authority could be joined in some form of action, is, No, they could not. Of course, the law applies to the Welsh Assembly in exactly the same way as it would to a local authority.
I think that I have answered the issues of principle raised in the noble Lord's Amendment. However, as I indicated, if there are any questions which he would like to have gone into rather more thoroughly before the next stage of the Bill, I shall gladly look at the matters between now and then.
Lord MORRIS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I apologise for not being here when he spoke earlier. In the light of the noble Lord's remarks, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.38 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 2, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is another consequential Amendment relating to previous Amendments.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Assembly Constituencies]:
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("125") and insert ("113" ).
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are further consequential Amendments arising out of the previous Amendments that have been passed.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 35, line 14, leave out ("two Assembly constituencies") and insert ("one Assembly constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
5.41 p.m.
Lord HARLECH Lord HARLECH moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 36, line 22, at end insert—
("PART V
ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.
(2) No party shall be an eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured 5 per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.
16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:
(1) The number of additional members to be returned at the ordinary election concerned shall be ascertained in accordance with section 1 of this Act.
(2) The constituencies at the first ordinary election shall be grouped into two Electoral Regions in accordance with Part VI of this Schedule and the initial additional members prescribed by section 1 (3A) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions as shown in Part VI of this Schedule.
(3) The number, group and allocation of additional members at ordinary elections other than at the first ordinary election shall be those prescribed by this Schedule.
(4) In the event of any change in the number of constituencies after the first ordinary election the automatic increase or decrease in the number of additional members provided for by section 1(3B) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions so that as a result the aggregate

1125
of the additional members and the constituency members for each Electoral Regional shall as between the Electoral Regions be proportional to the respective electorates of each Electoral Regional at the ordinary election concerned.
(5)Priority lists showing the priority as between adopted list candidates shall be democratically drawn up by each party for each Electoral Region and shall not contain more names than there are additional member seats to be allocated at the ordinary election concerned to the Electoral Region concerned. A person standing for election as a constituency member may be eligible for inclusion on one or more of his party's priority lists.
(6) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party in each Electoral Region shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum (called the denominator sum) of the number of candidates of each eligible party returned as constituency members at that election for each Electoral Region plus one.
(7) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member in each Electoral Region shall be the first candidate on the relevant priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.
(8) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall be repeated after adding the additional member elected in each Electoral Region in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph to the relevant denominator sum of the eligible party of which he was an adopted candidate.
(9) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (8) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next persons respectively to be elected additional members for each Electoral Region shall be the first candidates on the respective priority lists of the respective eligible parties obtaining the highest numbers respectively as a result of those calculations who arc not already members.
(10) The remaining additional members shall be elected one by one by application of the same system of calculation and election to each Electoral Region as is prescribed in the preceding sub-paragraphs of this paragraph.
(11) In this paragraph "party" means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Welsh Assembly.
(12) Her Majesty may be Order in Council make regulations for the drawing up and publication of priority lists by parties and the form of the ballot paper to be used for ordinary elections to the Assembly under this part of this Act but no recommendation shall he made to Her Majesty in Council to make such an Order until a draft of the Order has been laid before
1126
Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
PART VI
ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
The two Electoral Regions shall be comprised of groups of constituencies and shall have allocated to them respectively the number of additional members as follows:

Constituency Additional

Electoral Region

Seats

Seats

Total

South Wales …

32

17

49

North, Mid and West Wales

18

8

26

50

25

75")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment spells out the method by which an additional Member is elected to the Assembly. I described it in my remarks when moving Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List. It is easiest to describe it briefly as the priority list system, as opposed to the system which is proposed in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Elton.
I think that it is fairly straightforward. The reason we have proposed this particular method of appointing additional Members is that when there were debates on the additional-Member system in another place the strongest possible objection was raised to the idea of making additional Members out of those who had been defeated in the election. I know that there are arguments for and against that particular method. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, advanced the cases of the exploits of Billie-Jean King on the tennis court and Sebastian V on Aintree race course as examples of those who had performed well and therefore could hardly he regarded as failures.
Nevertheless, I think that the weight of opinion has been against this particular method, and that is why we propose the priority list system. I think it has advantages. It is said against it that it promotes further Party patronage and there is already enough of that. It seems to me that, if Parties feel strongly about this matter, it is within their own control to introduce a method of selection for the priority list system which they regard as democratic and free from undue Party patronage. The necessary action to do that lies under their own hand and is under their own control.
I think there are some advantages in the priority list system. I thought that they were well described in a speech by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill on 4th April at column 51, when he was discussing what distinctive contribution these additional Members could make to an Assembly. He said:
"Such Members should have been carefully chosen perhaps as possessing distinction and experience of the kind that we are wont to observe and welcome in newly-created Peers."
He went on to say:
"… these additional Members might well add a valuable complementary element to the Assembly which would compensate in some measure for the lack of a second Chamber."
It seemed to us on balance that this was the best system of providing the additional Members for the Assembly. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 17 standing in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 17A:
Leave out sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16 and insert—
(" (5) In each electoral region when the constituency members have been elected the names of the remaining candidates shall be placed upon Priority Lists. There shall be a Priority List for each eligible party as defined in paragraph 15(2) above. Subject to the provisions of that paragraph the name of every candidate standing in that election for a constituency in that Electoral Region but not elected shall appear on one or other of those Priority Lists. The names of the candidates shall appear upon the Priority Lists in an order determined by the number of votes received by them at the election, the name of the candidate receiving the most votes appearing first and that of the candidate receiving fewest votes appearing last.").
The noble Lord said: There is bound to he a certain feeling of déjà vu, and déjà recently vu too about this particular debate. None the less, I do not wish it to go entirely by default. Your Lordships will have detected, I hope, that I feel strongly on this Amendment. I believe that the strength of my feeling is shared by a great many members of our Party, and not all of them Members of this House. Therefore, I am constrained to take up your Lordships' time, first of all briefly to remind you of what I propose in Amendment No. 17A.
Accepting the proposal in the principal Amendment (which I think, has not yet been referred to) of the electoral region, and seeking in no way to interfere with the selective process applied to the priority lists, which come after it in the legislation, I wish to see whether it is possible to arrive at the priority lists by some means which do not give quite so much alarm and offence to a number of my friends in politics. You may think that this alarm is ill-founded, but none the less it exists, and of that it is necessary to take cognisance.
I do not doubt that many of these people are in fact Members of another place, and that alarm must be catered for if your Lordships wish this Amendment to go into the Bill in another place. I grant that its chances are pretty slim anyway, but they will be slightly less slim if we bring about this modest alteration. The alteration is that when in a region an election has been held and seats have been won, those candidates who have not successfully taken a place are placed upon priority lists proper to their Party, and they are placed on those lists in the order which is dictated by giving the first place to the candidate who acquired most votes and the last place to the candidate who acquired least votes.
Up to that point it is a straightforward electoral process, to which I can see few people taking exception. I hope I have already sufficiently explained that it is facile to regard them as also-rans; as people marked out by failure. Having been defeated twice—and once very narrowly—at the polls I take a certain personal resentment at that; but, that aside, I do not think that that is a valid argument against it. If we can bring this Amendment into the principal Amendment, I think there is a little more chance that the principal Amendment will survive in another place. I, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, am anxious that an opportunity for that to happen should be given. I do not expect that what I have offered is perfect, and if noble Lords devise a better way of doing what I propose I shall be more than happy to consider it. But I ask your Lordships to be aware of opinion outside this Chamber which perhaps we ought to take into account. I beg to move.
5.48 p.m.
Lord BANKS: I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is trying to achieve with this Amendment, but it seems to me that there are four objections to it. May I put them in the order of importance, as they seem to me, starting with the least important. There is a case for saying that it would be unwise to send back to the other place at this time, in two similar Bills, two different systems of election aiming at the same purpose. It seems to me that there is a case to be made for consistency for following the line which we already agreed in the Scotland Bill.
The second objection is the objection to which the noble Lord referred, and which he has twice rebutted, but which nevertheless has some impact. That is the argument that it is rather strange to hold an election and, when that election is over, then to put those who have just been defeated on to the list of candidates for the additional Members. The third objection is that the system that the noble Lord proposes instead of the system which is in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is purely arbitrary. It has the outward appearance of being more democratic, but it is purely arbitrary.
We have no means of knowing who the next choice of all the voters in the region of the particular Party would have been if they had had the opportunity of declaring that choice. We have no means of knowing that, and just to put at the top of the list the candidate who happened to secure the largest vote is something of a lottery; he was the candidate who happened to be adopted for that constituency but he might have been adopted for one of the others, in which case he would not have been at the top of the list. He had the fortune to be adopted perhaps for a constituency where his Party was stronger than they were in the other case. And who knows whether one of the other candidates of his Party, if he had stood in that particular constituency, might not have done better? It is therefore a purely arbitrary way of selecting the list of priorities.
I come to the fourth objection. Under the system as proposed by Lord Harlech, you cast your second vote, your vote for the Party, knowing who the team are for the additional Members and knowing the order in which the Party has put them;
1130
so if you say, "I am going to vote for that particular Party with my Party vote", you do so knowing the order in which the candidates have been put and who they are. But if you cast your Party vote under the system proposed by Lord Elton, you do not know who the candidates will be because you do not know who will be adopted as a constituency Member—and this involves Members in constituencies other than the one in which you are in—and you do not know the order in which those candidates will appear, and that order will be determined quite likely by electors in another constituency.
It seems to me much better to vote knowing who the candidates are and knowing the order of priority to which you are committing yourself by that vote, rather than to enter into the rather arbitrary lottery which, with the best of intentions, Lord Elton is proposing. For these reasons I hope he will not press his Amendment but will give further thought to the quite difficult task which he set himself of seeking to improve on what Lord Harlech has set before us.
Lord HYLTON: I prefer the proposals put forward by my noble friends Lord Harlech and Lady Elliot of Harwood. My noble friend Lord Elton possibly exaggerated the scope for patronage; after all, there will be only 25 additional Members and they will probably be split up among three or four different Parties. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, Lord Elton's system is slightly mechanistic; it might so happen that the weather was very much worse in one constituency than in another and therefore one got a very much lower poll. Finally, if we go for Lord Harlech's system, there will be scope for bringing into the Assembly people such as we have in your Lordships' House sitting on the "mobile bench" who might easily not be people who would want to stand in an election, canvas a very large constituency and deal with constituency matters thereafter if they were elected; nevertheless, the sort of people who could make a very valuable contribution to the proceedings.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think it right that I should say something on this issue. A vegetarian offered a choice between beef and pork might reply "nuts", and I am rather in that position because we do

1131
not like proportional representation, and indeed this present disagreement itself illustrates one of the defects of that kind of system, because one must support either the priority list system or the system contained in the version suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. There are of course objections to both, and it is not for me to adumbrate them. I have the feeling that it would perhaps be unfortunate if the Bill went back with a provision of this kind, different from the provision contained in the Scotland Bill— the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I also certainly have reservations about a system which envisages that people untainted by electioneering would somehow be brought in to instruct those who have been through the mill of the election on how they should conduct their affairs in the Assembly. That seems to be an extraordinary notion. One or other of the defects which has been outlined must be contained in one or other of the systems, and I shall advise my noble friends, as I would advise a vegetarian, to abstain.
Lord ELTON: Nobody could call that a warm welcome. On the one hand, I have a noble friend with a Welsh name and, on the other, I have a Member of a Party which has espoused the cause of Liberalism to the extent that every member of it must be an expert on the subject down to the first or second half century of its espousal; and then I have the noble and learned Lord who has experience of these matters far exceeding mine in the legal sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, began by putting out his arguments in ascending order of importance. He was right to put the first one first, but I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, giving strength to it. We are here discussing the Welsh with their small population and with an Assembly with a totally different declared purpose; perhaps we are smoking out something new. Perhaps the Welsh Assembly is, after all, in some sense legislative, but its declared purpose is not legislative and it is therefore different from the Scots. I see no objection to that as a matter of principle, and as we have been talking so much about racing I suggest that it is a matter of horses for courses, and the course in Wales is rather different from that in Scotland.
1132
Lord Banks went on to say it was strange to hold an election and then return those who had been defeated, and he thus betrayed the fact that he had totally misconceived my conception of this election. It is not an election for one place in each constituency; it is an election for 79 places in Wales divided up perhaps into two regions. You have not failed until you have not got in. It is a question of which sort of seat you are elected to. Lord Banks puts himself in the same sort of position as the parents of unfortunate children who sit the 11 plus, do not go to grammar school because they are more suitable for another sort of school, and are then told they have failed. That was not the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise in each case is selection for the appropriate seat, and therefore one cannot label these people as failures.
Lord BANKS: The noble Lord will be aware that it is possible for a person to be on both lists under the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, so people are able to enter themselves for both schools.
Lord ELTON: Yes, and that illustrates the danger of analogy in debate. I have perhaps opened up a difficulty which did not exist, and which does not exist, but is illusory. I am saying that the person who has come second in a constituency election and then gets himself, as a result, on to another list from which he gets a seat in the Assembly has not failed to become an Assembly Member; he has come by a different route and he is no longer a constituency Member; that is all.
The third difficulty which Lord Banks adduced was that this was an arbitrary system. He said there was no means of knowing who would get the most votes. I must say that if any of us ever knew that, Ladbrokes would be the poorer.
Lord BANKS: I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Lord, but he said what I did not say. I did not say there was no way of knowing who would get the most votes. I said there was no way of knowing who would be the second choice if all the people of a particular Party in a particular region were given the opportunity of declaring it, and just to take the person who happened to be at the top of the poll in one particular area was no criterion at all.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has now touched on a real, but I think solvable, difficulty, because he later went on to say —if he did not, then my noble friend Lord Hylton might have said it—that you would have the situation where the votes cast in one constituency would determine which person would be taken from a list claiming to provide representation for the whole of the Assembly region. That point I take, and it might be possible to work in some means of aggregation whereby the votes in all the constitutencies were taken into account, and I would need to look at that. It seems to me that the method of arriving at the proportion of seats already in some measure takes that aggregation into account.
Before returning to that, I should add a couple of points, one of which is that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that it was a mechanistic method and that if it was reproduced in another place the "mobile bench" in this House would be lacking. Perhaps I ought to point out that he was gesturing towards my noble friend Lord Crawshaw who, though he doubtless could have been, is, I regret to say, here by no merit of his own other than paternity. Therefore, the illustration was perhaps not a good one.
I am saying—and I am sure that your Lordships are beginning to grasp it—that the answer to the question "beef or pork?" is not nuts. It is just possible that we might make it into fish if we tried hard enough, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, could stretch that point as a vegetarian. I should like to be able to stretch him to that point, and a great number of his friends, as well as my friends who have given me the reception they have this afternoon.
Upon reflection, I believe it should be possible to take some of these things into account and I shall therefore not bring your Lordships to a Division at this juncture. However, I wish to make it clear that I have not let the point go and that I hope we shall be able to reach an accommodation not too different from what I have suggested. I think that if we are going to get the sails of the ship, as I earlier called it, really filled, we have got to meet some of the objections in the quarters to which I referred earlier and we shall not do that with this Amendment as it
1134
stands. As for my own Amendment I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): We now return to Amendment No. 17, which has already been moved.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
Lord ELTON: May I raise a point at this stage? I wanted to give an opportunity to my noble friend Lord Harlech to expand, if he will, on the philosophy behind the electoral regions which appear as the last part of the last paragraph of his Amendment to Schedule 1, Part VI, where we have the division of Wales into South Wales and North, Mid and West Wales and an allocation of seats thereto which appears on page 5 of the Marshalled List. It seems to me that this is not necessarily controversial, but it is a large and important issue and I think it would be helpful, certainly to my own further cogitations, to know the reasoning behind this allocation.
Lord HARLECH: I understood that we had agreed this Amendment, but I am happy to give an explanation. The difficulty is that if there is one single region for the whole of Wales the priority list system would be drawn up on an all-Wales basis. By dividing it into two regions there would be a list which was particularly suitable for North, Mid and West Wales, and another which was particularly suitable for South Wales. It is the same principle as was contained in the Amendment to the Scotland Bill which we believe means that the additional Members are likely to have, and indeed will have, a closer association with a particular region of Wales than if they are appointed to represent Wales as a whole.
Viscount SIMON: Will the noble Lord explain how it comes about that in South Wales the number of additional seats is one more than half and in North and West Wales is one less than half the constituency seats?
Lord HARLECH: It is to do with the mathematics of the number of voters in the various constituencies which are put together in order to form the two regions.
Lord ELTON: This feature of the Amendment goes a little way to meet the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to my own Amendment. It is not every Welsh seat the electors to which will feel they have not contributed; it is only half of them. Wales is not an enormous community. People are going to know each other, they will see each other's names in the papers. I think it would be improper to go on now, as I am beginning to speak to my own Amendment which I have withdrawn. I believe it is proper to be discussing this because this is now the Schedule to the Bill and we are discussing the Question that it stand part. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord HYLTON: Can the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, say whether Pembrokeshire would go with North Wales in the proposed regions? It is very often described as West Wales but it is a very long way from Anglesey and the North.
Lord HARLECH: I regret to say that I have not got the map which divides up the constituencies. I have an idea it goes with Mid and West Wales. Frankly, I think the attitude of mind in Pembrokeshire towards Cardiff and the rest of South Wales is more akin to the attitude of mind in North and Mid Wales than it is to that in South and Mid Glamorgan.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Time of election and term of office of Members]:
6.7 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("more than two months earlier nor").
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 2(1),
"The first ordinary election of Members of the Assembly shall be held on a day appointed by order of the Secretary of State …".
after it has been approved—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I apologise to the noble Lord. Would it
1136
be for his convenience if we took Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 together? I am entirely in his hands. As he knows, the two are related and it might save time.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I would rather take them separately. I had originally thought of taking them together but I was talked out of that. I was saying that,
"The first ordinary election of Members of the Assembly shall be held on a day appointed by order of the Secretary of State"
after it has been approved by each House of Parliament as provided in subsection (4). Subsequent elections will take place at four-yearly intervals, on the third Thursday in March, subject to the flexibility provided in subsection (2), under which the Secretary of State may order that subsequent elections take place up to two months earlier or two months later than the third Thursday in March.
I can think of reasons why elections might sensibly be postponed for a short time—a national disaster or a clash with a General Election—but I wonder for what reasons they might be brought forward. It may be that the Government can give good reasons for advancing the date of an election, but, as I shall try to persuade the Committee when we come to Amendment No. 20, I am convinced that any alteration should be subject to Parliamentary approval. Meanwhile I await the reply from the Government on the reasons why they think a provision to advance an election date by up to two months is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, asked a perfectly reasonable question and I shall do my best to answer it. Providing a power for the Secretary of State to vary Assembly elections by two months either way is intended to allow reasonable flexibility to avoid coincidence with, for example, a General Election, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested in the debate on the corresponding clause in the Scotland Bill, a period of national mourning, a national emergency or something of that sort. The Government's view is that the sensible course is to provide elbow room, as has been done for the date of Assembly elections to be

