ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATION AT COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

HL Deb 01 July 1998 vol 591 cc766-99

(". At any meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community at which matters relating to Assembly functions are to be considered, a member of the executive committee (established under clause 56) shall, with the consent of the Minister of the Crown leading the United Kingdom delegation, be entitled to speak and vote on behalf of the Assembly and of the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now return to the important issues that were raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on Amendment No. 34 before the dinner break.

Amendment No. 43 puts in statutory form what Ministers have said they want to happen. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51, which concerns consultation and has the same wording that I tabled at Committee stage. I shall also refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, tabled and with which I have some sympathy. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. This subject has been debated previously but in detail only at a very late hour in this House. It is therefore right that we should return to it now.

At Second Reading, I made plain my serious anxieties about the Government's arrangements for dealing with European issues and about the idea being propagated in some quarters that Wales was likely to be better represented in Europe than it had been in the past. That proposition, at least as it applies to Scotland, was effectively demolished in an important speech by my noble friend Lord Lindsay during the Second Reading debate on the Scotland Bill. He spoke from a wealth of experience as both a Scottish and a UK Minister at Council of Ministers' meetings. He asked acute and important questions and he received no adequate response from Ministers, who at times, I have to say, appeared to be ill informed about the issue. There was also no adequate response to the queries and points of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish at the Committee stage of this Bill. This amendment gives us an opportunity to discover from the Government exactly how they think Welsh and Scottish interests are to be represented and defended in Brussels. The same principles apply in each case.

In my Second Reading speech, I referred to the proposition that had been advanced that, with the agreement of the UK lead Minister, the relevant Assembly Secretary could speak to the agreed UK line in the Council of Ministers".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1059.] In his reply, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said: And why should they not do so…?".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1130.] My amendment attempts to give the proposition a statutory foundation, a foundation that may prove to be significant if an assembly member, asked by the lead Minister to represent the United Kingdom view, was to be challenged in the Council about his right to do so for reasons that I will refer to later. What I want the Minister to explain in detail are the circumstances in which they could do so and I want him to give us some very clear answers to some very important questions.

As I pointed out in the debate which we have just concluded on concordats, the Secretary of State for Wales argued in his response to the debate in another place on 25th March that it was all a matter for concordats, which meant that he left the position totally obscure. His response was referred to in the debate on the Scotland Bill in another place, in the course of which Mrs. Margaret Ewing drew attention to the fact that representatives of the German Länder had represented German interests in the Council of Ministers on four occasions. This matter was referred to earlier today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell, as so often in the past on these issues, was well informed and helpfully filled in the details. He told those present in another place that the State Secretaries for Justice and the Interior and the Senator for Internal Affairs of Hamburg had attended a meeting on 28th/29th November 1996, and that on 16th December 1996 there was a meeting to discuss audio-visual and cultural affairs. Apparently, the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Minister President of the Rhineland-Palatinate attended that meeting. On 20th November 1997, the State Secretary for Education, Science, Research and Technology and the Minister for Culture of Hessen attended a meeting on education. Finally, on 24th November 1997, the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Minister for Education, Culture, Science and the Arts of Bavaria attended a meeting on culture. The House was informed that, although Länder ministers attended Council meetings on those four occasions, they were never the sole representatives of the German government. I also believe it to be the case that they were not the lead ministers on those occasions.

In the speech to which I have already referred, my noble friend Lord Lindsay said that, despite the innumerable hours that he had spent in and around Council meetings, he never met, nor indeed did he ever hear, any reference to the presence of a minister from Catalonia, or any Belgian or other devolved region.

Following the Maastricht Treaty, Germany added a new Article 23 to its Basic Law. I received a most helpful brief on the subject from the Library of this House. It informs me that that article provides that the decision of the Bundesrat is decisive where such a transfer of legislative competence affects the exclusive legislative competence of the Länder; and also provides that Germany may be represented by a member of a Land Government in the Council of Ministers when matters affecting the legislative competence of Länder are being discussed. Representation in Council by a Land Minister should take place in areas of exclusive competence of the Länder. I ask the House to note that point. The note goes on to say that that would include cultural matters, for example, where the federal government has no competence.

The note goes on to explain the special agreement of 1993 that covers the arrangements in Belgium, which are rather more complex than those in Germany. There the Council of Ministers meetings are divided into four categories, (A to D), depending on the relative importance of federal and regional competences in the area under discussion. Federal ministers' only may attend Type A councils. Regional ministers accompany federal ministers at Type B councils where there are shared competences, but the federal level is more important, but only the federal minister may vote. In the Type C councils there are shared competences but the regional level has a greater weight; both levels are represented but only the regional minister may vote. At Type D councils where matters within the exclusive competence of the regional governments are discussed, only regional ministers may attend and vote.

The Lords' brief also referred to a House of Commons research paper 97/126, which has this to say about the situation in Spain. I refer to it because the subject of Catalonia is frequently raised, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Mrs. Ewing stated in the debate to which I refer that the Spanish Parliament had recently voted to guarantee the representation of Catalonia and the Basque countries at Council meetings on devolved matters. However, in response, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Donald Dewar, rather sat on that suggestion. He said that there is no right, as Mrs. Ewing suggested, for Catalonia, the Basque country, or any other region to be part of the delegation. One representative of the 17 provinces will be on the delegation and the great question is how the 17 provinces will decide who that person should be. I believe that the situation as regards Catalonia remains to be established one way or the other. It is important to note and clearly understand that in each of the cases that have been described the arrangements are those that arise from and are made possible by domestic law, domestic agreements or domestic practice.

I have been anxious to discover what rights and opportunities are provided for by European law and practice. I believe that the House will be as anxious as I am to know if each member country of the European Union has a free hand as to the manner in which it is represented.

The question that I put to others in the course of my inquiries and which I now put to Ministers is this. Can the UK lead Minister decide that a case can be presented by representatives of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh assembly regardless of the views of other member states' ministers in the Council and regardless of any treaty obligation? My noble friend Lord Cockfield has given me a most useful note on the subject. He has referred me to the Treaty of Paris signed in 1951 and the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community, signed in 1957. The English translation of the original of the latter document provides that, The Council shall consist of representatives of the Member States. Each Government shall delegate to it one of its members". The phraseology was applied to all three Communities by the so-called "Merger Treaty" of 1967 and it survived right down to the Maastricht Treaty, officially called the "Treaty on European Union", which substituted the following words. Again, I ask the House to listen to them carefully. The treaty stated: The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at Ministerial level, authorized to commit the government of that Member State".

My noble friend Lord Cockfield observes that the critical point is the phrase, authorized to commit the government". The "government", so far as the Union is concerned, is the Westminster Government. My noble friend says that he does not see how a member of the Welsh assembly or the Scottish parliament could commit the Westminster Parliament; nor does he think that the House of Commons in particular would be at all happy if the Government attempted to give those members such powers. My noble friend says that none of that would prevent a Minister taking along a member of the Welsh assembly or of the Scottish parliament as part of his delegation, but that there could be objections on the part of other members of the Council, particularly in view of the establishment of the Committee of the Regions. My noble friend questions whether at a meeting of EU Councils, covering subjects that fall within the competence of the Welsh assembly, a member of the executive committee of the assembly would be entitled not only to attend, but also to speak and vote as the representative of the UK Government.

The final point to note in all these relative positions is that representation is in any case confined to those subjects where there is exclusive competence. This is the dramatic moment when I lose my text. No, I have found it again.

I refer now to a comment made by Mr. Derek Prague in his pamphlet, Democracy in the European Union, which describes the nature of negotiations in the Council, a subject on which my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has touched on a number of occasions. Mr. Prague observes that negotiations in the Council normally involve a great deal of give and take. That means that the efforts of national parliaments to control the concessions of their Minister, as he attempts to get maximum consideration in the Council for his government's view, are fraught with difficulty. It is extremely difficult to influence a Minster engaged in a fluid negotiation in the Council of Ministers. Even the national parliament best organised for the scrutiny of European legislation—surely Denmark's Folketing—must find it difficult to control its Minister in the last stage of a negotiation when Ministers are making compromise concessions to each other.

