WALES BILL

HL Deb 06 June 1978 vol 392 cc1095-153

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 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 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.

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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". 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 Amendment No. 20. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.13 p.m.

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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) shall stand dissolved on the eve of any ordinary election of members; and
2. (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 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.