1137
altered, within limits, to meet any particular circumstances which may arise.
In a new situation it seems prudent not to rule out anything in advance, especially where no issue of principle is involved—and I do not think that an issue of principle is involved here—but to provide sufficient flexibility to deal with particular problems as they may arise. Of course, I take the point that the election date is more likely to be delayed than to be brought forward. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, said on that particular point, since obviously by their very nature emergencies cannot be foreseen. Indeed, it is difficult to construct a hypothetical situation in which the power of advancement would be of practical use.
However, having said that, let me offer the following example. The five-year life of a United Kingdom Parliament could quite conceivably end in the period of two months following the third Thursday in March of a year in which an ordinary Assembly election is to take place. Parliament might not be dissolved until the very end of that five-year Parliament. As the noble Lord will recall, we had one fairly recent example of this in the 1959–64 Conservative Government, when Parliament went very nearly to the end of its full five-year statutory term. To allow reasonable flexibility as to the actual date on which an election were to be called the Government and the Assembly, fully recognising the difficulties inherent in too close a proximity between the two elections, might together agree that the fixed date of an ordinary Assembly election should be brought forward by up to two months. It need not necessarily be the full period of two months; it may be only a couple of weeks, and I believe that in many circumstances that might be appropriate in a situation of the kind that I have just put before the Committee. This is a situation in which the power to postpone the fixed date of an Assembly election might be of no practical use, and the power to bring it forward would in fact be of some advantage.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I see that his thought is that it is very unlikely that this power will actually ever be used. I shall be touching on the same matter when we come to
1138
Amendment No. 20. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("elected to fill a casual vacancy") and insert ("otherwise").
The noble Lord said: It may be to your Lordships' convenience if, with this Amendment, we discuss Amendment No. 21. Your Lordships will have seen that, as at present constructed, the Assembly is wound up and set in to motion at the beginning of a four-year period, and the strength of the spring is such that it will finish within a few weeks of a given point at the end of the four years; in other words, to that extent it is a clockwork machine, and entirely inflexible. My noble friends and myself can also think of hypothetical cases with the freedom and imagination which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just evinced. We can imagine, for instance, a hung Assembly in which the Members eventually all agreed that, whatever else they were to do, they could not go on as they were going on at present. The Assembly might wish for a dissolution, and find that it had two or three years of sterile argument before it before the hopeful day could be arrived at.
We felt that if the Assembly reached that conclusion it should be allowed to go to the country for a refreshing draught of electoral opinion and come back in a condition to do its job properly, but there is no provision for that in the Bill at the moment. If it was to be decided by a simple majority, I believe that many people would quite rightly say that we were suggesting that the person who is at present infelicitously described as the presiding officer of the Assembly—and that is a condition which I hope we shall change—would, by whatever name he comes to be known, be receiving Prime Ministerial powers in miniature for Wales, having a right to call an election. It may he that that was a matter which could be objected to, and therefore it will be seen that this procedure can be put in hand only by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly; so it is not really put into the hands of one Party. This may satisfy

1139
those who would require satisfaction upon this point.
There are other aspects of this matter which may have caught the attention of your Lordships, particularly the time scale of the dissolution and election. That is a matter on which I should be interested to hear observations which noble Lords may have to make. However, the principle on which the Amendment is based is, I believe, an important one, and I should like to know whether it is by intent or whether it is by omission, that the Government, have not made provision for the dissolution of the Assembly under any circumstances whatsoever. If, as I suspect, it is by error, or oversight, perhaps the Government will have something to say on how they would overcome this difficulty.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, right at the outset. It is indeed the intention of the Government that this power should not be in the Bill, and therefore, so far as we are concerned, the Bill is wholly satisfactory. I shall do my best to explain to the noble Lord why we are taking a different view of this matter here than we did on the Scotland Bill, and I shall come to that point in a moment.
The, noble Lord, Lord Elton, made clear that he wants to know why the provision for premature dissolution is absent from the Bill. It is a matter of design, as I have indicated. There is advanced a mirror image of Clause 3 of the Scotland Bill which appears to command the official Opposition's unreserved approval, which I am sure will be welcomed when it is debated tomorrow. However, the distinction between the Government's proposals for Scotland and those for Wales, is that the Scottish Assembly is to be a legislative body from which a separate Executive is to be formed. The Welsh Assembly is not to have a legislative competence, and is itself to be the Executive. That is a distinction of which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is well aware.
In Scotland the Executive will need to secure a sufficient measure of support from the Assembly as a whole if it is to continue to ensure the progress of essential
1140
business. If a situation arose in which the Executive could not ensure the continuance of essential business, the good governance of devolved matters would clearly be imperilled. Such a situation might arise because of the aggressive effect of a number of by-elections, or because of some political realignments within the Assembly itself, and such a situation could persist as long as the Assembly remained constituted broadly as it had been at the time of the last Assembly election. Clearly the situation could be one of crisis, and that is why the Scotland Bill provides for the test of a two-thirds majority of all Members before a premature election is held.
A similar situation cannot reasonably be seen to arise in the case of Wales. There is to be no Executive dependent on majority support in the Assembly for any particular proposal, or for its policies as a whole. The logic of these Amendments would lead to a proposal for a Welsh Executive separate from, and dependent upon, the Assembly, but I rather suspect that that is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and his colleagues.
I do not want in any way to equate the very wide responsibilities and functions which are to be entrusted to the Welsh Assembly—and which will flow directly from the enactments which are listed in the Bill—and the other functions which it specifically devolves, with those of local authorities. But I would simply point out that there is no provision for premature dissolution in local government. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton will be aware, the last Conservative Government certainly did not favour any form of proposition, when they were undertaking the reform of local government, that there should be some arrangement where there could he a premature dissolution of a local authority. I take the point completely that very substantial powers are being given to the Welsh Assembly. Nevertheless, I think it perfectly reasonable to look at the situation as it relates to local government, and I have outlined what that is.
I suggest that the Amendments proposed rest on a basic misunderstanding of the differences in the Government's proposals so far as Scotland and Wales are concerned. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, for the reasons that I have given.

1141
I do not think that it is necessary to give the Welsh Assembly this particular power, which is necessary in the case of Scotland, because that has a legislative body with a separate Executive, and that distinguishes it from the case of the Welsh Assembly.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am a little confused here. The Government seem to be speaking with two voices on this matter. On the one hand, they say that devolution for Wales is not a separate tier of local government; but we have just been invited to look at the case as it compares with local government. I am afraid that I just do not understand it.
Lord GRIDLEY: I wish to raise one point which occurs to me. There are to be considerable powers devolved to the Welsh Assembly from whatever Government are in power at Westminster. What would be the position if there was a dispute, misinterpretation, or disagreement between the Assembly and the powers devolved to it from here? How would that be settled if it came to a crisis where there was a disagreement between the Government at Westminster and the Assembly in Wales?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not think that it would be by dissolution. In answer to the previous question, as I indicated in my speech, I make the obvious point that the powers given to the Welsh Assembly are far greater than those given to any local authority. However, in one particular respect the Welsh Assembly is far closer to a local authority than is the case so far as Scotland is concerned; and that is because it is not a legislative body with a separate Executive. I suspect that the noble Lord, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not suggesting that there should be a separate Welsh Executive with legislative powers. I assume that is indeed his position. I see that, very kindly, he agrees with me. That being so, that is why we think there should be different treatment for Wales from that in the case of Scotland.
Lord HYLTON: Is it not the fact that the largest county councils, some of which administer a population much larger than that of Wales—for example, take a body like the Greater London Council—have always seemed to get on perfectly
1142
well with fixed-period elections? I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Elton whether he thinks that local authorities of that sort would benefit from having a two-thirds majority dissolution rule.
Lord ELTON: There are a number of things which need to be straightened out here, are there not? First, let us be quite clear that this Amendment was not tabled because it follows something in the Scotland Bill—that was a convenient model—but was tabled because it appears to answer a need which exists in the Welsh Assembly. The noble Lord wonders why we think it exists, and he believes that it is based on our misapprehension of the nature of the Assembly. I suspect that his reluctance to accept this Amendment may be based on the mirror image of that misunderstanding, because I think I have got it right and I think he has got it wrong.
The noble Lord says that there is no Executive separate from the Assembly but dependent upon it. But when we come to the debates on Clause 17 and Clause 22 I think we are going to decide that that is almost exactly what there is; because you have an executive committee to which a really very wide range of functions can be remitted by the Assembly, and, indeed, for convenience, certainly will be remitted. They are remitted via subject committees, which also have the power of remit. So here you have an executive committee which, in many areas, has all the powers possessed by the Assembly itself. Whether or not this is relevant to the question of what happens when you have a hung Assembly, I know not; but if it is an argument against having a dissolution by a two-thirds majority, then I think it must fall because the facts do not resemble as closely as they should the position which the noble Lord feels that the Bill ought to have given them.
I am not seeking to pronounce any views upon the present organisation of existing local government bodies. Indeed, I spent a good deal of my Second Reading speech, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, may recall, in saying that I thought that this was something which should not now be done; and I would not think that the analogy which he has drawn is a satisfactory one upon which we should be debating in the Wales Bill. What I am saying is that you have here an elected

1143
body which has to take decisions, and anybody with experience of local government will know that where you have deadlock you eventually end up with either stagnation or inefficiency. It would seem to me that it would be much better to have a way out of that deadlock than not to have one, and that the key to the door should rest in the hand of the Assembly, so that there can be no question whatever of anybody being accused of overruling them from outside or of having given too much authority to one of their Members; namely, the presiding officer.
I do not know whether this has answered some of the doubts which were in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I do not find myself altogether reassured by his assumption that things will go on quite well when you have a flaming and unproductive row going on in Cardiff and everybody is anxious to get out of the building. How is it to be done? He has not told us, and perhaps he will.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We must at some stage bring this dialogue to an end, but all I would say to the noble Lord is this. He did, if he will forgive me saying so, advance an extraordinary, extreme proposition, which is most unusual for the noble Lord. He said that I had failed to recognise that this was an elected body which has to take decisions (I took his words down; I hope my note is a reasonable one) and, that being so, it was quite clear to him that there should be a power of dissolution. But, with great respect to him, he did not answer the point which was raised by his noble friend sitting behind him; because if that argument is going to be advanced it can be used in the case of every major local authority in this country. I have made the point already that the Welsh Assembly is going to have far greater powers, but the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is an extreme one, and I expect that on reflection he would not wish to press it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The Welsh Assembly is going to have far greater powers, but the one power that it seems to me, and to my noble friend on the Front Bench, it really does need is the power to dissolve itself, and this power it is not going to be given.
Lord ELTON: I also notice that again the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is treating it as though it is a local authority.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With great respect, I quoted what the noble Lord said as justifying his position. What I pointed out to him was that in the words which he used—namely, that it is an elected body which has to take decisions, and therefore manifestly it should have a power to dissolve—that argument, his argument, could apply to every major local authority in this country. That was not done by his Party when they were in Government, and I am quite sure it would not be done in the future if they were in Government.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has rightly said that we must at some stage draw this dialogue to a conclusion. I think both of us will do so with something less than satisfaction. It may be that we shall take it up when we both understand each other better, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.29 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("An order under subsection (1) above shall not") and insert ("No order under this section shall").
The noble Lord said: As I understand the provisions of Clause 2, although the date of the first ordinary election needs the approval of Parliament subsequent elections take place at four-yearly intervals on the third Thursday in March, subject to flexibility through the Secretary of State but not requiring Parliamentary approval. So we have a situation in which the Secretary of State can alter by quite a considerable extent the election date which has been approved by Parliament. I have no doubt that such a decision would be taken only after careful consideration, but I would suggest that this could place an undue burden on the Secretary of State. He could be under strong pressure in Wales to advance or postpone an election, but it could well be that Parliament would in fact not agree that the reasons justify any departure from the prescribed date. It is to overcome what could result in a conflict between Wales and Westminster that I