My noble friend Lord Lindsay made much the same point on 17th June when he asked some key questions which apply equally to the Welsh assembly. He asked, for example, that when the Council of Ministers goes into closed session and only member state Ministers are allowed to remain in the room, how easy would it be for devolved Scottish Ministers to stay with their Minister or Crown colleagues. The same question applies to Welsh representatives. My noble friend also asked whether Scottish Ministers would be confined to the public areas of the Council buildings and whether they would be allowed to access the Council buildings and the Council chamber as and when they wish, even when their assistance has either not been sought by a UK Minister or has actually been refused by a UK Minister. Those are important questions to which I should like to hear an answer tonight. One begins to understand why Mr. Dewar was so cautious in the Scottish debate on 30th March and why Mr. Ron Davies, in the debate on 25th March, and the noble Lord the Minister who dealt with this matter in Committee in this House were so reticent.

There may be a few subjects on which a Welsh assembly representative may speak but not vote; for example, cultural and language issues. But it is clear that on great political issues such as agriculture, which we have discussed in relation to a number of amendments this evening, and industrial aids or employment measures, the UK will continue to be represented by a Minister of the Government at Westminster who will both speak and vote for Britain as a whole.

Let us consider what will now happen in the situation created by this Bill. Discussions about the UK's negotiating position will no longer take place between Ministers of one administration involving civil servants who prepare and defend a departmental case and have shared loyalty and responsibility to the same government. No. There will be discussions between Ministers who have different and perhaps opposing interests and civil servants with differing loyalties. To take agriculture as an example, perhaps UK Ministers want to adopt a negotiating position on beef on the bone that seems likely to add to the immense problems that already face the farmers of Wales. There will be a huge temptation for the chief secretary of the Welsh assembly to take up a public position of outrage and dismay so that he can defend himself in the face of the assembly and his electors. There is likely to be tension and conflict.

There is sometimes a wonderful symmetry about events in this place. Twenty four hours after the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General spoke about representation and the ability of Ministers to speak, to which I have already referred, a Question was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, about the current negotiations on the crucial matter of the allocation of regional aid to Wales and the Agenda 2000 package. Confronted with that Question, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said: I do not believe it would be helpful at this stage as regards the negotiations if I were to give further and better particulars of our negotiating position".—[Official Report, 22/4/98: col. 1154.] Later, when pressed he said, at col. 1155: I have already indicated that I do not believe it to be helpful in what is a difficult negotiating position to single out specific parts of the United Kingdom". When pressed further he said, at col. 1156: I have already indicated that it is not helpful at this point in the negotiations to embark upon a sectoral appraisal of the position. All these questions are bound to impact upon the Government's thinking. Representations arc made by all areas in the United Kingdom and we will listen to them".

Clearly, that is what will happen. UK Ministers will have to take up a position that represents UK interests. It is wholly desirable that the cards are kept face down on the table. But what happens to those who have taken part in the preliminary discussions? What will the first secretary do? He knows the negotiating position and believes—perhaps like my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley—that it will be catastrophic for Welsh agriculture. Will he be silent or reveal that there is a profound difference between the Government of the United Kingdom and British Ministers? What is absolutely certain is that he will not be asked to represent the UK in those discussions. The negotiations would have to be conducted by the UK Minister.

My amendment establishes a statutory basis for the Welsh representation of UK interests in the Council of Ministers in those exceptional cases where lead Ministers agree to such representation. The amendment gives representatives of the Welsh assembly rights comparable with those of the German Länder and the Belgian regional Ministers who have so often been quoted as precedents. Unfortunately much of what has been said in earlier debates indicates that either the Government do not understand what happens in Council negotiations or they are attempting to put up a smokescreen to mislead the people of Wales.

Throughout our proceedings, the Ministers who reply to our debates are as helpful as they can be. I hope that we shall have real frankness from whichever noble Lord replies about questions that are of immense importance to Wales.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are grouped with these amendments and are intended to ensure that there is a representative—an assembly secretary for a responsible field in devolved functions—as part of the UK delegation and that, in parallel, the assembly can make representations to the EU commission.

I regret that my amendments are grouped with the rather lengthy lecture that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on the existing and past arrangements of the European Union. All this is now up in the air. The letter from the Chancellor of the Federal Republic and the President of the French Republic in advance of the Cardiff summit, the communiqué of the Cardiff summit and the decision of heads of government and the president of the Commission to have an informal summit as part of the Austrian presidency in October relate to the whole question of relations between the European Union as a structure, member states and regional and national levels of government.

I will not quote from the letter or from the presidency decisions in detail except to emphasise that we are now in a new situation. The lecture we have just heard may be a rather inadequate summary of what was past practice. We are now in a new situation within the context of extension, within the context of the interesting political argument inside the German state about the relationship between the Länder and the federal government. In particular, the re-election of Chancellor Kohl and the positioning of the SDP in relation to that, has meant that the question of the role of regions—that is, a level of government below member state—in relation to the European Union is now a major issue in the politics of Germany. As often in these matters, the politics of one member state reverberate in another.

The issue of subsidiarity, the issue of levels of decision making—local, regional and national, as they are described in the Chirac-Kohl letter—are all issues which are currently part of the discussion within the Union. The points which were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about recent practices of the Council of Ministers and ways of operating are all issues now open for debate.

I am not going to argue how those issues should be resolved. Clearly there are issues of competence which work at different levels. I do not accept the point that the noble Lord was making rather strongly that the issues of competence relating to Wales have to do only with matters which are somehow marginal, as he described them. According to him, culture is marginal, although it is a major source of employment in the Welsh economy. He was suggesting that issues relating to agriculture in the economy were somehow more central.

The division of relationships between different areas of policy is no longer relevant. We are in a position where the whole nature of the relationship between member states, regions, localities within the Union and subsidiarity will be an area for discussion at the informal meeting of heads of government under the Austrian presidency in October. We need to be creative in such a situation. I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is so insistent upon freezing the relationships of the national assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Scottish parliament into one model, and why he is so keen to fix upon what was agreed in the Belgian federation, the Spanish state, and the German Länder at particular times. Those are moving issues.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am puzzled as to why he thinks I am trying to fix the relationships in one particular form. All I have done is put down an amendment to turn into statute what the Government say they wish to happen and believe will happen, and to ask a number of questions about what may be allowed in the present circumstances. I hope feelings will move on, but it is a good idea to know where we are at present.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was seeking to place on the face of the Bill what the relationships between the national assembly for Wales and the rest of the EU were going to be. Now I understand that that is not the intention, in which case I shall happily sit down and listen to the Minister's discourse about the future.

It is important that we understand that relations between the national assembly, the Scottish parliament and the European Union are, again, concordat-type relationships, conducted at the European level, and the possibilities of developing those relationships is something that we in this House should welcome and not seek to freeze-frame.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, we have heard some interesting speeches. I detect a similarity between the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and Amendment No. 63 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Both of them have taken at his word the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General on Second Reading, particularly when he described the relationship that the assembly would hope to have with the European Union. He said: However, the assembly will have an important role to play. It will be able to scrutinise fully European Union documents and proposals and to take evidence on their impact and therefore put a Welsh eye on what the impact will be on Wales. Where appropriate, assembly secretaries, as well as officials, will have a role to play in delegations to the Council of Ministers, as agreed by the UK Minister leading those negotiations. Assembly secretaries will be able, subject to the agreement of the lead UK Minister, to take part in relevant negotiations on policy at the Council of Ministers".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1130.] I thought that the noble and learned Lord was being optimistic. The prospects that he held before us were glowing. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. What he said appeared to be somewhat more guarded. He stated: As the White Paper foreshadowed, the conduct of relations with the European Union is necessarily reserved to the United Kingdom Government because the United Kingdom is the member state. But the Bill gives the parliament and the Scottish executive the full powers they need to observe and implement European Community obligations in so far as they relate to the devolved areas. The parliament will be able to scrutinise relevant EU proposals and legislate to give effect to Community obligations for Scotland. And Schedule 5 also provides that the Scottish executive will be able to play a role alongside the United Kingdom Government in negotiations". It is interesting to note what Schedule 5 comprises. Paragraph 7 is headed "Foreign affairs, etc", which includes the European Communities and their institutions among the gamut of international organisations mentioned in sub-paragraph (1). But of course, paragraph 2(b) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Scottish Bill points out that: Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve … assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies". Are we to understand that that degree of non-reservation is tantamount to providing, that the Scottish executive will be able to play a role alongside the UK Government in negotiations"? What kind of assistance and role is that? Is it not a little too far-fetched to interpret Schedule 5 in that way?

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, felt obliged to go on to say: Much has been made in another place of the omission from the Bill of a right in law setting out exactly when ministers of the Scottish executive will participate in meetings of the European Council of Ministers and other negotiations. I have explained that the Bill contains enabling provisions, to make clear that they may take part in such negotiations. But the UK is the member state; we must have a common UK position and a single UK delegation. The emphasis in negotiations will continue to be on working as a UK team; the delegations will be led by a UK lead Minister who will retain overall responsibility for the negotiations, the same as now". Before we read much further into this speech there is a reference to the concordat. The Minister stated: We envisage that these matters will be covered by concordats between Edinburgh and London, but we are firmly of the view that it would be neither sensible nor appropriate to try to prescribe the detail of who should speak when on the face of the legislation".—[Official Report, 17/6/98; col. 1572.] I do not believe that the Welsh position is very different. If one reads the closing speech of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General on Second Reading of this Bill and couples that with the somewhat greater detail spelt out in the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to the Scotland Bill we arrive somewhere nearer the truth.

My noble friend referred to the situation between the European Union and the Länder. That was a subject raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who has written to my noble friend saying that, During the second day of the committee stage of the Government of Wales Bill, you asked for examples where representatives of regional administrations had attended, on behalf of their Member State, formal meetings of the European Union". The answer given by the Minister was: The more obvious instances which have been identified relate to the German Länder. Because of its particular expertise, Bavaria, for example, has represented the German Government at EU meetings where cultural issues have been the main agenda item; similarly, members of the Catalan autonomous government have attended meetings on behalf of the Spanish when language issues were under consideration". I expected to find a reference to agriculture or fisheries. I accept that Bavaria may not quite rank as a fishing Land; although in respect of agriculture it would certainly do so. But no; it is in those areas that have been mentioned that those Länder and provinces have featured.

Then there is the very strong point made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell quoting my noble friend Lord Cockfield about the status required for attendance and indeed for direct participation in the Council of Ministers. My noble friend covered the ground extremely adequately. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, commenting on what my noble friend said, referred to the changing situation. Yes, the situation may be changing but we are, in legislation, bound to recognise the situation as it actually is, as we have experienced it. I do not believe that there is any real difference between the two sides on that. That is what the Government have been doing. They have been acting on their historical knowledge and experience. That is precisely what we have done with our Amendment No. 51.

We recognise that the Bill fails to guarantee a strong voice for Wales in the European Union. There is nothing to dispel the fear that the role of Wales in the Council of Ministers will be less than it is now. And so our proposed new clause seeks to give the assembly the right to be consulted before a Minister attends the Council of Ministers—a very important right; to be advised on proceedings in the Council of Ministers; to question the Secretary of State after a meeting of the Council of Ministers; and to attend with and participate in the United Kingdom delegation with the Minister's consent. Again, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, we have accepted the Government at their word and have defined our amendments accordingly.

10 p.m.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. How does he say that the position of Wales within the European Union, under the devolved arrangements, in relation to the Council of Ministers and the structure of the Union will be less than it is now?

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, that is simply because we are currently represented by Ministers who belong to a unitary government. When any United Kingdom Minister represents the United Kingdom at the Council of Ministers he represents Wales as well as England, and indeed in many cases, Scotland too. Before he goes to the Council of Ministers he has usually been consulted by the Secretary of State for Wales, who has had his input into the position that the Government and the Minister representing them takes at the meeting of the Council of Ministers.

In future, it appears that our unity under the United Kingdom Government is changing, if it is not under some threat—but let us leave such words out of it—and there are doubts as to how that unity is going to be expressed in constitutional terms in relations between Ministers and between government departments. There are whole areas where there are question-marks, to which we have referred in relation to the concordats. Therefore we are very concerned about the future representation of Wales—and I am sure this extends to Scotland—in the Council of Ministers and about how our interests in Wales are to be safeguarded.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, Amendment No. 43 differs significantly from Amendment No. 51, and Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 themselves differ from the other two sets of amendments. I think that some errors have been perpetrated this evening. A phrase used in respect of Amendment No. 43 was, We wish to give rights to the assembly on the face of the Bill. I then look at the words of Amendment No. 43, and this gives no rights. It says, At any meeting of the Council of Ministers … of the European Community at which matters relating to Assembly functions are to be considered". Assembly functions, I take it, are as set out in Schedule 2 on page 82 of the Bill. They include culture, museums and libraries, water and flood defence and the Welsh language. A great gamut of functions numbered 1 to 18 appears on page 82.

But what happens then? a member of the executive committee (established under clause 56) shall"— and I omit some words deliberately, be entitled to speak and vote on behalf of the Assembly and of the United Kingdom. The reason that I omitted some words deliberately is to underline them now and to point out again that it is an error to say that any right of any sort is being given, because what is suggested in Amendment No. 43 is simply this: shall be entitled to speak and vote on behalf of the Assembly and of the United Kingdom". with the consent of the Minister of the Crown leading the United Kingdom delegation. That is exactly the present situation which obtains, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell himself observed. He quoted the treaty, saying that the key words were that the representative to the Council of Ministers is, authorized to commit the government of that Member State". I agree. The Government's view, which I believe to be correct, is that if they wished they could authorise an assembly secretary or a Scottish minister to take on that role and commit the United Kingdom. Therefore I repeat that no right would be given, because it remains entirely at the discretion of the Minister of the Crown leading the United Kingdom delegation. So to speak of "rights" is wholly misconceived, not to say bogus.

The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, reviewed constitutional arrangements in at least two other European Union countries. One concerned the position of the Länder. He spoke of a particular article of the German basic law which of course is subject to the direction of the German Supreme Court in Karlsruhe. He spoke of the German basic law, which is a written constitution referring to areas of exclusive competence of the Länder. Exactly so; but that has nothing to do with our present situation. The noble Lord spoke of the domestic legislation of Spain, as to whether or not the autonomous government of Catalonia could take the lead. That, too, is nothing to do with our present situation. Whatever piece of domestic legislation is introduced and passed in the Westminster Parliament, nothing in domestic legislation can override any legal rules binding in European Union contexts at the Council of Ministers. I repeat: nothing at all.

Therefore, Amendment No. 43 would do nothing more than underline the present situation. It is perfectly open to any lead Minister of Her Majesty's Government in the Council of Ministers to nominate even at the moment anyone, authorized to commit the government of that Member State". It is quite right, as indicated in the citations that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, made, that the only EU member is the United Kingdom. It is within that context that the UK Minister of the Crown can, if he or she wishes, nominate another person to speak and vote on behalf of the UK.

As I indicated earlier, Amendment No. 51 is different. I suggest to your Lordships that these are the sort of arrangements which are apt to be decided within the context of concordats; in other words, the assembly should put its mind to having a concordat with Westminster—and, in turn, Westminster should do likewise—about how one would have discussions, considerations and co-operative thoughts about what ought or ought not to go on. Therefore, Amendment No. 51 should not be on the face of the Bill but should be the subject of a concordat.

Other observations were made about the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to which, of course, everyone pays the highest regard in this House. But, if I jotted down the citations correctly—and I cannot say that I got down every reference that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made because I do not think it was possible to do so—there is reference again to the phrases, "authorized by the government" and, indeed, "authorised to speak and vote as a representative of the UK Government". As far as I am aware, subject to correction, there is nothing in European law which prevents the UK Government designating a lead Minister, authorized to commit the government of that Member State". The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked further questions relating to the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, as to what would happen if there were a session limited to the lead Minister of the United Kingdom. The answer is that the situation would be exactly the same as it is at present. It depends who the UK lead Minister is and what delegation in number is entitled to remain in the closed session. If within that number the UK lead Minister wants an official, a lawyer or a designated member, exactly the same rules would apply.

Other questions were put to me and I hope to deal with all of them tonight. However, if I miss any of them, I shall certainly write to the noble Lords who have shown an interest in the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was courteous enough to read out my letter. I promised to research, in so far as I could, the question which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, put to me. I believe that I correctly represented the present situation in that letter; namely, that Bavaria, among the Länder, had represented the German Government where cultural issues had been the main agenda item.

The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has a point when he says, especially in the context of the Welsh assembly, that cultural matters—including language, and so on—are important in the life of the nation and also in the context of tourism. People like to visit Wales because, in part, it is different. That is not unimportant. The mere fact that it relates to culture does not mean that it is of no value; in fact, it is of deeply profound value in the context of Wales.