1145
have tabled this Amendment, which would have the effect of ensuring that any alteration of the date of any election will be subject to Parliamentary approval. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Scotland and Wales Bill required only the Negative Resolution procedure for the order fixing the first election. In the debate on that Bill in another place, the practical disadvantage of the Negative Resolution procedure in these circumstances was brought out. After an Instrument has been made and laid it is at risk, as the House is well aware, of being annulled for the next 40 sitting days; so that unless a gap of 40 sitting days (which, in practice, can span a period of something like three calendar months) is allowed between the laying date and the date fixed for the election, in theory the order could be annulled after the election and with obviously incalculable results. Therefore, we switch to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, bearing in mind it would be used only once and that Parliament would have a close interest in the date of such a special election.
Different considerations apply, in our view, to orders under Clause 2(2). The ordinary date for any second or subsequent election is fixed by the Bill itself. However, the Secretary of State has a very limited discretion under Clause 2(2). If he decides to exercise that discretion at all, he can move the date for a particular election not more than two months in either direction. We discussed this matter a few moments ago. The noble Lord's Amendment proposes Affirmative Resolution procedure for any such order. The Bill itself lays down the basic rules and provides limited flexibility. There is no issue of principle or otherwise in relation to subsequent election dates sufficient, I think, to justify any degree of Parliamentary involvement using up fairly scarce Parliamentary time. The ministerial powers are simple executive powers only likely to be used in known and understood circumstances and after consultation with the Assembly. Despite the importance of the subject matter, it should not, in our view, attract any Parliamentary procedure An Affirmative Resolution would be unwarranted and could be an unwelcome use of Parliamentary time. For that reason, we are not attracted by the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord ELTON: The reception which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will get for his argument is coloured by the argument he advanced to Amendment No. 18 which he suggested might be taken with this. Amendment No. 18 sought to take out of subsection (2) the ability of the Secretary of State to bring forward an election. I must say that had that Amendment been accepted, there would be a great deal less argument in favour of the present one. If I heard him aright, he referred to a decision—which must be a very politically sensitive one at the end of an extended Parliament running against the buffer of the five-year rule, as in the illustration he gave—that the elections to the Welsh Assembly shall be drawn forward so that there is going to be some sort of prelude to the General Election, which is of enormous political interest and significance, I should have thought. To leave that decision in the hands of the Secretary of State to take, without the cognisance of Parliament until it has been made, seems very far from a waste of Parliamentary time. Nothing, surely, could interest the other place more acutely in the inevitable approach to a General Election than a decision to have a prelude to it which might well affect the result of the General Election itself. Does the noble Lord not agree that this would not be a waste of Parliamentary time?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: For the reasons that I have given, I fear that it would be. I do not believe that a marginal difference of this sort—be it bringing forward an election by, say, two weeks in the special circumstances which I indicated in connection with Amendment No. 18; or putting it off for a few weeks for a special reason after discussion with the Assembly—is a matter worthy of the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I say with no patronising sense, for at some stage in, no doubt, the very distant future our roles may be reversed, that Oppositions are more attracted to the Affirmative Resolution procedure than are Governments, for obvious reasons. It is, however, a mistake to introduce the Affirmative Resolution procedure unless it is absolutely necessary. There is tremendous pressure on Parliamentary time facing any Government in any Parliament. I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate in a case of this sort to have Affirmative

1147
Resolution procedure for what could be a matter of only marginal significance.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I think that Lord Harris, in producing his arguments for rejecting this Amendment, said something to the effect that, of course, the Secretary of State would consult with the Assembly. I do not see anything in the Bill which requires him to do so. Can he tell me why he made that statement and whether there is something in the Bill which underlines the need to consult the Assembly?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It is obvious in a matter of this sort, if the Assembly came forward with a proposal that for a particular reason they thought there should be a delay—which is what is most likely; we agreed on that; and I think Lord Elton agreed that the most likely development would be in a case of delay rather than bringing the date forward—that it would be reasonable for the Government to listen to the Assembly. It is a matter of common sense that the Secretary of State would wish to discuss it with the Assembly. It is a reasonable matter for him to do so. I am not certain whether there is a statutory requirement on him to do so, and I will check on that, but it would be reasonable for him to do so. In many cases there could be special circumstances of the kind I referred to when speaking on Amendment No. 18 which would make it manifestly desirable and in the national interest to put off an election for a period of time. There could be a period of national emergency or some reason for which it was clearly desirable to do so. I do not think in a situation like that it is essential to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I hate to press this, but that was not a satisfactory answer to my question. As a substantive argument in favour of rejecting this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, specifically said that the Secretary of State would consult with the Assembly. There is nothing in the Bill to that effect. I do not think it is good enough generally to say that this would be a sensible thing to do when it is being produced as a substantive argument in favour of the rejection of the Amendment. I must press him to give a more substantial answer to
1148
my query; otherwise one must assume that the argument that he produces is airy-fairy and not very positive.
Lord PARRY: I would not want to come between the noble Lord and the question and answer. I am sure that the apprehension expressed in such detailed terms here this evening is genuine. I would say that, in the many years that we have been debating this issue and in the many long months since we have had the Bill before us to discuss in detail, I have not heard these apprehensions expressed in Wales. The "dots and commas" approach is a commendable one constitutionally, but I cannot find a reflection in the public mind, or in the minds of those who may find themselves in the Assembly if this Bill becomes an Act, of this detailed apprehension being expressed here in hypothetical terms. This situation is most unlikely to arise. The Secretary of State will obviously, in almost every conceivable circumstance, work within the terms of the Assembly and in association with the Assembly. It is totally unlikely that any circumstance could ever arise in which there would be separate elections occurring, the one affecting the result of the other.
Lord GRAY: Does the noble Lord, Lord Parry, not accept, however, that there is quite clearly here the opportunity for a Secretary of State to act for any reason whatsoever to shorten or prolong the life of the Assembly without consulting the Assembly? It is all very well to say that he will or may. Surely, in the Bill what is there is something which could be used in consultation with the Assembly or something which could be used without consultation with the Assembly. It is an absent power as it stands at the moment.
Lord PARRY: As much as anyone in this Committee, I respect the legal ability of the noble Lord. I understand his legal apprehensions. The point that I was making was that in a political circumstance no Secretary of State is likely to go into conflict with a powerful Assembly of the people of a nation, and it will not arise in fact.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If I may deal with the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, there is no

1149
requirement for statutory consultation. I take the point of the noble Lord. The Bill steers clear of a statutory requirement and leaves the question of consultation to common sense which is not necessarily a bad idea. Obviously, the Assembly has an interest in the date of the election if it is to be deferred for two or three weeks. That is really what we are talking about. The maximum power is for two months and, in a situation of this kind, it would be perfectly reasonable for the Assembly to make certain representations to the Secretary of State in certain circumstances; or it might be that if there was a case of a national emergency the Secretary of State himself might come to the view that it was clearly desirable and in the national interest to do this. In such a situation, I suspect that there would be a great degree of support for that view in the Assembly. There is no statutory requirement, but I repeat that I do not think that common sense should necessarily be ruled out of a situation of this sort.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that Oppositions were apt to be rather fonder of affirmative orders than Governments. I take the point; and I take the generous inference he once made during this debate that we might find ourselves curtailed by that consideration. If we did not occasionally find ourselves regretting what we had done in Opposition, we would have been rather bad in Opposition in the House of Lords. We are supposed to be the restraining Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord will not cast those words in my teeth; but I hope that he will have the occasion to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to a dot-and-comma proceeding. That is also the function of a revising Chamber. Not surprisingly, he said that he had not met this approach in Wales. He spends
more time in Wales than I do; but I recently completed a tour of Wales talking about this Bill and I am astonished by the fact that nobody in Wales that I met—even politically aware people—seemed to know what was in the Bill beyond the most general terms. Of course he has not heard alarm, because the people do not know what is there to be alarmed about. If the media do their job, the people will know when we have finished this Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that we were only talking about a couple of weeks. He actually let it out at the end: the period in each direction is two months and carrying forward is subject to Parliamentary control. There is no alternative Parliamentary voice to be raised other than the Secretary of State in the case of an order under Clause 2(2) as the Bill now stands. So we have a period of eight vital weeks with no supervision and there is this bracket of four months—a third of a year! The noble Lord, Lord Harris, frowns, but four months is a third of a year. During that time the Government of the day can vary the date on which the election is to be held. That is no mean tool in the hand of a Government which is faced with the necessity of a General Election. A guinea pig is a useful animal in battle, believe it or not. I fear that the Welsh would be in the position of guinea pigs in this respect, and Parliament should have an opportunity to express an opinion on it. If my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne agrees, I think that we should press this Amendment.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Falkland, V.

Balerno, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glasgow, E.

Caccia, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gowrie, E.

Cathcart, E.

De La Warr, E.

Gray, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Digby, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hylton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Kimberley, E.

Colyton, L.

Elles, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Norfolk, D.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Margadale, L.

Northchurch, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Renwick, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Romney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Sandys, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Mottistone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Selsdon, L.

Vickers, B.

Sharples, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Young, B.

Newall, L.

Somers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Parry, L.

Avebury, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bacon, B.

Hale, L.

Platt, L.

Balogh, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Croham, L.

Listowel, E.

Wade, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Evans of Claughton, J.

McCluskey, L.

Wigg, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maelor, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garner, L.

Northfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
6.54 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
Dissolution of the Assembly
(".—(1) The Assembly as constituted from time to time—

(a) shall stand dissolved on the eve of any ordinary election of members; and

(b) shall be dissolved by order of the Secretary of State if the Assembly resolves that it should be dissolved and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the members voting in favour of it number not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Assembly (including any whose seat is vacant).

(2) An order dissolving the Assembly shall require an election of members to be held on the day following the dissolution, and that day shall not be later than two months after the date of the resolution in pursuance of which the order is made.").
The noble Lord said: We have just been discussing this, have we not? It is the question of the dissolution. I do not
1152
think we wish to pursue it further at this stage.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Simon): We have first to take from the Supplementary List Amendment No. 21A: Lord Elton.
Lord ELTON: I am sorry: I had understood that the next Amendment to be called would be in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Have I been betrayed by the fact that there are two Marshalled Lists?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think in fact that the Government Amendment is to be taken after the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord ELTON: I am slightly taken aback by this because the message I had a moment ago was that we were going to take the Government Amendment. As it is some six minutes before we normally adjourn for supper, may I suggest that it might be sensible to adjourn now rather than in six minutes' time?
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS BILL
6.56 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment he discharged.—(Lord Garner.)
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
[The Sitting teas suspended from 6.57 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

WALES BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 [Elections]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("an") and insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: I am better composed to deal with this Amendment than I was before dinner. It might be for the convenience of the Committee to take Amendments Nos. 21A and 22A together. They are, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will have grasped, an inquiry into the drafting of Clause 3. The purpose of an inquiry into the drafting of a clause is not purely of arid academic interest. It is made necessary by the fact that, of course, if I am wrong in my supposition about the drafting, there may be a reason concealed
1154
behind the drafting which I have not grasped.
As the Bill is drafted, it states in subsection (1):
"The persons entitled to vote as electors at an Assembly election in any Assembly constituency shall be—"
and then it proceeds to categorise them. Subsection (2) applies the provisions of subsection (1),
"with the necessary modifications to the election of initial members (within the meaning of section 1 above)."
What escapes me is the necessity of taking two bites at this apparently small cherry. I presume that there must be a difference in wording required in subsection (1), as applied to the initial election; otherwise, the clause would not be drafted in this manner. But I am not at all clear what the difference is.
Therefore, I have tabled an Amendment to delete subsection (2), and to insert in subsection (1) before the word "Assembly" where it first occurs in the first line, the word "any" intead of "an". That is how the Amendment would appear if there were no necessity for the modifications referred to in subsection (2). It follows that, if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is to object, the grounds of his objection will be that my drafting is at fault and must necessarily reveal, therefore, what are the purposes behind the drafting that he has presented to this House. It is to discover this that I now beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Even if it were a question of arid academic interest, I should do my best to satisfy the noble Lord. But he indicated that he moved this Amendment to probe the Government about their intentions, and I hope that what I say will persuade him that what is in the Bill is, in all the circumstances, reasonable. That being so, it will probably be helpful if I spell out the purpose of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3.
Subsection (1) specifies the people entitled to vote at elections. The same general qualifications as to eligibility to vote apply in Assembly elections as in Parliamentary Elections. Thus subsection (1)(a) provides that a person is entitled to vote if he (or she) has his name on the part of the Parliamentary register

1155
relating to the area of the Assembly constituency, and if he is entitled to vote at a Parliamentary election in the Parliamentary constituency. Subsection (1)(b) extends the Parliamentary franchise to enable Peers to vote in Assembly elections. Subsection (2) deals with the election of Members to the Assembly before Assembly constitituencies are established. These initial Members have to be returned for the same areas as Parliamentary constituencies. Accordingly, subsection (1), which is geared to Assembly constituencies, does not fit exactly for the election of initial Members. Subsection (2) therefore provides that for the election of initial Members, subsection (1) is to be applied with any necessary modifications.
I can assure noble Lords that there is no question of subsection (2) being used to modify the basic provisions describing the persons entitled to vote; in my judgment, such a change could not be read as a "necessary" modification in the application of subsection (1) to the election of initial Members. I hope that this explanation demonstrates that subsection (2) is necessary, and that the necessary modifications will relate only to the description of the constituencies and will not in any way affect a person's entitlement to vote.
Lord ELTON: I take it then that what the noble Lord is saying is that a constituency in the initial election will be different from a constituency in the ordinary election, and that it would be incorrect to describe the constituency in the initial election as though it were an Assembly constituency, although it will have one, two or three initial constituency Members, as the case may be, standing for it. So in that sense it would to the layman appear to be an Assembly constituency co-extensive with the Parliamentary constituency; that this would not be a definition that was correct in law, and that that difference of nature necessitates the addition of subsection (2). Can the noble Lord confirm that I have understood correctly?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes. We are dealing, first, with the initial election when, as the noble Lord will recognise, the constituency will be the Parliamentary constituency and there will be a certain number of members for that constituency. After the initial election,
1156
there will then be a different situation where Wales is divided up into Assembly constituencies, and the distinction that we are making is between the initial election and subsequent elections.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.9 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 34, after ("date") insert—

("(i) have their names on such parts of the register of local government electors as relate to the Assembly constituency; and