I gave the House a further example about the Catalonian autonomous government attending on behalf of the Spanish when language issues were under consideration. I do not believe that any of those examples were incorrect. If I have misrepresented factual situations, then I shall be only too pleased to say that I am sorry that I was factually wrongly advised and wrote a factually incorrect letter. But I do not think that any attack on my factual assertions has been made, or is capable of being made. The document states that it is possible for an assembly member to lead such a delegation. Nothing I have heard from any of your Lordships this evening even begins to persuade me that I am wrong in that assertion, either politically, legally, or as a matter of fact.

Distinct questions were asked on an earlier occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was kind enough to say that he would not speak on this matter but wished me to deal with his points. I am most grateful to him for his courtesy. The question was asked: where EU schemes allow discretion, will it be open to the assembly to use that discretion? My answer is "yes". If a European scheme allows no discretion, the assembly will consequently have no freedom to act differently. The suggestion has been made that where joint issues arise, the assembly would simply rubber-stamp or initial papers prepared in Whitehall. That is not so. Joint functions will have to be exercised by both parties in agreement. That is not entirely different from the present situation where of course the Welsh Office makes representations to MAFF. In the discussions one Minister may be more persuasive than another, or one set of officials may be less persuasive than another.

I was asked: what would happen if MAFF conducted negotiations, or an assembly secretary conducted negotiations, on behalf of the United Kingdom in Brussels. Could the MAFF Minister be questioned in another place? That would, of course, be a matter for the Speaker and Standing Orders in another place. If a MAFF Minister is reporting to another place on concluded negotiations in Brussels, I see no reason why in appropriate circumstances questions should not be put to the Minister in another place. I stress that it is not for me to determine these issues or to be discourteous to another place and the authorities of another place. However, I see no reason in principle why that should not occur.

At present all members of the United Kingdom delegation in any context have to speak to an agreed line. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is quite right: the agreed line is sometimes the result of bruising encounters. I reiterate there is no question of an assembly secretary, or indeed first secretary, being able to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom without two things obtaining: first, the permission of the UK lead Minister and, secondly, speaking to an agreed line. However, that is no different from what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, did when he spoke in such circumstances as the UK Minister, as he told the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, earlier.

That is the present situation. I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. We need to know what the present situation is. But we also need to bear in mind that the assembly will grow and change organically. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has a point there. The assembly is able to scrutinise and debate proposals for European legislation. It is able to make representations to the Secretary of State when it has reached its own conclusion. It is able to deal with these matters in concordats, which will be prepared on the basis of efficiency and decent, co-operative working relationships, and which will be published. Assembly members will be able to sit on the Committee of the Regions. They will be able to submit nominations to the UK Government for Welsh representation on the economic and social committee.

Therefore it is a mistake to lodge oneself, willingly or unwillingly, in the straitjacket of the simple factual question of who can lead on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The answer is precisely the same as that which applies at present. The only person who can lead for the United Kingdom Government is someone who will present an agreed policy and who will be nominated by the lead Minister.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer a question? Let us say that there is an agreed line, and the Minister for, say, agriculture or trade does a deal in the middle of the night. As the Minister will appreciate is the case with all these matters, the deal is never absolutely perfect; there has to be a little give and take in order to achieve the deals. Currently a Scottish Office, Welsh Office or Northern Irish Minister is bound by the collective responsibility of the one government to defend the agreement, even when he may perhaps have to swallow quite hard and possibly receive a lot of stick in his own back yard.

I cannot quite get my mind round what will replace collective Cabinet responsibility when it comes to defending the outcome of any package. I understand it down the corridor, because the lead Minister will be a UK Minister, or else he will have delegated the responsibilities. I suspect that in relation to the issues I am talking about, the lead Minister will be a UK Minister. How is the Welsh Secretary tied in to that decision? Currently, Ministers in the Welsh Office are tied in by collective responsibilities in government. That will not happen. How will he be tied in in the future?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, it seems to me that there is no difficulty at all. If it is the Welsh First Secretary who is representing the United Kingdom line and the United Kingdom Government, because the UK is the only member of the EU, if he or she negotiates, for instance, on cultural matters, he or she will have to defend the agreement arrived at loyally. That is a necessary implied condition of his or her becoming the lead United Kingdom Minister.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I was not solely concerned with him as the lead UK Minister or if he was simply part of the discussion which went on beforehand and the UK was represented by, say, a MAFF Minister who came to those decisions. My suspicions have constantly been raised because the Minister goes back to culture and things like that. I want to get on to the big economic issues which drive the European Union and make up the common policies of the European Union. Those are the matters on which I want assurances. Let us say that the Welsh Secretary is not asked to be the lead Minister, and that the lead Minister is a MAFF Minister. Perhaps I did not make my question clear. How does the Welsh Secretary become tied in to what is currently collective governmental responsibility?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Lord makes at least three points. I do not call culture "things like that", because it is extremely important. Turning to the noble Lord's points, there are three Ministers involved: there is the lead UK Minister; and he spoke of the Welsh Secretary—I am not sure whether he meant the Secretary of State or the First Secretary of the assembly. I am not nitpicking; I believe that there are three Ministers possibly involved. If it is the Secretary of State for Wales, there is no problem. If it is the first Secretary, and he has negotiated with MAFF and failed in the negotiations, it is a matter for his judgment what dissent he puts in the public arena, because he is an assembly First Secretary. If he wishes the United Kingdom position to be x and it is x-minus, then it is a matter for him, of course bearing in mind the political realities—he has to deal in future negotiations with Westminster colleagues. I hope that no one is of the brutalist school and will say, "I haven't had all that I wanted on this occasion. It is my bat. I shall now depart". He has to work with colleagues in Westminster in the future.

If one wants to be defeatist about these matters, or even unduly cautious, one can ask: what if there is no good faith, or what if there is an enormous chasm? One will approach these matters pragmatically, as Ministers do presently. If they cannot bear collective responsibility, they have the option of resignation. However, there are intermediate possibilities as well. I do not believe that these matters cannot be made to work if we wish them to work. However, I stress that nothing in domestic legislation can override European Union legislation in this context.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said to strengthening the arguments that I put earlier regarding the impossibility of the Secretary of State for Wales being the First Secretary. His remarks were incompatible with that situation. I was slightly surprised that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas seemed rather belligerent on this subject. I do not believe that they are entitled to lecture either me or my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy on the subject of the importance of the Welsh assembly. There are not many people who have devoted more energy to encouraging and strengthening Welsh culture in all its aspects than we have. I could not be a stronger supporter of those subjects to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred.

Most of the matters which come under that umbrella are, in any case, the responsibility of the UK Government at present and will be the responsibility of the Welsh assembly. They are hardly touched on by European policy. These amendments are actually concerned with crucial issues on which we are wholly or substantially dependent on European policy; I refer in particular to agriculture and some aspects of industrial policy.

The Minister referred to wishing to give rights. I used the phrase, "put on a statutory basis". I was seeking to put on a statutory basis the words, the undertakings and the expectations raised earlier by Ministers. Indeed, though the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, seemed a little belligerent about my amendment earlier, it was probably because he hurried through dinner and had not read it. I find it hard to believe that he can criticise my amendment, which in many respects has much in common with his amendment. We are trying to give more power and effectiveness, more involvement to the Welsh assembly. I believe that we are aiming in the same direction with the same objectives.

I said also that I doubted whether national law could overrule European rules. The Minister confirmed that fact. I would add that it is not for me to decide between the legal wisdom of the Minister and the practical experience of my noble friend Lord Cockfield as a commissioner on the exact relationships in that respect. However, there are some issues which are not absolutely clear.

I fear that we are in a bit of a muddle about crucial negotiations. There are two aspects to this matter. One arises when we are putting together a policy. In my time as a Minister, the Minister of Agriculture always, as a matter of principle—it was true also for the Secretary of State for Industry—before going to Brussels for important negotiations, discussed the issues with the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and reached a totally agreed position. As my noble friend pointed out, when they came back with whatever deal they had succeeded in obtaining, collective responsibility bound them together.

The situation will be different when the Minister is the representative of a different body and of a different assembly. It will not be possible to have the same cohesion in the agreement when they go and it is by no means clear that there will be the same unity about what has been achieved when the Minister returns, having completed his negotiations in the middle of the night.

The truth of the matter is that the position will not be stronger under existing arrangements. We are justified in our fears that in many respects it will be weaker. However, we received a detailed response to many of our questions. We shall want to consider that response carefully. It would not be right at this late hour—we always seem to come on to this important subject late at night—to divide the House. However, there are still issues which leave me extremely unhappy about the position and I shall want to consider the position carefully before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 [Consultation about government's legislative programme]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 20, line 21, leave out ("such").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to be belligerent about this amendment but I am deeply disappointed that there has been no movement by the Government on this important issue; that is, the consultations to be carried out between the Secretary of State and the Welsh assembly about the Government's legislative programme.

As drafted, Clause 31 is written almost entirely from the point of view of the Secretary of State. It provides that he will consult with the assembly as it appears appropriate to him to do so. He is not required under subsection (4) to undertake consultation with the assembly about a Bill if he considers that there are considerations relating to the Bill which make it inappropriate for him to do so. All the emphasis is upon giving to the Secretary of State a discretion as to whether to consult the assembly. If he does not want to, he does not have to.

What is wrong with this is that it does not reflect the true balance between the Westminster Parliament and, specifically, the Welsh assembly. We know that the arrangements are different in Scotland and no doubt they are different in Northern Ireland. But, for Wales, all the primary legislation is to be made at Westminster, and it follows that the secondary legislation, which will be for the consideration of the Welsh assembly, must be contained within the framework of the primary legislation that is passed here. That primary legislation will obviously reflect the policies of the government who are elected to Westminster. They may be of the same political colour; but they may equally be of a totally different political colour. It seems to us on these Benches that where one has this constraining influence of the primary legislation—the framework within which everything that the assembly legislates about must be contained—it is essential that the Secretary of State should consult the assembly; not on matters that he considers to be appropriate but on the whole of the legislative programme.

That is the purpose of the amendment. It does not impose on the Secretary of State a particularly onerous burden. After all, the whole of the Bill removes from the Secretary of State many of the burdens that he sustains at the present time. Having taken away from him the weight of the responsibility of running the day-to-day work of the Welsh Office and the consideration of how the budget is to be spent, it is surely not too much to ask of him to come to the Welsh assembly and to explain, discuss and consult over the primary legislation within which the Welsh assembly has to work.

I think that all those eager young people, such as Kirsty Williams, to whom reference was made earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who are going to go along to Cardiff, full of enthusiasm and ready to put into effect the policies that the Welsh assembly considers to be appropriate for Wales, with a spark to do something for their country, will suddenly hit an enormous barrier—the existing primary legislative programme of the Westminster Parliament. Surely, the Secretary of State should be obliged to consult about it. I beg to move.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has made a powerful point. I should have found it more powerful if the noble Lord had taken part in the previous debate, which was about consultations and discussions surrounding important matters on Europe. But that does not seem to matter too much.

I think that both are equally important. All governments use phrases like "such consultation as he thinks appropriate", and it is always difficult to defend them. It is a fairly vague form of words. I have no doubt that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister. It is particularly important, as the noble Lord said—perhaps we omitted this point in the previous debate—if the people involved are of different political parties with different manifestos and different agendas. That is when it may be convenient for the Secretary of State in the Westminster Government to decide not to bother consulting because he knows jolly well that when he consults he will find that he has an opposite number with an entirely different agenda. The noble Lord has made some valid points and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I shall certainly not deal with the amendments in a belligerent way. We had a debate on precisely the same amendments on 2nd June. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was kind enough to describe my answer on that occasion as "wholly inadequate". Although I shall repeat enough of the points, I hope that I shall go further than on the last occasion.

I hope that it is clear from what I said on the last occasion—I shall certainly say it on this occasion—that there is very little between the Government and the noble Lord on the central issue in this debate; namely, that the assembly should be fully consulted about those government Bills which affect its responsibilities such as the environment, planning, education and social services.

In the course of the debate this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that he believes it appropriate that the assembly should be consulted about the legislation within which the assembly must work. I do not believe that there is much difference between us in relation to what the central obligation should be. We also seem to be in agreement that the nature of consultation should not be prescribed by this clause since his Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 do not prescribe what form the consultation should take, only that there must be consultation.

In our draft, as is the way, it would be for the Secretary of State to form a judgment about the nature and extent of the consultation and its precise timing. When it is the Secretary of State who is, as it were, the one "in the know" as to proposals in relation to primary legislation in the Westminster Parliament, then, in effect, and simply through that circumstance alone, it must be for the Secretary of State to determine what is the most appropriate way for that consultation to take place and the most appropriate time for it. So the drafting of the Bill in its present form is simply intended to reflect that simple reality.

I believe that I may also lay to rest any concern that the noble Lord had that consultation would not take place until a Bill had been introduced. That would not be a practical way for the government of the day to proceed. I am sure that this and future governments will want relevant legislation framed with regard to the assembly's views. I say "relevant legislation" because, as I believe I have made clear and I believe the noble Lord accepts, plainly there will be some pieces of government legislation—for example, legislation applying only to England or matters such as the Armed Forces—which lie outside the assembly's responsibilities and where the Secretary of State may conclude that no consultation is appropriate. Again, I do not believe that that is very far from what the noble Lord said in the course of the debate.

The final amendment in this group invites us to omit Clause 31(4) which states: This section does not require the Secretary of Stale to undertake consultation with the Assembly about a bill if he considers that there are considerations relating to the bill which make it inappropriate for him to do so". Perhaps I may develop an example of where that provision might be relevant and draw on an actual case. When the community charge had been in operation for only one year, the Government decided to introduce a blanket reduction of £140 per person for the second year to be funded by an increase in VAT. The decision was announced in the then Budget and the relevant legislation was introduced afterwards in a Bill which was separate from the Finance Bill. Before the Budget announcement the Government had already formed an intention to introduce a Bill. If the assembly had been in existence at the time, that would have triggered a requirement for consultation under subsection (3) since, as we know, local taxation would be among the assembly's responsibilities.

I hope that the noble Lord can see how, in the scenario I have given, a Secretary of State might well have concluded that there were considerations prior to the Budget announcement which would make it wholly inappropriate for him to consult the assembly. In a sense it would have been in the same position as everybody else—it would have to wait until the Budget. Obviously, once the announcement had been made there would be nothing to prevent consultation and the full involvement of the assembly in the finalisation of legislation.

I hope that that example demonstrates that subsection (4) has a purpose which is separate from the discretion about consultation given to the Secretary of State in subsections (1) and (3). In view of those explanations, I very much hope that the noble Lord will see that we are on broadly the same lines and that the clause seeks to achieve that which the noble Lord wishes to achieve. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for reminding me that I described his previous reply as "wholly inadequate". I now amend that phrase and say that his reply has simply been "inadequate".

The essential point that I am trying to convey to the Government—I want them to give full consideration to amending the Bill—is with regard to the fact that there should be a firm duty on the Secretary of State, enforceable at law, to consult the assembly. It should not be a matter of discretion. The Minister knows that when we discussed concordats, I argued that they should not be legalistic documents, and that there should not be the opportunity to run to court to enforce the working relationships between various government departments. But this is of an entirely different order.

We should not get into the situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred, where one political party is in power in Westminster and another in Cardiff, there is a clash between the two and the Westminster Government refuse to consult Cardiff. In that situation, there is a role for the courts to play, to enforce a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the primary legislative programme within which the Welsh assembly has to work. That is what I seek from the Government. Heaven knows, we have helped them even today in certain other areas and I look for their assurances and their further assistance when we next debate this. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 20, line 22, after ("session") ("and the National Assembly's legislative proposals").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment in a totally non-belligerent fashion. This is not just a rehearsal of what we debated in Committee on the notion of a fast-track legislative relationship between the assembly and both Houses of Parliament. It is an attempt to develop the argument. The amendments would allow for draft Bills in specified devolved areas and for formal consultation to take place both over the relationship between Cardiff Bay and Westminster as to the making of procedures for representations from the assembly and over consulting on the issue of the further devolution of primary legislative powers.

I am sure that we shall return to this issue over the years in the devolutionary process. I am not seeking a thin end of a wedge—if that can be sought; I seek rather a process of dealing with the specific situation whereby there is a separation of powers—if I can use that expression—between Westminster and Cardiff Bay in relation to legislative form; in other words, that we are dealing with a situation where delegated legislation will be operated and, indeed, devised in Cardiff, and primary legislation will be operated at Westminster. Some of the issues that were raised in Committee, about using procedures at Westminster to ensure that any issues arising out of the assembly's practical role as a deviser of delegated legislation, should be able to be dealt with here. If we do not have such a procedure, the danger is that there will be bland Wales primary legislation here, which means that debates on legislative issues relating to Wales will not be satisfactory at this end and the amount of delegated legislation at the Cardiff end will have to be more substantial. One needs a relationship between the two processes much like what happens at European Union level, where legislation and regulation are made through agreement between member states and implementation is carried out as a consequence.