(ii)")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is identical to one put down by the Government for Report on the Scotland Bill, to correct a flaw which was detected by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, during Committee on the Scotland Bill. Clause 3, as it stands, makes it possible for a Peer living in a local government area which straddles two Assembly constituencies to choose in which Assembly constituency to cast his vote. As was made clear in the Scotland Bill Committee debate on this point, there is no possibility of a Peer being able to vote twice, because it is the Government's intention in the order made under subsection (3) to attract Section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which makes plural voting an offence.
The Amendment would correct the flaw by providing that Peers who are entitled to vote in any Assembly constituency shall be those who have their names on parts of the register of local government electors which relate to that Assembly constituency. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My noble friend Lord Gray is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that if he were he would be glad to see that his labours have been doubly fruitful.
[Amendment No. 22A not moved.]
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved manuscript Amendment No. 22B in substitution for Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("officers") to ("and") in line 11.
The noble Lord said: I think that this refers to Amendment No. 23 which I put down and which has become garbled in the print. I do not know upon whom the responsibility for this rests. If it rests upon me, I apologise unreservedly to the Committee. If noble Lords will look at Amendment No. 23, they will see that at present it reads:
"Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("enactment") to the end of the line".
This leaves out the word "and" and nothing else. Devious as my approaches may be, noble Lords will recognise that that was not my intention. The intention, as is now shown in manuscript Amendment No. 22B, was that it should read:
"Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("officers") to ("and") in line 11".
That, I hope, coincides with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has in front of him?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, it does.
Lord ELTON: This is a slightly different but again a probing Amendment about drafting, and it interests me very much. If language is used in the normal manner, it appears that subsection (4) describes in two chunks what an order may apply. If we look at the first chunk, paragraph (a), everything that appears from the beginning of that paragraph to the word "officers", which I have drawn to the attention of noble Lords, is subsumed by the words "and any provision made under any enactment". If we were to leave in those words, it would read:
"An order under this section may—
(a) apply, with such modifications or exceptions as may be specified in it … any provision made under any enactment".
I cannot see how that power is in any way limited by including the words
"any provision of the Representation of the People Acts, any provision of the enactments relating to returning officers".
If it is already enabled to apply, with modifications, any provision made under any enactment, those words must be superfluous. If, on the other hand, it is not intended to apply any provision made under any enactment, then the words that I have moved to delete are superfluous. There must be a reason, but I have failed entirely to grasp it. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: If I could point out a minor flaw in the manuscript Amendment, the last "and" in line 11 must remain because we are joining two paragraphs.
Lord ELTON: We say that we should leave out the words from the last word which we are leaving in to the first word that we are leaving in again; so the word "and" in the manuscript Amendment should be there because it remains in the subsection, as redrafted.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The provision which this Amendment seeks to delete enables the order relating to the conduct and questioning of elections to apply with such modifications as necessary any provision made under any enactment. This, in our judgment, is a necessary provision. Without it, the order would be confined to applying the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, and of enactments relating to returning officers. But there are other provisions made under other enactments which we may wish to apply.
Let me give an example. Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1969 removes the need for planning permission to be obtained for the display of election notices and posters. This Amendment would mean that we could not apply this provision, and every election notice and poster would require individual planning permission. I do not think—and I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree—that local authorities would relish the prospect of having to deal with the flood of applications which could arise in a situation of that kind.
If I may give another example, paragraph (a) enables us to apply provisions of the Representation of the People Acts, but there are enactments made under these Acts which we also need to apply but which we could not apply if this particular Amendment were made.
To give another example, the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, which were made under the 1949 Act, prescribe the form of the official poll card

1159
for Parliamentary elections. That is the purpose of these regulations. It will be necessary to apply these regulations, modified as necessary, to the Assembly elections.
This provision appears in the Scotland Bill and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will no doubt recall, in the European Assembly Elections Act, where it appears in Schedule 1, paragraph 2. As the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Baroness will recall, Amendments were not put down so far as either the Scotland Bill or the European Assembly Elections Act were concerned. If this Amendment were made, the Wales Bill would be the only one of the trio which would be out of step. With the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord ELTON: What the noble Lord has succeeded in convincing me of is that I have moved to leave out the wrong half of the subsection. Surely nothing is necessary in order to enable the Secretary of State to put into effect, or apply with modification, those powers under the Representation of the People Acts to which the noble Lord has just referred other than to say that an order under this Section may
"apply, with such modifications or exceptions as may be specified in it … any provision made under any enactment".
It seems to me that it is the first part which is superfluous. I cannot see the purpose of having both parts. I do not wish to appear to be obtuse, although often it is useful to do so because it means that one receives a better explanation, but I do not see why, if one already has the power to apply any provision made under any enactment, one needs to add to that specific powers under specific enactments, because one already has them all in one's hands.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: All I am saying to the noble Lord is what the effect of this Amendment would be. The noble Lord has made it clear that that is not his intention. If the noble Lord will put down a different type of Amendment at a later stage, we shall be delighted to look at it.
Lord ELTON: I think that will be the answer. I should have put down the
1160
other half of the clause. If time permits, no doubt we shall be able to do so at a later stage. In the meantime, let us not delay any further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.19 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 18, after ("the") insert ("Welsh").
The noble Lord said: Ever hopeful of having discovered an oversight, it occurred to me and my friends that the fund to which the noble Lord was opening the door in subsection (5) of this clause must be the Welsh Consolidated Fund. It may be that we are wrong and that we shall be told that drafts will be needed before the Welsh Consolidated Fund has got anything in it. In that case, I suggest that the clause is inadequately drafted, because it will continue the power to draw on the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund at a time when the Welsh Assembly is supposed to be entirely subsistent upon the Welsh Consolidated Fund. Indeed, it would make a great nonsense of much that is intended in the Bill if the funds which are specifically for Welsh purposes should continue to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund. It would also make budgeting extremely difficult. I expect that there is an explanation of this, but that is what the situation appears to be at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Government believe that electoral arrangements for the Assembly should as a matter of principle be reserved to the United Kingdom Government and to Parliament. The Assembly will have no discretion to alter the requirements laid down in the Bill about electoral arrangements, and will therefore have no control over the financial implications of meeting these requirements. In these circumstances we believe it is fair that the cost of elections should be borne by the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund. This is in line with the policy we have adopted throughout the Bill; namely, that only expenditure over which the Assembly will have discretion should be charged to the devolved Funds.
This is an issue of principle rather than practice. Whether the cost of elections

1161
is charged to the United Kingdom or to the Welsh Fund will make no difference to the allocation of resources between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. If the cost is borne by the Welsh Fund, the size of the annual block fund granted to the Assembly, which, as the noble Lord will know, has to be approved by Parliament, would in practice be adjusted to take account of the extra expenditure involved. But, although this has no practical consequences, the Government believe that it is an important issue of principle and that expenditure over which the Assembly has no discretion whatever should not come out of their block fund. That is the reason for the present form of words which appears in the Bill.
Lord ELTON: It is a very interesting reason and a very interesting principle. I should have thought that the cost of the elections would be part of the running costs of the Assembly and that a lot of people would want to know how much they were. Indeed, I hope that in a moment the noble Lord will tell us how much he expects it to be, in the first instance and subsequently. I think he may get some guidance from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. I should also like to know whether this is the way in which the Scottish elections are to be charged. A number of the objections are based on financial grounds, and, as I have already said, it is going to cost the Welsh a dickens of a lot to have this particular form of devolution and it seems a pity to hide some of the cost and indeed to share it out over the United Kingdom as opposed to those who actually benefit from it. Can the noble Lord give us any enlightenment as to the scale of this?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: To answer the question whether this provision is the same as in the Scotland Bill, yes, it is precisely the same. I have tried as fairly as possible to deploy the argument and, as I have indicated, it is an issue of principle rather than practice. It is a matter which is reserved to the United Kingdom Government and to Parliament and in that situation we do not think it would be appropriate to follow the advice of the noble Lord so far as this Amendment is concerned.
1162
I will look into the question of the cost of the elections. I cannot off hand answer that particular question, but I will gladly let him have the information. Of course, it does not relate directly to the issue of principle involved, and, as I have indicated, it would not make a great deal of difference which way we did this in terms of its practical effects, but in the view of the Government it is quite clear that where a matter is manifestly one for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament it is right that this should not be charged to the devolved Fund, and that is why we maintain the position that I have indicated.
Lord ELTON: I see the argument that the noble Lord is putting before us, and doubtless in a moment we shall pass on from this point. I notice in a paragraph on page v, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", we are told that—and I quote:
"The costs of the referendum, the initial elections and the attendant publicity on both referendum and elections are estimated broadly at £1¼ million".
I should be grateful if the noble Lord could investigate and let us know the amount of the sum involved.
As to the other issue of principle, if one runs a motor car surely not only the petrol and the maintenance but also the road fund licence is part of the cost of running the car and something about which you want to know. So if the principle is broadly agreed I shall not dissent from it, but merely say that it is rather an odd one, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.26 p.m.
Lord ELTON: At this juncture I should like to ascertain something which perhaps I should have deduced from the Bill, but I have not done so. I regret that I have not given the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, notice of this, but we are all arriving pell-mell from the holidays and we shall be better organised next week. I should like to know what are the provisions for the election expenses of the candidates for the Assembly elections, both initial and ordinary? It may be that the answer lies in the Representation of the People Act, but if it does, will it be in the

1163

Parliamentary section or will it be in the local government section? Will the election expenses be adequate if they are not revised more frequently than they have been for Parliamentary Elections? This area may not be of much interest now, but it will be of considerable interest to candidates for election. It may indeed even influence the kind of people who will stand for election and it will be something which election agents will need to know in some detail. Therefore, it would be helpful if the noble Lord could give us some indication of what those proposals may be.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I hesitate to intervene in this most amusing dialogue which is taking place between the Front Benches and which has been going on for seven hours; but the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned the point of principle. May I, as a true Welshman, say that there is one great principle which should be adopted by the Government and I hope will be adopted by the Government; that is, that all expenses which can possibly be put on to the Consolidated Fund should be put on to it and not on to the Welsh Consolidated Fund which is referred to in Clauses 40 and 41.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: From that comment I take it that I have an ally in the noble Lord in resisting this impetuous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The noble Lord has raised a very detailed question and I will gladly write to him before the next stage of the Bill, if that is convenient to him.
Lord ELTON: It is indeed. May I say as an Englishman, although I am acting as a Welshman, that I am also very anxious that there should be a just allocation between the Consolidated Funds of the two countries, and I do not join in this particular aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
Lord RAGLAN: I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that under this Bill he will be classified as an Englishman and not a Welshman, and he will not have a note in the referendum.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am not sure about that.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [By-elections]:
8.29 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 is concerned with the administrative procedure for dealing with by-elections. Since this Bill was drafted in its present form your Lordships have decided that some form of proportional representation should be introduced, and with the leave of the Committee in moving this Amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 25 is merely designed to clarify the position as to where the seat of the Member of Assembly which falls vacant is to be dealt with, and we introduce the word "constituency" so that it is now the seat of a constituency Member. The by-election in the case of Amendment No. 29, concerns that other class of Member of the Assembly, the additional Member, and it is the procedure for dealing with the vacancy when it is created for an additional Member of the Assembly which falls in line with the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1 to this Bill, which was the subject of the lucid explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, when he was introducing Amendment No. 17. In view of the length of time that was taken in dealing with procedural matters arising from Amendment No. 17, perhaps I could leave it there. I should like to add this: as far as the ordinary constituency man is concerned the voting is very simple indeed. There are some problems in relation to the allocation of numbers of seats and that sort of thing, but that does not affect the simplicity of the procedure of proportional representation for the individual voter. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: Perhaps either the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he replies, or the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when he resumes his feet, will explain to me what happens if there happens to be no willing candidate left on the list. I think there is a danger that the Kilbrandon group of Amendments may leave a situation where they have deleted the normal method of holding a by-election,

1165
or alternatively left only a non-proportional representation method of holding a by-election, to be operated in the middle of what is otherwise PR procedure. One assumes there will be many people on the lists and that those towards the bottom will be less acceptable than those at the top. The same system operates in Norway, and I have always wondered what happens if there is nobody left. How do you have a PR by-election in a single constituency under the Amendment as it is now?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Again, I do not want to interrupt the dialogue, but the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was looking so deliberately at me; all I can say in answer to his hypothetical question is that I cannot conceive as a practical matter that there will not be a candidate available from Wales to fill the gap to which he refers.
Lord ELTON: I can. You have an electoral region with, let us say, 12 candidates on the list for a particular Party for that region. Suppose three of them are elected; that leaves you with nine. One has died, two have taken jobs that they cannot combine with representing the constituency, a fourth has gone to gaol, a fifth has disqualified himself. These things can quite easily happen. We have four years of hazardous life to get through, and life in Wales can be hazardous.
Baroness ELLES: It might at last give a chance for the women to get into the Welsh Assembly, because they are certain to be put at the bottom of every list, as they usually are.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am sorry if I suggested that I did not think, in the circumstances, that there would not be a man available in Wales; I should have said "man or woman".
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has not replied to my question. These could be the circumstances, with no undue stretching of the imagination. What does he propose should be done to fill the seat? Should it stay vacant for two years?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Well, this is a hypothetical question, but from my practical knowledge of Wales the flexibility of all procedures in relation
1166
to Wales is so great that when that crisis arises, particularly when so many will be going to gaol according to the noble Lord, I am sure some adjustment will be able to be made and the problem solved.
Lord ELTON: I do not wish to be difficult, but we are treating a potentially serious matter with a certain levity. If the noble Lord is going to press this Amendment it is important that it should be right. If he is going to deal with it at a later stage, of course, it need not detain us quite so long. But we do not know what his intentions are. I am a friend of proportional representation, as I have already made clear, possibly to my own cost. In those circumstances, I should like it to work. I cannot see how it will work in the not altogether hypothetical circumstances I have adumbrated.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Perhaps at this stage I might invoke the help of the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am always anxious to spring to the assistance of either the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, or the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I do not want to go into these metaphors used by my noble friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland; he said it was a question of whether he was a pork or beef eater, or some metaphor of that sort. I find it difficult to give vigorous and unqualified advice to the Committee because this Amendment was carried against the view of the Government. That being so, in my view, it is not incumbent upon me to explain what it is supposed to mean. But I believe that this is consequential upon the earlier Amendment, and therefore this Amendment, together with Amendment No. 29, should be added to the Bill simply because it takes account of the decision made earlier by the Committee on this question.
Lord HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has referred to the ingenuity of the Welsh. If one looks at the three sets of circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, thought might arise—the death of a candidate, his getting a job somewhere else, or being in prison—I should have thought that there is only one of these the Welsh could not rectify in that they would be unable to resurrect

1167
the dead. I am quite sure they could get people back into Wales for the election, and it might well be within possibility to get them out of prison.
8.37 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("presiding officer") and insert ("President").
The noble Lord said: I am very sorry indeed not to see the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in his place, because the purpose of this Amendment is to remove what I think is the offending and misleading description of "presiding officer".
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If the noble Lord will forgive me, perhaps we could take Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 together, because I think they are inter-related.
Lord ELTON: Indeed we could, and the noble Lord, who has looked at it so carefully, will see that there is an occurrence earlier in the Bill which I missed. It seems to us that to call the person presiding over the Welsh Assembly, if that is what he is to do, its presiding officer is inevitably to confuse people as to his function, because an officer of local government is normally a paid, non-elected, full-time person, and we are talking, of course, of an elected person. We are talking of an elected person holding an office of, I would have thought, considerable importance, not only for its function but also as a figurehead. After all, this Bill is largely designed, is it not, to satisfy the understandable aspirations of Welsh nationhood?
The person who is at the titular head of that organisation ought to be called something that does not lead people, who are necessarily more ignorant on this side of the Border, to suppose that he is some glorified town clerk. The nearest that I could pitch upon to the phrase in the Bill, "the presiding officer", is "President". That is a term which is full of honour and honourable associations. I had hoped—and maybe I shall not be disappointed—that some Welsh Peers would come forward with perhaps more colourful and more appropriate terms than I can, and that between us we might choose one of
1168
them which Englishmen could spell and pronounce. However, in the absence of such assistance, I move that we substitute the name "President" with a capital "P", for the term "presiding officer" with a small "p" and a small "o".
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to support my noble friend in suggesting a different name from the one in the Bill. On Second Reading I suggested that the Assembly should not be called "Assembly", and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was kind enough to suggest that they had the Pendragon and that was the official name. In Ireland they have been able to have the Dad, and the Taoiseach as their Chief Minister. I would suggest that the Welsh should be able to think of a name for their own leader, because to my mind "the presiding officer" means the chap who looks after the elections. We always have the "presiding officer" for elections, so we would have to find another name for him at election time. I do not like the word "President", because it is rather too continental to my mind. Moreover, we have a "President" in so many voluntary organisations. Therefore, in my view, the simplest and most satisfactory solution would be to have a Welsh name as this is to be a Welsh Assembly which, I understand, is to be bi-lingual. That would be a good way of getting this Assembly or whatever it will be called—the Pendragon—off to a happy start.
Lord GRIDLEY: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Elton in moving the Amendment. In my view it is so important when we are devolving responsibilities to the Assembly that we should get it off on the right foot and give the officer who is to preside over the Assembly a proper title. With my noble friend, I do not think that the term "presiding officer" fits the case in this instance. It is important that he should he given a proper terminology. I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I add a few comments. The choice of words is most significant when describing an important matter. I have always been most impressed by the fact that a particular organisation of people at the beginning of the war were called the LDV, but