I believe that merely to produce delegated legislation or implement primary legislation without a return to the source at Westminster means that the assembly may find itself regularly in what I described in Committee as logjams of opportunities to provide for primary legislation issues that arise out of its practical activities. I do not argue that the assembly should have additional powers but rather that it should be able formally to make representations to Westminster as the source of its primary legislative power in a way that makes its activities more meaningful.

To coin a phrase at this time of the evening to wake us up, this is all about taking Clause 33 seriously. The Minister will say that Clause 33 provides that the assembly may consider and make appropriate representations about any matter affecting Wales. Of course it may, but that is not the issue. To take the matter seriously means that there are specific indications for that purpose. That is why I have returned to the issue of a cycle of legislative activity whereby what is delegated to Cardiff and is practically produced there has a way of feeding back into the primary process at Westminster. I beg to move.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, so far as I can see, there is nothing in Clauses 31 to 33 to prohibit the assembly from making representations concerning any matter that affects Wales, including the need for legislation. Wales has had devoted to it over the years a number of primary legislative measures: the Eisteddfod Act 1959, for which my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir was responsible, and the Welsh Language Act 1993, for which I had some responsibility. We now have the Bill. In recent years certain parts of Bills have related specifically to Wales. I am thinking particularly of the Education Act 1988, and subsequent education legislation also comes to mind.

I would have thought that when the Secretary of State discussed with the assembly the Government's legislative programme for the forthcoming Session under Clause 31 the assembly would put forward its special legislative requirements for Wales. It might have done so earlier on an informal basis. But no one can be sure what will be in the Government's legislative programme until it is announced in the Queen's Speech. I can understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to get as much as he can on the face of the Bill. It is an anxiety which he has imputed to me in different contexts, but I question the need for this amendment except for its cosmetic value.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, I am all for consultation. I have nothing against the idea that the clause should encourage it. However, I look with some concern at Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, which is grouped with the other amendments. That seems to be taking consultation an extraordinarily long way. The noble Lord said that he was not attempting to produce the thin of the wedge but this new clause goes pretty far in that direction.

Here we are told that, where representations are made by the Assembly to the Secretary of State concerning the acquisition by the Assembly of primary legislative powers in any field"— pretty fundamental that— provided that such representations receive the support of at least a two-thirds vote of the members of the Assembly"— certainly not a totally unlikely event— the Secretary of State for Wales shall within in one year of receiving any such representations, place before Parliament a bill incorporating those representations in the form of proposals for amendments to this Act". The Secretary of State is apparently not entitled under this clause to go back to the assembly and say, "No, I am not having any of this. This simply is not on". He is obliged to produce a Bill. The noble Lord may tell me that the Secretary of State could come down to the House and say, "I have been made to produce this Bill because the Act says that I have to. I do not believe in it and I hope that you will all reject it". If he did that, the relationship with the assembly would be strained in the most appalling way. If a Government Minister comes down to either House with a Bill, there is a reasonable expectation that he will support the Bill.

This clause goes much further than I would wish to go. While I have every sympathy for the general concept that we should have consultation, I should find it quite impossible to support the amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas on his continuing ingenuity in seeking means to involve the assembly in primary legislation and to have conferred on it—as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell has pointed out—primary legislative powers. It will not surprise him to learn that the Government cannot accept his amendments, some of which were debated in Committee.

As we have already discussed, Clause 31 delivers the White Paper commitment that the Secretary of State would consult the assembly about the Government's legislative programme. The consultation upon it is one way in which the assembly can influence the content of primary legislation. Amendments Nos. 45 and 50 seek to go further and introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the assembly about the assembly's legislative proposals—namely, draft Bills and draft amendments which it, the assembly, has approved during the previous session.

I am not quite sure to what the draft amendments would relate. If they are to relate to government Bills in a particular session, it would require a remarkable degree of foresight on the part of the assembly to have drafted amendments to them during the previous session. If they relate to Bills in the previous session, it would be too late in any event.

Apart from the consultation under Clause 31, the appropriate way for the assembly to seek to influence legislation at Westminster would be for it to use its powers under Clause 33, which states that the assembly may consider and make appropriate representations about any matter affecting Wales. The assembly can make appropriate representations to whomsoever it chooses about any Bill before Parliament that affects Wales, whether or not the Bill relates to the fields in Schedule 2. Those representations might include suggested amendments and could be published or sent to the appropriate Minister or to any member of either House. It would be for the Government or Parliament, as the case might be, to decide what if anything they wished to do in the light of the assembly's representations.

As for the assembly drafting whole Bills, if the assembly was seeking to argue that some specific new legislative provision should be made for Wales, this could best be put forward in a policy document, again using the powers in Clause 33, rather than in a draft Bill. If the Government of the day were to take up such a suggestion from the assembly, they would wish to have their own Bill drafted by parliamentary counsel as now.

Turning to Amendment No. 52, I think Madam Speaker in another place would be well able to deal with any representations she might receive from the assembly without this Bill requiring the Secretary of State to produce proposals for procedure in another place. The assembly will not be part of Parliament, and it is difficult to see what representations it would wish to make to Madam Speaker. I imagine that the assembly would be more likely to make its representations to Government Ministers, or individual Members of this House or another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, took us through Amendment No. 53. He is right: it would require fresh primary legislation at Westminster to confer such powers on the assembly, but that should be a matter for the government of the day to propose and for Parliament to approve, no doubt following a referendum on the matter, rather than merely a vote in the assembly, as the amendment proposes. The new clause goes well beyond the Government's proposals which were put to the people of Wales last year, and we cannot accept it. In view of my response, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I thank him for his remarks about my ingenuity which is matched only by his ability to expand upon the efficacious nature of Clause 33. I am grateful to him for the indication he gave. I accept that Amendment No. 53 is an attempt to raise the issue of the primacy of powers, and I am grateful for his confirmation that that will be a matter for Parliament.

I am grateful also to my noble and learned friend for the indication of the breadth of Clause 33 in relation to legislative proposals with regard to amendments and draft Bills, and the opportunity to have a creative relationship with Parliament in that whole area. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as always, will be part of that creativity. I thank him for his contribution to the debate. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 46 to 51 not moved.]

Clause 33 [Consideration of matters affecting Wales]:

[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

Clause 34 [Staff]:

Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 21, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) Service as a member of the Assembly's staff serving the Assembly First Secretary, the Assembly Secretaries and the Executive Committee shall be service in Her Majesty's Home Civil Service. (2A) Staff serving the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer, clerks and staff serving the subject committees and other committees (but not the Executive Committee), and other servants of the Assembly, may be either members of Her Majesty's Home Civil Service or employed by the Assembly as it considers appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the subject of the staffing of the assembly. It is a matter that was raised in Committee. Amendment No. 55 in the names of my noble friends Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish raises the issue in the form in which I did in Committee.

I have sought to widen the argument in Amendments Nos. 54 and 56 for reasons that I will explain. Since we started dealing with the Bill we have, of course, had the change in the Government's intentions as to how the assembly should operate. We are now, effectively, to have a Cabinet-type structure. That raises the issue to one of greater importance than may have been the case at the start.

The assembly's staff will come from the Welsh Office. At present, former Welsh Office staff will serve the assembly, the executive committee, the first secretary, the other secretaries and the cabinet, but other staff will have the job carried out by clerks in the clerk's department, the speaker's department, and so forth. We need to have different staff to do different jobs. That was a point raised at the last Welsh Questions, interestingly enough, in the other place by Mr. Rhodri Morgan who argued that there should be staff to look after the assembly in its role as a debating chamber and its committee work separate from the staff who serve the executive. The Secretary of State acknowledged that there would be a need for a distinction between the staff, but he suggested that that would simply be by some slight separation of civil servants. In an earlier debate, there was talk about Chinese walls being erected.

I then took a look at the Scottish Bill. I shall not argue that the Welsh assembly will need quite the scale of arrangements that are necessary in the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament will deal with legislation. Therefore the clerks will have a different, more formidable role and there will probably be a need for more people with different qualifications.

I confess that I wanted to raise the issue as one of principle which we could debate. Therefore, in tabling my amendments I did not want to choke them up with many provisions about employment conditions and pensions and add many schedules. I have taken from the Scottish legislation two matters of principle that I wish to raise. They seek to establish a situation in which the assembly secretaries, the executive committee and the first secretary shall be served by Her Majesty's Home Civil Service. But I want to give discretion to the assembly to take on other staff who may be employed on other terms and conditions. They may or may not be members of the Home Civil Service. It is not for us to decide whether they should be.

I am doing what I have been urged to do throughout the passage of this Bill by Ministers and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas; that is to leave it all to the assembly. However, we need to recognise the fact that there may need to be staff who are not members of the Home Civil Service. We need to have arrangements in place which provide for the assembly to take on clerks and other necessary staff. Indeed, in Amendment No. 56 I argue that there shall be a clerk to the assembly and an office of the clerk and that it should be properly staffed.

There is one other reason for the difference between the solution I have offered in the amendments and that adopted in the Scottish Bill. The Scottish parliament is not a corporate body and therefore a corporate body has to be created to employ these people. Earlier today, we had a long debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As a result, we are all much better informed about corporate bodies and their powers. The Welsh assembly is to be a corporate body and therefore I do not believe there is a need for the separate arrangements which are contained in the Scottish Bill.

My amendments seek to raise the question of principle and put the proposition to the Government. I have not sought to draft a complete set of what were bound to be technical amendments because that is a job for the Government. If the Government were to accept the principles which I am enunciating they would no doubt bring forward amendments on Third Reading. I believe that the assembly needs to be in a position where it can employ clerks and others who may not be members of the Home Civil Service and there needs to be a clear distinction between those who will serve the executive and those who will serve the assembly and its committees. I beg to move.

11 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell is absolutely right to point out that one of the most blatant differences between the Scotland Bill and the Welsh Bill is the clear provision made in the Scotland Bill under Clause 20 for the presiding officer and his corporate body to appoint staff to serve the parliament per se and for the Scottish executive to have its own separate and distinct civil service under Clause 41. There is no such provision for separate staffing for the Welsh assembly and the executive in the Government of Wales Bill.

My noble friend raised the point on Second Reading and, in his absence, I reiterated the key points in Committee. We did not receive a satisfactory reply from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General when he said: I do not believe that it is right or necessary to prescribe in statute how the staff of the assembly should be organised".—[Official Report, 1/6/98; col. 327.] It is done in the Scotland Bill and clear for all to see.

My noble friend referred to the Official Report and oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Wales last Wednesday, 24th June, when he replied to a Question from Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Cardiff West. They clearly did not see eye to eye on that issue. Mr. Morgan sees the need for staff to serve Back-Benchers in the assembly while Mr. Davies hopes: that an Opposition mindset does not develop in the assembly". Nevertheless, he went on to say: However, my hon. Friend is partly right to say that there will be a need to set up a Department that is broadly equivalent to the Department that you head, Madam Speaker".—[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 1036.] Therefore, I think that the Secretary of State should make up his mind on this issue before the assembly does it for him.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I was not going to get excited about this issue but, as the noble Lord will remember, amendments were tabled in Committee about making the role of presiding officer on that model a guardian of the rights of members who are not part of the executive. There is merit in that approach. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell has suggested another approach; namely, creating the role of clerk.

However, both proposals come back to the issue of separation of the activity of administration as part of the executive and the executive committee, and the role of the members of the assembly generally and their rights, privileges and opportunities.

In particular, with regard to the supply of information and active participation in the role of the body, and reverting to the earlier debate at the beginning of our proceedings today to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell referred, the notion of a corporate body which has responsibilities vested in itself and shares or delegates those responsibilities internally on the basis of accountability clearly applies to the executive notion. It applies also, in a very important way, to the rest of the body in that the supply of information and the opportunity for scrutiny are matters which need to be cared for.

I have not read what Mr. Ron Davies said in the other place but I am sure I agree with what he said about an oppositional mind-set. It is equally important that we do not have a Crown in Parliament mind-set in the assembly in what is not a Crown in Parliament type body in that it is a corporate body which shares responsibility. Therefore, on that basis I hope that we can have assurances from the Minister that, whether it is a clerk of the assembly or a presiding officer, there is a way of dealing with the issue of the spread of information and the guarantee of the democratic movement of the body, as it were, alongside the executive function, towards which I believe my non-belligerent colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was moving in his amendment. I am grateful to him for moving it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, these amendments concern the support structure of civil servants who will serve the assembly. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of Conwy, for giving us an opportunity to debate what is an important issue. I recognise also the genuine concern of the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Elis-Thomas, all of whom are concerned to ensure that the assembly is served well by its staff so that it can be most effective.

Perhaps I may set out briefly how the Bill presently deals with the problem. Clauses 34 and 63 ensure that the permanent secretary remains responsible for the management and structure of the officials who will deliver the objectives of the assembly. The Home Civil Service will deal with the different roles and responsibilities of the executive of the assembly or its committees with impartiality and independence. The structure which supports all parts of the assembly will reflect this.

Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would create different groups of staff within those appointed by the assembly. This would depart from the principle that all staff of the assembly will be members of the Home Civil Service and the principle that the assembly is a single body. Amendment No. 56 would create a separate office of clerk to the assembly, which would serve the assembly and its committees, whose staff might or might not be members of the Civil Service.

Most of the staff of the assembly will serve the assembly secretaries and executive committees, developing and implementing the policies and functions of the assembly. In practice, staff will have dedicated roles to carry out particular functions, which is the same arrangement as applies today. The office of the presiding officer, which will provide support for assembly committees and safeguard the rights of individual members, will need to be seen as independent from the executive. I think we are all agreed in relation to that.

However, this does not mean we believe that this is best achieved by separating the office from the main body of staff. The organisation of the assembly's civil servants will need to be capable of ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of the assembly's standing orders. This may change in time, and there is a compelling need for flexibility so that the changing needs of the assembly may be met.

The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has suggested allowing the assembly to decide which members of the staff would be members of Her Majesty's Home Civil Service. That would breach the fundamental principle that the national assembly shall be a single body corporate, with one group of staff. These amendments would restrict the ability of the permanent secretary to meet the needs of the assembly. In particular the statutory requirement to create a separate office of clerk to the assembly would circumscribe the responsibility of the permanent secretary to set up the most effective and efficient structure to respond quickly to the assembly's requirements.

The amendment would also reduce the benefit to the assembly gained by allowing staff to develop their skills by experiencing both policy development and the different challenges of supporting members and committees. There are many benefits a poacher may bring when he becomes a gamekeeper, and vice versa. The position is, I believe, different from the Scottish parliament, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. That is a much more powerful body in terms of being able to produce primary legislation and one where other requirements are needed.

We believe this is the most sensible arrangement. We believe that these are arrangements whereby the independence required from the office of the presiding officer to support the members of the assembly will be preserved. We believe this is the best way to provide the effective implementation of the assembly. I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw their amendments.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, Government Ministers, whenever they have a weak case, repeat several times the phrase "we believe". The trouble is that I do not believe and I do not believe that the case was made out. We heard from the noble Lord the Minister that there was a compelling need for flexibility. I agree. Therefore I do not see why we should fix at the outset the unalterable fact that all the servants of the assembly are to be members of the Home Civil Service. He told the House that it was a fundamental principle that there should be one body corporate, but he spent quite a lot of his speech acknowledging that there were to be two different components which would need different staff, who would have to be separated.

Again and again we have been told that we should not pass amendments to this Bill which impose a rigidity of structure and make it impossible for the assembly to set up sensible arrangements when it has considered the matter. Yet, to use the Minister's words, we believe that they are in this case imposing just that kind of rigidity. No one has a greater admiration for the services provided by the civil servants in the Welsh Office than I. They have served me astonishingly well and they bore with me with great patience for some eight years. But I do not believe that they have every quality or every skill. Indeed, I believe that qualifications may be required which are not found within the Home Civil Service.

Again, at this time of night, it is clear that we cannot divide on the matter. Nevertheless, it is extremely unsatisfactory that, having admitted in both Houses of Parliament that special arrangements will be needed, we get no clarification at all from the Government about how these things will be handled. Moreover, we have stuck into the Bill the shackles which will tie the hand of the assembly in the future and make it impossible for it to decide what is necessary. I may well return to the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]

11.15 p.m.

Clause 41 [Agency arrangements and provision of services]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 23, line 9, after ("any") insert ("private contractor,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems rather odd that Clause 41 should allow arrangements to be made, between the Assembly and any relevant authority", for the performance of functions and the provision of services but that the private sector should be excluded. We know full well that the sector is a considerable performer and provider in that field. This is a probing amendment. Is there is reason why this sector is excluded, or is it simply that private companies are not, strictly speaking, "authorities"? I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, Clause 41 deals with two issues. It allows the assembly to arrange with other public bodies for them to exercise functions on its behalf or to undertake functions on behalf of other public bodies; and it makes provision for professional and technical services one to the other.