1169
in his wisdom Mr. Churchill changed that title to the "Home Guard"—a very important sounding name. All too frequently these days it is left to officials to construct a logical name which has no inspiration at all. I suggest to your Lordships that "presiding officer" is just such a logical uninspiring name. If Wales is to be given an Assembly which is meant to he something to Wales, what better than to have the term "President" unless, as my noble friend Lord Elton has said, the Welsh themselves can choose an even more inspiring name that we can all pronounce.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: I too support my noble friend, but I should like to add a slight variation. It has been suggested that the Assembly is a type of superior county council. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate to call the person in charge "the chairman", because that is used in another context?
Viscount LONG: I am absolutely amazed at where this name came from. To me "presiding officer" sounds extremely second rate and I believe that it is an insult to the Welsh people. As one looks around the world today other countries either have a Monarch or a President. I cannot see why the Welsh people should not have the term "President" applied to their Assembly.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): Is the noble Viscount suggesting that the Welsh people will not have a Monarch?
Viscount LONG: No, not at all. I am suggesting "President" rather than "presiding officer". They can have their Monarch. I am saying that in the Bill they are to have a "presiding officer", but in my view they need a "President" for their Assembly. I do not know how anyone could possibly use the term "presiding officer"; in my view this is an insult. "President" is a much stronger name for the Welsh people.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am always, I hope, very amiable when I follow the noble Viscount, but I am bound to say "an insult to the Welsh people" seems to be putting it rather
1170
strongly. Apparently there has also been an insult to the Scottish people because this went through, so far as the Scotland Bill was concerned, without any form of discussion at all.
Viscount LONG: I did not take part in the Scotland Bill: I am only interested in the Welsh and I do not think that the Welsh, at this stage, have been sufficiently defended by the Government.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I just draw the matter to the attention of the Committee which must have its own view of the matter. The fact is that this is exactly the same procedure as was followed in the Scotland Bill. Let me give an explanation which I hope will satisfy the Committee. I shall do my best not to be "too continental", to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, although I do not think, as I am sure she would agree, that that should always necessarily be considered a term of abuse.
As in the case of the Scotland Bill, the Government believe that we should leave it to the Assemblies to decide what specific title they should give to their equivalent of Mr. Speaker in another place. Both Bills deliberately adopt the neutral expression "presiding officer". I think that the Government would consider it altogether too paternalistic to seek to insist that any particular title such as "President", "Speaker" or indeed "chairman", were used. I very much hope that this issue will not he pressed. The Welsh Assembly can indeed adopt the form of words suggested by the noble Lord, but we think that this is a matter for the Assembly to decide. Perhaps I may finish with a final low blow: we do not believe that the gentleman in Whitehall necessarily knows best!
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us where in the Bill there is provision for the Assembly to decide on the title of its chief officer? I think that we have had this problem on a previous occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, may remember that before the dinner break he was quoting an idea which I entirely applauded. Of course the Welsh decide, but there is nothing in the Bill about it. Perhaps the Government might care to put down an Amendment to make sure

1171
that there is something in the Bill to say that the title of the chief officer should be one for the Assembly to decide.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have listened to the enthusiasm with which Conservative Members of this House are jumping up to deal with the very important question of what the Speaker in the Welsh Assembly should be called. I welcome the fact that the neutral term "presiding officer" is used. There may be a conflict, but I can assure Members of this Committee that the Welsh people will choose a suitable name in their own time. It is certainly not strictly necessary to have the term put into the Bill. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, before the dinner break, one must leave it to the common sense of the Members of this Welsh Assembly to choose the name they wish.
Lord STONE: Would it help at all if we simply put the letter "a" in front of "presiding officer", leaving it thereafter for the Welsh people to decide what "a presiding officer" should be called. "A presiding officer" gets us out of the difficulty.
Lord HUGHES: My noble friend Lord Harris referred to the fact that the same words were in the Scotland Bill and that no exception was taken to them. I can assure your Lordships that the reason why no exception was taken was that when the words appeared with small letters rather than capital letters they were not taken as being a title, but as a description of the office. Nothing in the Bill as it stands will stop the Assembly calling the "presiding officer" by such title as it considers appropriate. I am quite certain that the Welsh will do the same.
If we seek to put in the title it is almost certain that both the Scots and the Welsh would dislike what we put in. They will then abandon it and choose something of their own and be in conflict with the Act. It is much better to leave them with a totally unfettered discretion, as the Bills do at present.
Lord ELTON: This has been a fascinating exchange, which took a course quite different from that which I had
1172
expected, as is often the case. Plainly, there is much to digest between now and a later stage. If, during that time, attractive and acceptable suggestions are made, I am sure that they will find their way to the Marshalled List. I suspect that not all the Welsh are as neutral in their attitude to this matter as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. On the other hand, I have always thought of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who sits below the gangway, as being less than neutral, but he is taking a vehemently neutralistic attitude on this occasion. Therefore, I confess that I am sufficiently perplexed and desirable of hearing a better solution to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: I think that this Amendment may conveniently be taken with Amendment No. 28. It deals with the question of the lapse of time as regards a particular occasion. Clause 4, which we are now discussing, deals with the calling of a by-election. In line 35 there are the provisions which state when this is to happen. What concerns me is this. The chain of events which leads to the calling of a by-election is that, first, a vacancy occurs. However, even before that, the terms which actually entail a vacancy occurring are decided. When it is decided what constitutes a vacancy, that event has to be brought to the notice of this gentleman who is occupying the PO position. This may take some time to happen. Thereafter, there will be a delay of up to three months.
It seems to us that, if the vacancy does not come to the notice of the presiding officer within a month of it occurring, that is a rather strange circumstance, and that under all circumstances it should be possible for notice to have been given and steps to have been taken to set in motion a by-election so that it can take place at the end of four months from the vacancy occurring.
In the first instance, I should like to know what circumstances the Government

1173
foresee whereby a vacancy could occur and be concealed from the presiding officer for a period of more than a month. Furthermore, I should like to know how long that period might be extended before they would be surprised, because I think that there should be some terminus—some cut-off point—and that it should not be left as open as it is now. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Amendments suggested seek to ensure that any by-election should be held within four months of the vacancy occurring, subject to the proximity of the next ordinary election. But what they seek to achieve might not, in fact, prove possible in practice in the most exceptional case, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just referred to that. Consider the position if an Assembly Member disappeared in mysterious circumstances. It could in exceptional circumstances be several months before the mystery was unveiled, though it could unfortunately prove to be the case that a vacancy had existed throughout the period he was missing. Let me give an illustration. He was not a Member of another place at the time, but the late Mr. Victor Grayson disappeared after he had been a Member of another place. Of course, he could have disappeared while he was a Member of another place. It is exactly this highly unusual situation that one is talking about. I do not expect there to be many such cases, but nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked for clarification on this point and, therefore, he cannot complain because he now has it.
As it stands, the clause has sufficient flexibility to meet this kind of case and the proposed Amendments would not. Of course, this is obviously a most exceptional case, but in the more normal course of events it can be expected that a delayed notification would be for more mundane reasons—such as the long vacation—and it seems reasonable to suppose that under the Bill as it stands by-elections will be held within about four months of the vacancy occurring, except in the most exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, the Bill must be capable of meeting such circumstances, and in the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will take the particular point that I have endeavoured to make.
Lord ELTON: This actually raises a new consideration (does it not?) which was of considerable interest to the other place when Mr. Stonehouse was a Member thereof. It has been suggested to me that some requirement of attendance should be built into this Bill at some point. If someone is capable of not turning up for three, four, five or six months and everybody says, "That is very odd, perhaps he'll come along tomorrow", one wonders at what point it will stop. I rather think that not so long ago another place would also have liked to have had some regulation when one of its Members was, in fact, in Australia. It would surely do something towards achieving this if the terms upon which a vacancy was said to have occurred included reference to the number of possible attendances which a Member had failed to honour in either a committee or the Assembly.
But as the Bill now stands, so far as I can see we would have a mystery going on for perhaps six months—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, suggested this. I do not think that that would be acceptable. I do not think that there is anything sacred about the four-month period that I have suggested. I think that there is something very unsatisfactory about having the possibility of a vacancy continuing indefinitely until someone becomes so embarrassed that something has to be done. The whole point of the law is that it is supposed to tell us at what point we should become embarrassed, and we are not embarrassed up to that point. I think that I have made this clear. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, wants to say anything further. I think that he is seeking reinforcements and possibly if I dwell a moment longer on the point he will be able to contribute.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, I was just trying to recall the situation as regards members of local authorities. I say this with some caution because I received an embittered attack from one of the noble Lord's friends a few moments ago for having made the parallel with local government. However, there is a provision as far as local authorities are concerned. My noble friend agrees with me that there is a provision whereby if a person does not attend a meeting for six months, the authority concerned can take

1175
action. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will realise, this is obviously a rather different point though not "unadjacent" to the one which we have been discussing. I shall look into it before the next stage of the Bill to see whether it is appropriate to take any form of action. I do not know in which particular direction our researches will lead us.
Lord ELTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation and also for the phrase "not unadjacent"; perhaps one could say "less than semidetached". I should have thought it was slightly closer than that. Perhaps we could digest what has transpired and, if necessary, return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(4A) Subject to subsection (4) of this section where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule I to this Act, such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy in such manner as may be required by the standing orders of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. It is consequential upon Amendment No. 17, which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, dealt with earlier. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Disqualification for membership]:
8.58 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("(e)") and insert ("(f)").
The noble Baroness said: A series of Amendments have been put down to
1176
Clause 5 because I think it is vital when we are setting up a new body like the Welsh Assembly that people who want to become members of it should know if they will be entitled to do so. Regrettably, I find that Clause 5 is singularly indefinite and unclear. If I was a housewife in Carmarthen wishing to stand for the Welsh Assembly, I should find it very difficult to know whether or not I would be eligible.
Clause 5 seems to fall somewhere halfway between Sections 80 and 81 of the Local Government Act, which sets out very clearly what disqualifies a person from being a member of a local authority. On the other hand, we have the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which also sets out very clearly the disqualifications. I agree that in Section 1(1) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 paragraphs (a) to (e) are perfectly legitimate disqualifications and we agree with them. But I think that paragraph (f) should also be included in the Bill.
Paragraph (f), as the noble Lord will know, sets out in Parts II and III of Schedule 1 over 200 bodies and offices, membership of which disqualifies people from standing as Members of the House of Commons. This was discussed during the debate on the Scotland Bill on 12th April. The reply of the Government appears in cols. 664 and 665, to which I shall refer, because the arguments there do not seem to be relevant to the case of the Welsh Assembly. In any case, this is a subject which it is vital should be debated—not just because it happens to have been already debated for Scotland, but because the Welsh body that is to be set up is a completely different issue.
As regards the Schedule which has been omitted from this Bill, the Government's argument was, first, that in that Schedule there were bodies which did not deal with devolved matters. However, the fact of the matter is that many of the bodies which are listed in the Schedule deal with matters which are of influence and cover many of the aspects which will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. We only have to take, for instance, in Part 2 of the Schedule, the Land Authority for Wales, the Commission for Racial Equality, or the Health Services Board. These are all bodies which must, in exercising their powers and functions, have an effect on

1177
matters which may affect the decisions of the Welsh Assembly. I think therefore it is vital that these bodies should be included in any list which concerns disqualification for sitting in the Welsh Assembly.
Another argument that was put forward by the Government was that many of these bodies operate exclusively outside Scotland. But here we are not dealing with Scotland. We are dealing with Wales. Many of the bodies listed in this Schedule deal not only with England and Wales as a whole but with Wales specifically. We only have to turn to Parts 2 and 3 of the Schedule to see, first, the Area Electricity Board in England and Wales and the Commission for Local Administration in Wales. There are many of these bodies listed which obviously should be included in this particular Bill.
However, there was an even less acceptable argument. I was surprised that somebody so democratic as the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, should have given it as a reason why it was not necessary to include this Schedule in the Scotland Bill, but using this argument that it should be included in the Wales Bill. The noble Lord said:
"It is not essential that the public should be able to have instant access to these matters". [Official Report, 12/4/78; col. 665.]
I think this is exactly the kind of information that should be available to the public, particularly the Welsh public, if they want to know whether or not they may stand for this Assembly. This is a new body. It is not something that has been going on for centuries and gradually evolved its own practice, standards and regulations. This is something new for which both Houses of Parliament are responsible in setting up and getting off on the right foot.
I should have thought it absolutely vital that the public should be able to have instant access and to know who is available to stand for membership, and whom they could be looking out for as Members for their constituencies, or whether any individuals themselves would have the right to stand. It may well be that one of the noble Lords opposite is about to be offered a chairmanship of a public body. Noble Lords may wonder whether it would be rather nice to draw £1,000 a year or whether they should risk waiting
1178
for the chance of standing for the Welsh Assembly. I think that noble Lords have as much right as anybody else to know what the position is. After all, the great cry today is, "We have the right to know". I would think that noble Lords would have the right to know whether it is worth while taking up a new chairmanship, or waiting and being able to stand for the Welsh Assembly—which many of them support most strongly.
Lord RAGLAN: It is interesting that the noble Baroness should refer to noble Lords on the Government side being offered appointments to public bodies. In fact I think I am the only person in this Chamber at this moment who has been for quite a long time—except possibly for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest—actually resident in Wales, and who is therefore classified as being Welsh under the Bill. I should like to let the noble Baroness know that I am already the chairman of a public body, so she has no need to offer me anything.
Baroness ELLES: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord is so fortunate. As he well knows, I am not in any position to offer anybody anything. I think that closes that matter. If we are talking of public bodies, I would draw the attention of noble Lords to two very interesting documents which set out the kind of body which I think should be included in such a Schedule. One deals with public boards, Cmnd. 6803, which lists all the names of persons who have been appointed—I repeat the word, "appointed"—as chairmen and members of various boards of a commercial character. An even more interesting document is the Directory of Paid Public Appointments made by Ministers, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Under the Welsh Office alone there are something like 14 boards and councils which I think should be included in a list of boards which should disqualify members from standing for the Welsh Assembly. I shall not take up the time of the Committee in reading them all out. I shall just give one or two: the Area Health Authority, Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, the Rent Assessment Panel for Wales.

1179
These are all boards whose officers and chairmen are holding paid public appointments.
In normal parlance I presume it would be referred to as holding office of profit under the Crown. All these should be listed in a Schedule which should be available, particularly to the Welsh people, so that they may know whether or not they are able to stand. That would be of great benefit to everyone. It would also clear up the fact that the reason for the exclusion would not necessarily be that the functions overlapped, because that, as I understand it, is of secondary importance. What are of importance are posts available as a result of patronage. It is the patronage element which I think would be worrying. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether lie would consider agreeing to the fact that we should have subparagraph (f) of the relevant Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 included in this Bill.
9.8 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Perhaps I may begin by saying that I am unhappily not in a position to say that we have been altogether persuaded by the noble Baroness in moving these particular Amendments, for reasons which I shall try to give. I fear I am going to take a little time, but this covers a substantial amount of territory, as the noble Baroness has indicated. I shall take the issues one by one. Dealing first with Amendments Nos. 32 and 35, may I begin by saying that I think it necessary when looking at Amendments to Clause 5 to consider them as a whole. I think that that is the only sensible way in which to approach this matter.
Baroness ELLES: If that is the case—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I fear I am going to take a fair amount of time, but I should be glad to give way to the noble Baroness and then I could deploy my arguments.
Baroness ELLES: If the noble Lord is going to take them all in one would he rather that I spoke to all the Amendments now?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It would be helpful if that could be done. It is difficult to pick and choose between these Amendments. If the noble Baroness would like to deal with any of the other Amendments, it might be more sensible for me to then deal with them and try to wrap the whole thing up together.
Baroness ELLES: With the permission of your Lordships I shall deal with these Amendments together: that is, Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 36 and 37. These are presumably the Amendments in question.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The trouble is that we have two lists of Amendments before us. The Amendments I am advised it would be sensible to take together would be Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 35A, 36A and 36B, 37, 38A and 40.
Baroness ELLES: Then of course, as the noble Lord will understand, I shall also take rather a long time in going into some of these matters, and I apologise in advance for taking up the time of the Committee. However, it is important that while we are dealing with them we should clarify the matter and know where we stand, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for dealing with it in this way.
I have already dealt with Amendment No. 32. May we take Amendment No. 33, which is to remove the words,
"or is disqualified otherwise than under that Act for membership of that House or for sitting and voting in it;"
Here again, I am perturbed by the fact that an ordinary citizen of Wales is not likely to have let alone the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 but a copy of Erskine May on his bookshelf. He is likely to have his Bible and a good many other useful books of reference but I very much doubt whether Erskine May would be one of them.
If you take the disqualifications which are set out in Erskine May, apart from those under the House of Commons Disqualification Act, they include subjects such as aliens and persons under 21. Are we sure, or do we know, that the Welsh would not rather like to have an opportunity of having Members of their Assembly aged 19 or 20 rather than 21? Have they been given a chance to discuss this, or to consider it? I think they would

1181
probably agree on the question of bankruptcy or treason. They would probably also agree on lunacy. I see that "Peers", who usually happily go with "lunacy", are being removed from disqualification under Clause 6, but certainly the question of a person under 21 is a matter for discussion at some stage, and is a consideraation which should be put before your Lordships.
The other point I should like to raise is also on Clause 5, where it says,
"is disqualified otherwise than under that Act for membership of that House or for sitting and voting in it".
Can the Minister say in his reply whether there is any difference between a disqualification for membership and a disqualification for sitting and voting? If there is no difference, why put in the words "for sitting and voting"? If there are differences, may we know what they are? It would be helpful to the Committee to know that.
With regard to Clause 5(1)(c), this comes back to my original argument under Amendment No. 52 which refers to an Order in Council being proposed by the Secretary of State to say who are the people who are to be disqualified. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this matter of having a list which is published in some form or another and which will be available to the Welsh people, or indeed to anybody who wishes to stand. The noble Lord will agree that at present it is very difficult for the ordinary citizen, however intelligent, to discover from the Bill whether or not he is disqualified. There is no schedule of offices which debar him from standing and there is no elaboration of disqualification other than as referred to in the House of Commons Act. It would therefore be of considerable benefit to the public in general, and prospective candidates in particular to know whether they are eligible.
Coming to Amendment No. 36A—I apologise for the fact that in the original list of Amendments some of the Amendments were not well drafted—this deals with Ministers of the Crown. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that a Minister of the Crown is not eligible to stand for the Welsh Assembly. I think the Committee will agree that it is totally unsuitable that anybody who holds a position in Cabinet or as a Minister of the Crown should be allowed to stand for the Welsh Assembly.
1182
I appreciate that in your Lordships' House this would immediately disqualify the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, both of whom have a great love of Wales. Perhaps I might say from this side that they will soon be eligible to stand for the Welsh Assembly, but that is in no sense derogatory of the excellent contribution they make to your Lordships' House.
Nevertheless, for the time being I think it would be suitable that they should be considered ineligible to stand for the Welsh Assembly. It is a kind of dual mandate, a duplication of work, and it would be totally unacceptable, in view of the functions and powers which they exert and hold as Ministers of the Crown, to expect them to make decisions in a Welsh Assembly as an elected Member of part of Wales. Again, there would be the patronage element because as Ministers of the Crown—I have referred to the directory of paid public appointments—they have powers to appoint people to paid jobs, and indeed it is their duty to do so for the functioning of these various bodies. I believe it would be wrong that people to hold such powers should also be able to stand for election to the Welsh Assembly.
Similar arguments would apply to membership of the House of Commons. As Lord Harris will be aware, one of the many matters that come up when we discuss the European Assembly elections is the question of dual mandate. We did not discuss it in your Lordships' House but it is a matter which has been exercising all Parties; how can one fulfil the role as a representative of a constituency or a group of constituencies, or as in this case part of a constituency, properly and do one's duty to the people who elected one if one is sitting in two democratically elected bodies? For that reason, disqualification of Members of the House of Commons should also apply.
I regard Amendment No. 37 as very important. It is designed to draw the attention of the Welsh people to the way in which the Bill has been drafted; this is a sloppily drafted clause. There is no way for the Welsh people to know who might be elected to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly. The people who want a Welsh Assembly, the people of Wales

1183
who live in Wales, imagine they will get people from their local community who are Welsh and who are concerned with the Welsh culture, tradition and interests. But as the Bill stands—I say this subject to correction by the Minister —any of the 600 million British subjects scattered throughout the world are entitled to stand for the Welsh Assembly. Of course, some of them might make excellent Members, but one can imagine that many people in Wales would feel that they would not necessarily make good representatives. I am not saying they would be elected; that is another matter. The fact remains that, under the Bill as drafted, a British subject anywhere in the world could stand for election to the Welsh Assembly, in precisely the same way as one can stand for the Westminster House of Commons.
As the Committee knows, it is one of the anomalies of the House of Commons that one must be a resident of the United Kingdom to vote, but one does not have to be a resident of the United Kingdom to stand for election. And in this case, where the whole point of devolution and of having a Welsh Assembly for the Welsh people is to have people who have lived in Wales, who know the Welsh people and their problems and who understand their attitudes to life, at least the Welsh people should be represented by people from Wales. I therefore submit that Amendment No. 37 would assist in selecting people for the Welsh Assembly who would be best suited to the task. This would mean that only those people who are entitled to elect Members to the Assembly under Clause 3 would be eligible to stand for a Welsh Assembly. Of course, having only local people is localising the problem, but I think this is within the spirit of the Welsh Assembly Bill. Therefore, I think it is essential that at least a period of residence should be accepted before anybody has the right to stand for election to a Welsh Assembly.
Perhaps I may now speak to Amendment No. 38A, which seeks to draw attention to various anomalies with regard to convicted persons and their right to stand. Here again it might be said that a person convicted of a serious offence would not be selected as a candidate. But in the Bill the conviction and sentence have to have been in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or
1184
the Irish Republic. But as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, in the light of our exchanges over the Suppression of Terrorism Bill, that new arrangements for dealing with terrorist cases would enable a person to commit a crime in one country and be convicted and sentenced in another. A person who committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom could be convicted and sentenced in, say, Western Germany, and would be eligible under this Bill. On the other hand, a person who committed a similar act of terrorism in West Germany and who was not extradited to West Germany but was convicted in the United Kingdom and received a sentence of imprisonment of a period of not less than three months without the option of a fine would be ineligible. This surely is a nonsense. Of course, I may not have drafted the Amendment correctly, but with increasing international elements in crime and increasing interdependence of States, and as a Member of the European Community, one has to take into account that we are a much closer-knit society than when the original disqualification on conviction was drafted.
I think this question should be looked at. Not only is there this international element of committing a crime in one country and being sentenced and imprisoned in another, but there is the ridiculous situation where a person could be convicted of any criminal offence across the Channel, in Northern France for example, or of a serious crime within the last five years. There could be a sentence of two years' imprisonment and the person might then come and settle in Wales. That might be a very nice thing to do. Nobody would necessarily know. That person could stand although he had committed a really serious crime which would disqualify him automatically from being allowed to stand as a candidate. It may well be said that it would be difficult. How would one know whether this was so? The fact is that nobody may find out, but if the Bill is so drafted that if and when it is found out this would then retrospectively disqualify a person from continuing as a Member of the Assembly, this would be to the advantage of those who are standing.
Similarly, a person may stand as an independent, and so would not be dependent on any political Party adopting

1185
him. He might have committed a criminal offence abroad, and yet be able to stand as an independent candidate for the Welsh Assembly. That would be totally unacceptable to the Welsh people. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that particular aspect.
Finally in this group of Amendments, we come to Amendment No. 40, which I think was the last one. What is proposed in this Amendment was also debated during consideration of the Scotland Bill, but it has a slightly different effect in relation to the Wales Bill. The Amendment seeks to delete that part of the subsection which empowers the Welsh Assembly to change the list of offices disqualified from membership of the Assembly if a request is made to the Secretary of State.
There is a similarity here to the situation in Scotland, though it is not entirely identical. It seems that an order can be varied in only three ways so far as the Welsh are concerned. This is because they do not form a legislative body and so, unlike the position in Scotland, cannot pass an Assembly Act. However, the variation could take place by United Kingdom Act of Parliament, or by Order in Council as provided under Clause 5(1)(c), if that remains, or under Clause 5(5), if that remains.
To my mind, the citizens of Wales are here being denied the right to know at any one time who can stand for election to the Assembly. It is a situation which would lead to confusion and to a certain amount of ignorance as to who can or cannot stand for election. There is no necessity to have any publicity at all for the order. At least if the proposal is laid before Parliament the document in question has to be published; it is available if one knows where to look for it. But here I do not see anything in the Bill which says that orders which are made by the Welsh Assembly must be made public. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say that I am wrong, and I shall be glad if I am. As the Bill stands at the moment, the Assembly could request the Secretary of State to make an order recommending that certain offices should be either removed from, or added to, a list of disqualification from membership, but this need not be known to the general public. This is a bad way to start a public body
1186
of this nature. I think that I have gone through most of the points relating to what we are proposing, and I shall try to clarify any points which I may not have made clear. I should be very grateful for a reply from the Minister.
Lord HYLTON: I feel sure that there must be some pithy Welsh equivalent of the cry, "No placemen and no carpetbaggers." That, I think, is what my noble friend is asking for, and I should like to support her most strongly. We need to remember that we are legislating for a brand new Assembly—one which has no tradition of the kind we have in this House of being a self-regulating place. I hope that my noble friend will press the Amendments, if necessary.
9.29 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think that in certain respects some of the noble Baroness's honourable friends in another place might be rather surprised if she did press some of her Amendments. I say this for reasons I shall come to in a moment. I repeat the point that I made in my introductory remarks a little while ago, arid I think that the speech of the noble Baroness has emphasised the need for this. The point is that it is necessary to look at the totality of the issues involved in Clause 5 in the way in which the noble Baroness, if I may say so, has just done.
I think our approach to this is fairly straightforward. It picks up certain major group disqualifications—and I am talking now particularly in respect of Amendments Nos. 32 and 35—which apply in the other place and adds Lords of Appeal (who, of course, would otherwise qualify under Clause 6) and, to take a rather different group, persons recently convicted of an offence. I do not bracket the two together except in terms of presenting the argument in as intelligible a form as possible. Then it provides for disqualifying offices to be designated by Order in Council. It does not rely on the long list of disqualifying offices contained in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. We do not regard all of those offices as necessarily disqualifying for the Welsh Assembly; and, moreover, we do not propose to clutter the Bill with any list of its own. We regard the matter as appropriate for subordinate

1187
legislation, and that is the purpose of Clause 5(1)(c).
By contrast, Amendments Nos. 32 and 35 would adopt the 1975 Act list and add to the Bill a Schedule which apparently does not exist as yet. The result of the Amendments would be to disqualify some people who should not be disqualified, and then to saddle the Bill with a Schedule which requires constant amendment. The Government consider that for these reasons the technique proposed is mistaken, and we believe that our own is more appropriate in all the circumstances. I should add that the corresponding Scottish clauses have not been similarly questioned, and it is difficult to see how one could justify one set of criteria for Scotland and a totally different set so far as Wales is concerned.
Now I come to Amendment No. 33. So far, the Committee has been concerned with the case of disqualification through holding a particular office. There is, so far as we are aware, no dispute about this underlying principle. We now come to disqualification by reasons of individual circumstances. Here it becomes difficult, sometimes, to see what is the right principle to apply in all the circumstances. The Government believe in one principle for certain: that anyone disqualified for membership of the other place otherwise than under the 1975 Act should be disqualified likewise for the Assembly. There is no reason for having two different codes: and, in any event, these other disqualifications, although a motley collection, are all, I think, easily understood. They are explained beyond fear of ambiguity in Erskine May from page 36 onwards, and I shall just read the paragraph headings because I think they illustrate the point. They are: "Aliens", "Persons under 21", "Lunacy", "Peers"—who, as we know, are always very adjacent to lunacy—"Bankruptcy", "Treason", "Other Crimes", "Corrupt Practices at Elections", "Clergy" and "Returning Officers". Those are the paragraph headings in Erskine May. Amendment No. 33 would qualify all those who are potentially disqualified by the provision now in the Bill. I should point out in passing, of course, on these Amendments, that we do not need Clause 6(1), which qualifies Peers and clergy.
1188
But there is more to come. Amendment No. 37 would disqualify anyone not entitled to vote as an elector at an Assembly election. Under Clause 3 there are two groups: first, those who are on the relevant part of the register and would be entitled to vote as electors in a Parliamentary Election ; and, second, Peers who would be entitled to vote at a local government election in the relevant area. I am omitting, in order to speed things up a little, some detail which is not, I think, in all the circumstances material. But we have to go on to consider who is entitled to vote as electors at a Parliamentary Election. Erskine May, on page 19, puts it in a couple of lines as those who are:
"resident there on the qualifying date for inclusion in the electoral register, who are not subject to any legal incapacity to vote, are either British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, are on the date of the poll of the age of 18 years or over and are registered in the electors' register".
I think we could perhaps be forgiven for misunderstanding the effect of all this, but one major and critical difference exists between the Government's list of disqualifications and the list proposed by these Amendments. As a result of the noble Baroness's Amendment—and I think she very fairly indicated this in her speech—persons aged between 18 and 21 would be eligible for membership of the Assembly; and this is the point, if I may say so, that I was making in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The noble Baroness—and I make no Party point about this—has proposed these Amendments from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether this commands the support of the Opposition. If so, it is an interesting development which I think that we would wish to study carefully. But I do not see that it would necessarily be very sensible to make a decision so far as the Welsh Assembly is concerned in isolation from the situation in the United Kingdom Parliament.
Why, if it is right to have 18 to 21 year-olds as Members of the Welsh Assembly should it be wrong to have them—as it is at the moment impossible to have them—as Members of another place? I do not see that it would be sensible to make provisions of this sort to take the Welsh Assembly in isolation. That is the reason why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I should be