As I understand it, the amendment seeks to probe whether the assembly will be able to seek private sector involvement for the discharge of its functions. Perhaps I may say at the outset that there is nothing in the Bill which would preclude the assembly from considering whether to contract from the widest range of sources for the provision of services and supplies in relation to its functions.

While private sector firms can do anything within their competence, public bodies are constrained in the provision of services to what is authorised by legislation. Thus, with the establishment of the assembly, powers need to be provided to enable public bodies and the assembly to provide services to one another. That is the purpose of Clause 41. As private contractors already have the ability to contract with the assembly without the need for legislation, I suggest to the noble Lord that his amendment is inappropriate. I therefore invite him to withdraw it.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 [Different exercise of functions by Assembly]:

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Clause 43 [Construction of references to Ministers and departments]:

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Clause 44 [Parliamentary procedures for subordinate legislation]:

[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]

Clause 45 [Laying of reports and statements]:

[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 25, line 30, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this section—

1. (a) references to a report or statement include any other document (except one containing subordinate legislation) in the case of which any enactment makes provision for laying before Parliament or either House of Parliament, and
2. (b)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 62 is intended to widen the ambit of Clause 45. It is simply intended to make it quite plain that reference to reports or statements includes any other document contained in an enactment required to be laid before Parliament.

At present, reports and statements must be laid before the assembly where they are currently required in an enactment to be laid before Parliament. However, there are other types of document which are frequently required to be laid before Parliament—for example, the order-making power in Section 57(7) of the Land Drainage Act 1991, requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, particulars of the matter in respect of which the appeal was made and of the reasons for his order".

It is arguable—and doubtless, therefore, would be argued—that these documents are not covered by the present clause. The amendment has been brought forward to make plain what is intended in Clause 45 so that other forms of document are included within the terms "report" and "statement". I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]

Clause 46 [Regulation of procedure]:

Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 26, line 8, leave out subsection (6) and insert— ("(6) The Assembly shall establish a procedure committee which may from time to time consider any proposals for revision of its standing orders or other procedures and report to the Assembly. (7) Any revision in procedure may be implemented by a simple majority of members supporting the motion.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment constitutes a new initiative—although rather late in the day—in relation to procedure. I move it with some delight after the statement made by my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General on an earlier amendment about the compelling need for flexibility. I believe that the whole area of standing orders and procedure needs to be revisited.

On what must have been my tenth reading of the Bill I realised that in another place, and particularly in this House, we have generally benefited—or not benefited, according to one's point of view—from being a relatively self-regulating Chamber whose procedures are capable of reform within the Chamber itself. We are creating a devolved assembly which will be bound hand and two-thirds foot to the standing orders as set down by commissioners, as described in the Bill—and accepted by the assembly upon the advice of commissioners and the recommendation of the Secretary of State in the opening session—and subject to a two-thirds majority for revision. Even at this late hour I believe we should explore why this is the case and why under the Bill the assembly is not trusted with the ability to regulate itself in the area of its standing orders by the device of a procedure committee. As I said, I believe this issue is worth exploring. I await with bated breath, of course, the Minister's response. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, as has been indicated, Clause 46 provides in subsection (6) for standing orders to be amendable only by a two-thirds majority. I dare say the assembly will want a procedure committee. I believe that that is a matter for the assembly to decide in due course. As I say, it is quite likely that it will want to have such a committee. The proposed new subsection(7) in the noble Lord's amendment raises a quite different point. We believe that standing orders should be amended only by a two-thirds majority. We think that is important. We do not believe that standing orders should be the plaything of a party with only a bare majority in the assembly. The provision in the Bill therefore is deliberately intended as a protection for the interests of minority parties. It ought to produce stability. It ought to mean that standing orders can be changed only on a two-thirds basis. As I said, there is likely to be a procedure committee. That is a matter for the assembly. It is not a case of not trusting the assembly; it is a case of implementing safeguards of a well-known kind to protect minority interests and to prevent the dominance of a bare majority.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I give him an absolute assurance that were I or members of my party part of a bare majority we would not make procedure a plaything. I certainly accept his indication that there will be a procedure committee. That is a positive step. I appreciate that the two-thirds majority forms part of the inclusivity strategy of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 [Assembly First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 66:

Page 27, leave out line 29 and insert ("Pennaeth").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is clearly something to be said for trying to devise a Welsh title for the chief executive officer of the assembly. After all, most countries that have a parliament or an assembly of the kind proposed for Wales and have their own language have appropriate native titles, some of which we have heard in the course of our debates in your Lordships' House. The Norwegian Storting, or parliament, has been mentioned; so has the Irish Taoiseach, the equivalent of the Welsh Tywysog, or "prince", the title usually given to the Prince of Wales. I depend upon the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for the interpretation of Taoiseach. There were not many takers for my suggestion of "Premier" or "Pen Weinidog" for the first secretary when I suggested it in Committee. I hope there will be more enthusiasm for my new suggestion of "Pennaeth", meaning "chief' or "chieftain", but not in any old-fashioned sense. It is an apposite, modern and valid word for the post of first secretary.

I would remind the House that the Welsh titles for various bodies have caught on—Cadw, Welsh historic monuments, Tai Cymru, housing for Wales. I should be very sorry indeed to see this opportunity missed of giving a Welsh title to the first secretary of the Welsh assembly, Cynnlliad. I beg to move.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will forgive me for being completely belligerent on this issue. I have spent most of my political life trying to convert my own party into a bilingual organisation. Thank goodness, and thanks to the Secretary of State, we shall soon have before us a Bill of registration of political parties which will make this legal.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, as it were, sold his own hospital pass when he used the words "native" and "chieftain" in relation to these titles, and when he referred to Taoiseach and its use in these contexts.

Far be it from me to criticise the Government of Ireland or our colleagues on the Irish Language Board, but I think they would be the first to accept that the Government of Ireland is not an entirely bilingual organisation and that the use of Irish language forms has more to do with a certain nationalistic fetishm relating to linguistic issues. We are not about that in Wales. We are a bilingual nation, and we have created a bilingual institution in the national assembly by law. We shall come to some of these issues later in our debates on the Bill. The notion of having a chieftain may relate to our earlier debate. If Mr. Ron Davies is to be both Secretary of State and first secretary, he should perhaps indeed be a chieftain—if not a Chieftain tank!

The serious point is that I am entirely opposed to monolingual nomenclatures for what are, and have to be, absolutely clearly identifiable and intelligible descriptions for jobs. Language is about efficacious translation of equality and flexibility. I want everyone world-wide who understands the English language to know that a first secretary of a national assembly for Wales is just that, not some native kitsch.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I do not want to become enmeshed in the merits or otherwise of a particular word. However, I doubt that this is the right word; or indeed that it is right or desirable to have a Welsh only title.

Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 47 provides for equal treatment of English and Welsh in the assembly's business. I fear that there is a danger that adopting a Welsh only title for the assembly's leading figure would contravene the spirit, if not the letter, of the clause.

Amendment No. 67, which is different, would allow the standing orders to prescribe an alternative title to Assembly first secretary. I am sure noble Lords will be surprised to hear that this is one matter—perhaps the only one—which I do not think should be left to standing orders or to the assembly. Such provision would allow the assembly to be headed by a prime minister, a president, or something even grander and more unlikely. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, pointed out in Committee, this would introduce a real risk of misleading the electorate as to the status of the assembly and its place within the Union.

However, I do not think we should delay too long on this matter. Popular usage eventually formulates its own titles. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is very rarely referred to as the First Lord of the Admiralty, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is not often called the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Anything provided in the Bill will, I am sure, be transformed by the same process into something more friendly to popular parlance—although I do not presume to guess what it might be. "Assembly first secretary" may not appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. However, I regret that he has not found a better alternative. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General referred to the Prime Minister as the First Lord of the Admiralty. He meant First Lord of the Treasury.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I apologise for that mistake. Clearly the usage has fallen off.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, I do not believe we need an official record of this interesting interchange as to the Prime Minister's role in life, be it the Admiralty or the Treasury.

In view of what the noble and learned Lord said, and in view of the fact that there are always three tries for a Welshman, I shall withdraw the amendment and hope to return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]

11.30 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 71:

After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—