1189
mildly surprised if this Amendment were pressed to a Division because it seems to me to be making a major policy decision on this matter which I suspect would interest the friends of the noble Baroness in another place considerably. Our view is that a major change in the law as to the qualifications for membership of a major elected body should not be made by what is, in effect, a side wind in a Bill relating only to the Welsh Assembly. The law as to Parliament and Assemblies and local authorities, should, we think, be considered in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole.
We come now to the case of Ministers and Members of another place. The Government in this Bill have tried not to put in provisions to regulate the obvious. It is inconceivable that a Minister in this Administration, or, probably, in any other Administration, would be allowed to moonlight and to sit as an Assembly Member. Therefore, we see no reason for an express prohibition. The matter could be dealt with speedily. If a Minister felt constrained to sit as a Member of the Welsh Assembly, the Prime Minister of the day might consider it appropriate to remove him from office. I should be surprised if any Prime Minister took any other decision. There is always a case for arguing as the noble Baroness has to some extent argued this evening that what we want is greater clarification. That is a very understandable position, when we listen to her noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham talking about the sheer size of the Statute Book. One cannot have it both ways. If we want to start concerning ourselves about the sheer weight of the Statute Book, it is incumbent upon us not to add unnecessary provisions to the Statute Book. That is why we have come to the conclusion that there is no point in regulating the obvious, if I may so describe it. We do not see any case for saying that Ministers should be prohibited by Statute; because the Prime Minister of the day could deal with this slight local difficulty and would do so.
Now we come to membership of another place, which raises a different question. The Government can see no inconsistency between membership of Parliament and membership of the Welsh Assembly and it would be surprising if we
1190
were to do so because, as the noble Baroness had indictaed, we did not rule out a dual mandate so far as membership of the European Assembly is concerned. It seems to me—and I suspect I would carry with me the noble Baroness, whose experience in this matter is substantially greater than mine—that, although the Welsh Assembly will have substantial powers, there is no doubt that the weight of responsibility on the individual Member of the European Assembly, taking into account not only his responsibilities in Strasbourg and Luxembourg but also the sheer physical problem of getting over there, is a very substantial one indeed. If we did not think it right to rule out the mandate so far as the European Assembly was concerned, I do not see that there is an argument for ruling it out so far as the Welsh Assembly was concerned.
It may be that local constituency organisations will be extremely hesitant about agreeing to a person's candidature if he is a Member of another place and wishes to stand for the Assembly, but we should not rule it out so far as this piece of legislation is concerned. I should point out that there is no corresponding disqualification for Members of your Lordships' House. I wonder whether we are all that different from Members of another place. If we rule out one, I am not quite clear why we do not rule out the other. As I have indicated, our view is a straightforward one. We do not think that anyone should be ruled out so far as this section of the Bill is concerned. That deals with Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B.
I come now to Amendment No. 37. What I said on Amendment No. 33 covers most of the relevant ground. I am saving up one major point which is I hope calculated to appeal to opponents of devolution as well as to some of its supporters. This Amendment would require a species of residential qualification for a candidate in an election to the Assembly. There is in local government a string of qualifications—the noble Baroness is well aware of this—intended to ensure a local connection. But as regards Parliament, there is no restriction; and it would be difficult to argue plausibly for any restriction. As the noble Baroness is aware, there are certain restrictions so far as the United States is concerned. We

1191
have not thought it appropriate to adopt that method in this country.
It may be suggested that the nature of the Welsh Assembly is such that a local connection is necessary, indeed essential. Having considered this matter, we do not accept that view. We are not talking here simply about local government. We went over this ground an hour or so ago. In regard to the Welsh Assembly, we are talking about a body of a national character. The Government do not consider that the Assembly should be treated as a species of local authority. We accept that at Westminster there is no call for a residential qualification of Members. Indeed, the nature of the duty to be carried out by Members could sometimes make it remarkably difficult to frame a rule without causing a great deal of inconvenience all round.
I ask the Committee to consider exactly how the rule proposed by the Amendment would work in practice. One simply has to take a map and look where the border comes down between Wales and England to realise the absurdity—and I put it as strongly as that—of disqualifying automatically anyone who lived just over the border in England. Not only would it be simply absurd to make a provision of this sort, it would also be divisive in that it would throw the Assembly back on a membership which has to be drawn exclusively from people resident in Wales.
It may be that Welsh constituencies will, perfectly naturally in many circumstances, prefer local men. So be it; let it be their decision rather than a statutory requirement. It does not follow that I think we should elevate any preference of that sort regarding a group of people in the constituency Party into what would be a rigid principle. For that reason, we are not persuaded that it would be right to debar anyone automatically, even those who happened to be over the border in England by a mere hundred yards or so.
We now come to the question in Amendment No. 38A of a person convicted of offences abroad. I can perfectly well understand the case which the noble Baroness put so persuasively. Unfortunately, we have had the opportunity
1192
of studying this matter only fairly recently. I understand the idea to keep criminals—possibly dangerous ones—out of office. But how can one know for sure without hiring English lawyers, and lawyers expert in the relevant foreign law, what offences committed abroad could be said to correspond with offences committed in the United Kingdom?
Let us take one or two examples. What about the person convicted in a court in the Soviet Union? It might be described in all sorts of ways. Would we automatically accept an assertion of that sort from any other country in Eastern Europe? We do not have to look at Eastern Europe. There are other countries in the world where I suspect we would be very hesitant to make a judgment of that kind. It would require a massive amount of research in order to find out the answer to this particular question and I frankly do not consider, although I wholly understand the motives of the noble Baroness, that the Amendment is workable. I am sure she would agree with me, having confidence in the judgment of the people of Wales, that it is not likely that many members of the Baader Meinhof group are actually likely to be elected in Welsh constituencies—a rather small proportion of them is likely to be successful at the polls.
I would commend to your Lordships the provision which is contained in Section 80, subsection (1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1972. That is the model for Clause 5, subsection (1)(d). That was enacted by the Government of the noble Baroness and her colleagues and I think those thoughts are rather better than this attempt to shut out the doubtless small and select band of Welshmen who have carved out for themselves a criminal career outside Wales—a career in crime which, by definition, has been an unsuccessful one. Therefore, I would repeat that, although I understand the motives of the noble Baroness very clearly, I do not believe we could possibly introduce this concept into the Bill because I do not believe it would be even remotely workable.
Lastly, as regards the Order in Council, in connection with Amendment No. 40, the Government's scheme puts the list of disqualifying officers into an Order in Council. When the Government amend the order the amending order requires,

1193
as the noble Baroness is aware, an Affirmative Resolution. But if the Assembly itself proposes the Amendment and the Secretary of State endorses it, the amending order requires no Parliamentary procedure. We deliberately give the Assembly this important role, and we do the same in Scotland. It is a compromise between keeping the list solely under the Government's control and placing it under Assembly control. I apologise for having spoken at some length, as did the noble Baroness in speaking to these Amendments. I hope I have in the time available dealt as comprehensively as possible with the many questions that she put to me.
9.48 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: The noble Lord who spoke from the Government Front Bench did have the courtesy to apologise to us for his very long exposition, but I would address all your Lordships by saying that it seems to me that in the last 20 minutes, 30 minutes or whatever it is, we have been subjected to a procedure which, to my mind, is quite contrary to the principles of a Committee stage of a Bill. The noble Lord on the Government Front Bench invited my noble friend to take a whole series of Amendments—virtually a whole clause—in one section. Many of these details were admittedly comprehensive and they dealt with the same subject; and that is the way that Bills are constructed. Every clause contains a whole series of things dealing with the same subject. But many of the individual Amendments had different points about them, and although my noble friend and the noble Lord on the Front Bench had their clear view of the total picture, many of the Back-Benchers—and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has not got much respect for Back-Benchers—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not know why that rather absurd statement should be made by the noble Lord. I try always to behave with courtesy to Members in any part of this Chamber, and I would ask him to withdraw that statement.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord addresses us with superior courtesy. The fact of the matter is that I am talking about the technicalities and I would ask your Lordships to forgive me if I get a little carried away in doing this,
1194
because I think the noble Lord has his own interest in this. The technicalities of it are that I do not think that this particular stage of our Committee proceedings has been properly dealt with. Many individual Back-Benchers would have had a contribution to make on certain of the Amendments, though not on others. We listened to my noble friend making a long exposition about the reason for the Amendments and then we listened to a long exposition by the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, making his comments. One became quite out of touch with all the points, and it would have required a brief of one's own—not a Committee stage process—in order to be able to rise to pick up all the points on the individual Amendments, which is what a Committee stage is all about.
I press both Front Benches, if I may do so from this very inferior position, not to allow this kind of process ever to occur again. If it were possible—I do not suppose that it is, according to our procedure—to have the whole thing all over again, that would be very much better. But, in the event, I personally feel that some of these Amendments are more important than others. In the usual way, when we take several Amendments together, we do it on the basis that they are withdrawn together or voted upon and then made consequential. I trust that this wide range of Amendments is not treated in that fashion, and that each Amendment is tackled in its own right, so that we can at least make our decision as to whether or not we want to accept it, even if we have been made to hear a conglomeration of a speech to explain the whole lot to us.
Baroness ELLES: In view of the remarks of my noble friend, perhaps I may say a word from these Benches. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I take full responsibility for having dealt with these Amendments in this way. I accept the remarks of my noble friend and that it may have been unacceptable to him, in which case I apologise to him and to all other noble Lords in the Committee. But I am certain that the noble Lord opposite will also agree that any Back-Bencher is entitled to get up and make any comments on any of these Amendments about which we have spoken. I absolutely appreciate what my noble friend has said, and I quite see why he has said

1195
it. But I hope that he and other noble Lords will feel completely free to make any comment on each one of the Amendments that we have now discussed.
Lord RAGLAN: I am not accusing my noble friend Lord Harris, or the noble Baroness, of any discourtesy at all. It is not a matter of courtesy; it is a matter of form. I have been in this Chamber for a long time, and I have never heard a series of Amendments on separate subjects discussed like this, one after the other. Earlier this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, discussed a series of connected Amendments which were, for convenience sake, all spoken to together. Then, when the Amendments arose later, and the Chairman read out the number and so on, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said "I beg to move" and we all knew what it was about. But to take, I think, five Amendments all on different subjects did not give any of us a chance. I wanted to say something when my noble friend Lord Harris was on his feet, and I was just about to get up and refer to the subject that he was talking about when he switched to something completely different. It is very difficult for what I might call lay Members of the Committee to discuss Amendments in this fashion. It is also very unhelpful.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to come to the defence of the Minister. To me, this is as clear as daylight. We are discussing qualifications or disqualifications for membership of the Assembly. As a Sudeten Welshman, I am delighted to know that I can stand and that I need not be living in Pembrokeshire or Gwent. I have been following the discussion all the time. I did not want to interrupt, because I interrupt too often. But I certainly feel that this is absolutely clear and elementary, and I was hoping that we could come to a quick decision. Having said that, I had better sit down.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, if any noble Lord in any part of your Lordships' House wishes to raise a question on any of these Amendments, he can do so. But as my noble friend
1196
Lord Davies of Leek has pointed out, all these Amendments are extremely closely related to one another, which is why they were discussed together. However, if anybody wishes to raise an individual point, he can do so. If I can have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—I apologise to him but I want to refer to what he said—he indicated that he had been carried away. I assume that that is his definition of an apology, and I accept it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should not like to accept that sort of position. It was no apology. If the noble Lord would like me to apologise for something, perhaps it might be something which could be responded to by an apology for having, I think, misused the procedures of the House. I will certainly apologise to the noble Lord for saying nasty things about him, but I would rather expect him to make some kind of an apology to the Committee and not to me.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I think that the noble Lord and I have exchanged sufficient gracious remarks to satisfy the convenience of most people. The noble Lord may recall his reference to my attitude to private Members of the House. That remark was totally uncalled for. I am surprised that he has been so ungracious as not to withdraw it without reservation, as I hope I should have done if I had made that allegation against the noble Lord.
Lord GRIDLEY: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord said that when it came to the elections for the Welsh Assembly it would not matter, give or take 100 yards or 200 yards, whether somebody was resident in England; he would be eligible to vote for the Welsh Assembly. This is a point which worries certain Back-Benchers and laymen on this side of the Committee. If it is said that 100 yards or 200 yards either way do not matter, why should it not matter whether it is one, two or three miles? It may be that some of us are rather pernickety—I cannot think of a better word—but, in devolving these powers to the Welsh Assembly, we feel that we have a duty to adopt a constructive attitude towards the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will consider the

1197
matter in that light, because that is what we on this side of the Committee are trying to do.
Baroness ELLES: I wonder whether I may reply to some of the comments of the noble Lord the Minister on these various matters, upon which I take a middle line; all of them are connected with disqualification. Some of the matters are more related to one another than certain other of the Amendments with which we have dealt, and I accept the criticism which I have justly received from my noble friend.
With regard to certain aspects of the matters to which the noble Lord the Minister replied, there is, first, the question of the size of the Bill. Anybody who has to go through Schedule 2 will not be perturbed if he has to look at a list of offices, if it is added. We accept that a list of offices contained in another schedule would be far more legible, understandable and useful than the appalling contents of Schedule 2, which we shall no doubt reach, so I do not think that that argument holds water.
I very much hope that before we reach the end of all stages of this Bill the noble Lord will be able to prepare a schedule so that we may know which offices the Government consider should be disqualified when it comes to standing for the Welsh Assembly. The noble Lord said that such a list is not being prepared for the Scotland Bill. If, however, I remember correctly the words of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, he at least threatened the Minister who was dealing with the subject that if a Government schedule was not forthcoming before we reached the end of all stages of the Bill, he would prepare one in order to show the people who would be disqualified. I know that the question of who should be eligible to stand has caused considerable concern in both Bills. At col. 667 of the Official Report on 12th April my noble friend asked:
"is it really not possible for the noble Lord to tell us at this stage what the Cabinet office or the Privy Council Office has decided is the list of offices? Have they not made up their minds yet?"
My noble friend pressed the noble Lord to give a list of the offices, and I feel that this should also be done for the Wales Bill.
1198
The noble Lord made great play of the fact that people should not necessarily he resident in Wales. I thought the whole point of devolution was that the Welsh people did not want to be governed any more by the English and the Scots, but perhaps I have got it wrong. Perhaps they do. Perhaps the English and the Scots will now rush to have a nice holiday in Wales in one of those delightful little cottages referred to so touchingly, if I may say so, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in his Second Reading speech. I can think of nothing nicer than standing for a constituency in Wales, so I think that perhaps the Welsh Assembly will not be the answer to the aspirations of the Welsh people that we thought was intended
However, we are very glad to hear it from the lips of the Minister and not coming from this side of the Committee, and as to the noble Lord's words about the borders of England and Wales, I think we shall hear a very different argument when it comes to devolved matters and planning and the Town and Country Planning Act and the Community Land Act. There will be a great difference then when it comes to borders and as to the rivers; that will be another matter again. So I think that an argument on borders between England and Wales and the point of 100 yards here or there works very well in this particular argument, but it will not work quite so well when we get to the rather more difficult parts of this Bill.
So, to conclude, I am not satisfied with the answers given by the Minister. He seemed to be rather pleased because I believe he thought he had caught me out on the question of the age of 18 and he thought that my colleagues in another place might not be very pleased with me. But I hope I am happy to tell him that he is wrong because my Amendment No. 37 in fact says that he is not entitled under Section 3. This means that he will still be disqualified for being under 21 under Clause 5(1)(a), but nevertheless he must also be resident. He would be entitled to vote under Clause 3 but he would of course be disqualified for being under 21. So the two would work together. My answer would be that he would be over 21 but he would have to be resident. Perhaps the noble Lord does not read it

1199
in that way but that is certainly my intention. If the Minister does not accept Amendment No. 37 I should like to press it to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 32.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
10.4 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 6, after ("or") insert ("(aa) he").
[Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
Lord RAGLAN: Before the Committee continues, I am not sure whether Amendment No. 36 has been dealt with.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): Amendment No. 36 has been withdrawn and in substitution we have Amendments 36A and 36B which I am now calling. Does the noble Baroness wish to move them?
Baroness ELLES: If the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, wishes to speak on Amendment No. 36A, would it assist him if I were to move it? I understood, from the ad hoc arrangement that I had heard from across the Table, that despite what might be termed the "bloc speech", Back-Benchers would certainly have the right and privilege to speak on any of these Amendments, and if the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, wishes to speak on Amendment No. 36 I assume that he would be entitled to do so under this procedure. I therefore move Amendment No. 36A:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) he is a Minister of the Crown; or").
Lord RAGLAN: I was instancing this as the kind of difficulty one can get into through speaking to a whole series of Amendments at once; one is not sure which Amendments are being moved, which are being withdrawn, et cetera. It is a matter of form. If we do this, we can get very confused indeed. That is all I wanted to say. I thank the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman.
Baroness ELLES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 36B:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) he is a member of the House of Commons; or").
The noble Baroness said: I had spoken already to this Amendment, but I nevertheless wish to move it in order to allow other noble Lords to speak upon it.
Baroness VICKERS: I am not at all happy with this. I know that a Member of the House of Commons can be a member of local government, but I feel that this Assembly is not a local government body and not a legislative body, either. I consider it would be very unfortunate if a Member of the House of Commons, who is used to dealing with legislation, were a member of this body. I would prefer that he or she did not stand. A great many other people will be equally qualified. Surely a Member of the House of Commons has sufficient work to do. Members of Parliament already complain about the late hours and the amount of work they have to do. If an MP is also a Member of the Assembly, I do not think he will be able to undertake both jobs satisfactorily.
I do not think it has anything to do with being a member of the Parliament of the EEC. At the moment that is not a legislative body, but I assume eventually it will be. So I do not want to compare this with being a Member of the House of Commons and the European Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord on the Front Bench will give further reasons why he thinks it is a good idea, and why they have particularly recommended that someone could be a Member of the House of Commons and of the Assembly at the same time.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Baroness is absolutely right; the European Assembly is not a legislative body, but, of course, nor is the Welsh Assembly.
Baroness VICKERS: It will be.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, with great respect, it will not be a legislative body. We have discussed this matter some few hours ago. I made the point that it is different from the Scottish Assembly which is a legislative body. That, I think, is probably the case the noble Baroness has in mind. There is this distinction between the powers of the Welsh Assembly and the position of the Scottish Assembly; it is a very different matter indeed. I think it would be quite impossible to defend a situation where this House had cheerfully agreed that there could be a dual mandate so far as the European Assembly is concerned, that a Member of the House of Commons could be a Member of the European Assembly if he could get selected, which is a very important proviso, but that it would be wholly wrong to have a Member of another place also a Member of the Welsh Assembly. I do not, with great respect, see how one could justify one's stand on that question. That is why I think it is wrong to legislate in this particular way.
There would probably be real difficulties in the path of a person who did try to become a Member of both organisations; I think the physical strain would be very substantial. Also, I think that it would be very difficult to persuade a constituency organisation that one would have time both to do one's job in Westminster and to fulfil one's responsibility in Cardiff. It is, with great respect, better to leave it at that, rather than to write this provision into the Statute.
Baroness ELLES: I should like the noble Lord to answer one query. Is there anything which would prevent a Member of the House of Commons from drawing his salary as a Member of the House of Commons and also drawing a salary as a Member of the Welsh Assembly? This is a completely non-Party point.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, I think that it would be exactly as for the European Assembly. I think that a Member could undoubtedly draw both salaries. Indeed, I should be very surprised if he were debarred from doing so. He would be a Member of both organisations. This particular point has been made more in relation to the European
1202
Assembly, because of the discussions of which the noble Baroness is aware about the pay of Members of the European Assembly, than in regard to the situation as regards the Welsh Assembly. I think that if a person is a Member of two organisations, both of which entitle him to a salary, expenses or whatever it may be, he is undoubtedly entitled to obtain both salaries.
Baroness ELLES: Surely it would be a different situation. The salary of a Member of the European Parliament, when settled—it has not been settled yet—would certainly be paid from the European Community and not from the United Kingdom budget. But in the case of the Welsh Assembly, both salaries would come from the Consolidated Fund.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying so, I admire her ingenuity in creating a distinction, but British taxpayers will be making a contribution to the salaries of Members of the European Assembly, as I am sure she will recognise. It is an absolutely inescapable proposition that, if a person is a Member of two bodies, both of which entitle other Members to a salary, he is entitled to obtain both salaries. I do not think that there is any way in which one could possibly deny that proposition.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I do not want Members of Parliament, whether in the Assembly, the EEC or the other place, to appear like professional footballers before the electorate competing for salaries. There is a certain decency in having the privilege of serving the public. Some of us are old-fashioned enough to have come into the other place many years ago for the ridiculous salary of £400 a year. I do not want that to be the standard. Nevertheless, I believe that if we consider this matter, many members of the public will think that we are talking of farming salaries. I believe that a Member of the other place should be paid and worthy of his hire and do that job well and not expect to represent his constituency in any other phase. He must be one, two, or three—Assembly, the other place, or EEC. However, as for triple serving, it is sheer acquisitiveness, which is not of the nature of a Member of Parliament, whatever Party he

1203
may have belonged to in the past or may belong to in the future. I hope that that caveat is noted.
Lord PARRY: I would never dream of crossing swords with my noble friend, colleague and compatriot at this hour of the night or at any other stage of the day, but there is a positive point to be made and that is that there could be positive value in people having dual membership. As regards the point he made about the salary, of course all of us here in this ancient House are foolish enough to attend for no salary at all, so the service goes without saying. The point that needs to be made is that, as in the EEC and as with local government—although the Assembly is not local government—there is certainly advantage in the odd case here and there of duality, even, I would think, of triplicate membership of an Assembly if it were physically
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 37:
("( ) he is not entitled under section 3 above to vote as an elector at the Assembly election concerned; or").
1204
possible. Moreover, the Assembly itself will be dictated by the electorate and the electorate must make the judgment. During this debate we are rather prone to assume that the electorate will not make the appropriate judgments in arguing these points.
Baroness ELLES: There seems to be a rather interesting division on this. I seem to have a colleague on the other side of the Committee who also agrees that one should not be a Member of the Welsh Assembly and a Member of the House of Commons. In view of the support that I have had from my noble friend on the Back-Benches, I should like to press this Amendment to a Division.
10.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 36B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Romney, E.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elles, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweeddale, M.

Ferrers, E.

Vickers, B.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Raglan, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Seear, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Northfield, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Parry, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hood, V.

Peart, L. (L, Privy Seal.)

Winstanley, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

The noble Baroness said: We have discussed Amendment No. 37. It refers to the fact that somebody who is over 21 must qualify by residence in Wales in accordance with Clause 3. Should any other Member of your Lordships' Committee wishes to speak on this Amendment, I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to remind the Committee on what we shall vote if the noble Baroness presses this Amendment. I would particularly ask those who are opposed to devolution to consider exactly what they are voting on. What they would be saying is, "Even if it is the desire of a group of people in a Welsh Assembly constituency to have a person resident in England as their candidate, they would be debarred from having such a candidate". I suggest that that is a very remarkable doctrine indeed. I suggest
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.34 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 13, leave out from ("has") to ("been") in line 14.
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 39. It is the custom and practice of your Lordships' House that any Member may object to Amendments being taken together, and if any Member so objects then Amendments will not be taken together. Unhappily, some of
1206
to the noble Baroness, if she presses this Amendment, that some of her colleagues who pronounce themselves to be wholly opposed to devolution might just consider exactly how they would justify their position intellectually.
10.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray, L.

Romney, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hylton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elles, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stedman, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hall, V.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hood, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

those who took the point are no longer in their places; let us hope they read this in Hansard.
During the Committee stage debate on the corresponding clause of the Scotland Bill the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked how the clause conformed with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The Government's reply explained that the clause, for all practical purposes, conformed with Section 7(1)(d) of the 1974 Act since five years was the minimum rehabilitation period for an offence invoked by Clause 5(1)(d). The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, then went on to suggest that to link a Member's disqualification to the date of the last

1207
ordinary election effectively debarred an offender for up to nine years, rather than up to the five years that had been intended.
After consideration, the Government have concluded that the provision—which is identical in both the Scotland and Wales Bills—was indeed more restrictive than had been intended. These Amendments therefore correct the position, so that an offender can stand for any Assembly election or by-election held more than five years after the date of his conviction. Identical Amendments have been put down to Clause 8 of the Scotland Bill.
Baroness ELLES: I should like to thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I think it clarifies this point about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38A not moved.]
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert ("and a period of less than five years has elapsed since the date of that conviction").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exceptions and power to grant relief from disqualification]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing Amendment, somewhat similar to the one put down during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill. Clause 6(2) gives the right of the Assembly to consider it proper to waiver a disqualification for a Member. We should like to have from the Minister some guidance as to the kind of situation or circumstance likely to arise when the Assembly would, in fact, deem it proper to waiver this disqualification. I think the subsection itself gives rise to a certain questioning. If it did not appear proper to the Assembly to waiver a disqualification, could the Minister tell us whether the individual Member would have any
1208
right of appeal against the decision of the Assembly?
The other question I should like to ask the Minister—I do not know whether he is listening; we have had a rather funny evening and I wonder whether he is. I am putting questions to him. The first one is this. Where the Assembly decided it was proper not to waiver a disqualification, would that individual Member—or ex-Member in the case of someone being already disqualified—have any right of appeal against this decision? Secondly, could the Minister inform the Committee whether this is a matter which could be given to a committee to decide and thereby go to the leader of that committee? I think we shall be debating this matter later on in dealing with the Bill. There is considerable concern that many matters which deal with the rights of an individual will be decided by one person. In this case concerning the rights of a Member, the matter should be clarified, and it may be necessary to put something in the Bill at a later stage to protect the right of that individual from any arbitrary decision, possibly a political decision, by one Member of the Assembly.
In this particular case, when the matter was debated during the Scotland Bill, there was some suggestion that the procedure was exactly the same as in the case of a Member of the House of Commons. But it is not quite the same, because a person objecting to this disqualification would, in a case involving the House of Commons, have to go to the Privy Council, whereas in this case, as I read Clause 8, judicial proceedings would go to the High Court. So the situation is not quite the same. Therefore, I should like some comments from the Minister on these points. I also wish to know from the Minister, if it is not to be the leader of a committee who decides these matters, what kind of machinery the Government are considering should be set up to deal with this kind of matter. Although a small point in practice, it is a very important one in principle: any rights of individuals should be protected, if necessary statutorily, rather than just by the standing orders of this body.
10.42 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Using the formula that I used on the

1209
last Amendment, I propose, with the permission of the Committee, to discuss this Amendment at the same time as Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, which are related to the same question. The Government regard subsection (2) of Clause 6 as a necessary provision, although we now recognise that the subsection as it stands at the moment is not entirely satisfactory, which is why we have put down Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 which I hope we will be taking in a few moments.
Let me explain the position in detail. As it stands, Clause 6 enables the Assembly to grant relief from disqualification if it considers that the ground has been removed, and also that it is proper to do so. Those are the criteria. This might appear to permit the Assembly to grant relief in certain circumstances from any of the grounds listed in Clause 5. If this were so, then the Assembly would appear to have wider powers than are now available to Parliament. The Government do not now think this would be right.
The purpose of the Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 is therefore to restrict the Assembly's power. It will be able to grant relief in proper circumstances only where disqualification has arisen through tenure of an office which the holder inadvertently—an important qualification—failed to resign in due time. An obvious example is that of a member of an area electricity board who, as a result of an act of inadvertence, got the time-scale wrong regarding resignation, and found himself in a very difficult position.
There are two categories of disqualification which the Government Amendments explicitly remove from the Assembly's ambit of relief. First, there is the example of common law disqualifications from the House of Commons; that is, disqualifications other than those arising from the holding of the offices listed in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Secondly, there are disqualifications arising from crimes for which the person has been sentenced to a prison sentence of not less than three months within the last five years, as provided for by Government Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, to which the Committee has agreed.
1210
In practice, it would rarely, if ever, have been possible for the Assembly to grant relief from these disqualifications, since the ground for their imposition can never be removed. The common law disqualifications arising from, say, treason remain valid for life. Similarly, it is a matter of fact whether a prison sentence of at least three months without the option of a fine has been imposed within the last five years. There can be no question of that ground being removed. Nevertheless, on reconsidering this clause the Government concluded that, as it stands, it could be misleading and convey the impression that there is some way to remove grounds which are inherently irremovable; and, as I have indicated, the Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 put the position beyond peradventure.
So far as concerns the point about the leader or an individual Member having, as it were, delegated powers in this particular matter, I should like to look at the point raised by the noble Baroness, and I will communicate with her before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question before we depart from this issue, because it occurs to me that there might be a particular point of view. First, we have no clear idea of whether there will be personalities of the standard of Ministers, or what terms will be applied. We know that if a certain post is held and a Government income arises—and there is a list of these—it must be declared and the monies therefrom given up. This has happened to many of us in another place when we have become Ministers there. We may be directors of companies; or I may be the holder of a directorship in a bus company in Caerphilly or Cardiff. If I am a Member of the Assembly, what happens to me? Do I have to give up my directorship of the Cardiff bus company, for instance, when I become a leading personality or an officer speaking from the Front Bench in the Assembly? I do not think that my short question is irrelevant.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It would depend on the nature of the employment whether a person would be disqualified or not. I gave one particular example—the area electricity board. There is no doubt at all about the position

1211
so far as that is concerned. It is obviously difficult to answer a detailed question without devoting a great deal more attention to it, but there could undoubtedly be inadvertent error, and what we are anxious to do is to ensure some machinery whereby the problem created by inadvertent error call be dealt with expeditiously. But so far as the much more serious question is concerned—namely, a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence within a relatively recent space of time—there should, in our view, be no doubt at all about disqualification in a case of that sort; and that is why, as I have indicated, the Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 deal with this particular question.
Baroness ELLES: I should be grateful if, when the noble Lord writes to me about the point of the leader or the committee or who else deals with this matter, he would also answer my question as to whether some right of appeal will be given to the individual Member. I am happy to see that the noble Lord has already pre-empted at least one office in the Schedule, when he referred to a member of an area electricity board as one that will be listed as an office which will entail disqualification from membership. At least we have one line of a list from him, and we hope that some more will come out during the course of the debates that we shall be having on this Bill.
I think that the question of office which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has raised precisely indicated my worry in regard to Clause 5—the lack of a Schedule, the lack of a list, the inability to know what the position of any individual is via-á-vis the Assembly. I go back to that, because I think this is something we shall have to look at on Report, if only, as I say, to protect the individual and enable him to know exactly where he is and whether or not he is liable to be disqualified. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would write to me on the two points he has mentioned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("on any ground").
Page 5, line 3, after ("constituency") insert ("on any ground other than one falling within section 5(1)(aa) or (d) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 and they have been discussed. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move the two Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.