Lords Sitting of 15 July 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the National Museum authorities in Wales resite and rebuild the Industrial and Maritime Museum as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the decision on the re-siting of the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum is a matter for the council of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales. The museum has already issued a consultation document on this subject and will be deciding its future policy in the light of responses to that document.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a national issue in Wales and that the money realised by the sale of this site should be ring-fenced for the future re-establishment of the Industrial and Maritime Museum? Would he not agree that many of the treasures at Cardiff—for example, the Gregynog Impressionist collection in the national museum and the Reardon Smith Lecture Theatre in Cardiff—were all products of the industrial and maritime legacy of the 19th century and early 20th century in Wales? That is where the money came from and therefore is it not most important for Wales that this part of the museum is re-established as soon as possible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said. The difficulty was that, in all the circumstances, there was no room for expansion on the site formerly occupied by the Industrial and Maritime Museum and the magnificent collection was not capable of being properly displayed. Undoubtedly, the National Museums and Galleries of Wales are national treasures. The Impressionist collection is one of the best in the world and the museum at St. Fagans is, in my comparative travels, undoubtedly the best in the world. The £7.5 million raised will not be dissipated for other purposes. The replies to the consultative document are due in by the end of September and we have every confidence that the museum will be re-established on an appropriate site, not necessarily in Cardiff.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Government give every encouragement to the national museum to exhibit the magnificent artefacts at its storage premises at Nantgarw, which is planned for later this year? Furthermore, will the Government give every
252
encouragement to the museum to find a more permanent home for these wonderful reminders of our industrial and maritime past?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes, the site at Nantgarw has been purchased. As the noble Lord implies, it is important that in the interim it is not used as a storage facility and there will be public access under appropriate circumstances. As regards a future establishment, the Government are entirely supportive of the desire to re-establish the museum on a worthy site. Various tenders have been made, including Swansea, Carmarthen, Newport, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypool, Blaenafon, Caernarfon and Pwllheli, but no decision has yet been made.

Parenting: Government Help
2.40 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to support inexperienced mothers with the care and parenting of their young children.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government are undertaking a wide range of interdepartmental programmes to try to help young mothers and their children with the problems they face. The overarching ministerial group on the family, led by the Home Secretary, will soon publish its proposals. The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment have recently given a £1 million grant to create 30 so-called Home Start schemes which will support work with parents in some of our most deprived communities. In addition, in yesterday's Statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a programme to bring together services for children under three and their parents, including nursery and childcare provision, family healthcare, and counselling services for parents.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for citing the impressive list of actions which the Government are taking. Is she aware that many people and organisations concerned with the problems of young children caught up in the cycle of multiple deprivation will greatly welcome the Government's initiative in supporting Home Start? Does she agree that the spectacle of two government departments of state co-operating and even sharing the costs of such a project is most encouraging? Can she give me a reason to hope that we can see more of that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, with his authoritative background in this area, for his congratulations. The programme which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday will be funded and organised interdepartmentally because, as

253
I described in my short summary of the provisions, it will include areas of policy which fall not only to the Department of Health but also to other departments such as the Department for Education and Employment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to help vulnerable mothers with the upbringing of small children has, over the years, proved to be the involvement of those mothers with their children in the pre-school playgroup movement? Can she tell the House what I believe must be a relevant figure—if she cannot tell me now, perhaps she will write to me—namely, how many pre-school playgroups have closed since the Government ended the voucher system?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. I cannot give her that figure but I shall write to her. My understanding is that many of the provisions in, for example, the Home Start scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, involve parents with the supervision and organisation of their children in group activities. That will be one of the provisions and ideas behind what will be called the Sure Start programme in which the involvement of parents, rather than simply professionals acting from outside, is regarded as of great importance.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister ask her colleagues to make sure that clear and up-to-date guidance is available to housing managers in the public sector indicating that they should not place in the same neighbourhood and close together large numbers of one-parent families alongside bad rent payers and families with other problems, because that seems a proven recipe for disaster?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that observation. I believe that that point is probably well understood although, in practice, it may be difficult always to implement. One problem is that isolated single mothers find it difficult to join in activities such as those at playgroups, to which the noble Baroness referred, or the Home Start schemes which depend on there being a community of people with similar interests and problems. However, I accept that areas of multiple deprivation, through whatever cause, are not a very good environment for young children.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Home Start Silver Jubilee Appeal. Is the noble Baroness aware that the extraordinary example of voluntary work which Home Start represents is being copied in a number of countries including the Netherlands, Israel and elsewhere?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks which illustrate the point that I was trying to make in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. That organisation is based very much on voluntary effort. Indeed, the
254
voluntary effort of the parents involved is extremely significant in organising those groups. That means that, in some ways, the scheme replicates the best aspects of the playgroup movement.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, the front line in the work of supporting inexperienced parents and teaching parenting skills is being borne by voluntary organisations. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that most of those, not just Home Start, have been living from hand to mouth in recent years. Will the noble Baroness state what steps are being taken to inform that whole range of organisations about more resources being available and how they may apply for grants?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do, indeed, appreciate the role of the voluntary organisations in that important area. At present all I can say is that the new children's fund, which will be established as a result of the provisions announced yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which the Minister for Public Health has developed slightly today, will give clear indications about how an extension of those schemes may be best provided. I am sure that that will involve the voluntary organisations and supporting them in their work.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the most persistent troubles in human behaviour relate to the earliest years of human experience? Therefore, her support for help to young mothers is extremely welcome. However, does she recognise also that an increasing number of children need a responsible male role model which they lack due to broken homes? Will she do something to help the hard-pressed voluntary sector, already referred to, when it tries to find those role models in the shape of mentors for young offenders and potentially offending children?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an extremely important matter. Obviously, concentration has been exclusively on single or lone mothers because of their primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children, but the role of a male person in children's lives is clearly understood. That is something which I shall report to my colleagues who are dealing specifically with the setting up of that children's fund and with the provision for young children in particular because I agree with the noble Lord that it is at that very young stage that such matters are particularly important.

Pesticide Residues in Food
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider labelling all food products which have been exposed to pesticide sprays with a warning similar to that required for raw milk.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, pesticide residues in food are controlled by a system of maximum residue levels, which are set in accordance with current scientific advice. Several thousand samples of foodstuffs are tested each year for a wide range of pesticides and the full results of that monitoring are published annually. Pesticides are not approved if their correct use, according to the conditions of their approval, would result in residues which were unsafe for consumers. It is therefore not necessary to label foods which have been exposed to pesticides. On the other hand, advice from the Chief Medical Officer is that the consumption of raw milk presents a degree of public health risk and the Government therefore require it to carry a warning to that effect.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that as a raw milk producer, I am required to put on my label in large letters "raw milk" which indicates that it has not been treated and then to put on another warning saying, "This milk has not been heat treated and may therefore contain organisms harmful to health"; that I have to test my milk frequently; and that the Environmental Health Department also tests my milk?
Is he also aware that the tests for pesticide residues are absolutely minimal when one considers the tonnes and tonnes of fruit, vegetables and bread which are eaten every year by the UK population? There is no way of knowing, particularly in relation to bread and lettuces, in which all kinds of pesticide residues have been found, whether they contain excessive quantities of pesticides. Therefore, will the Minister consider very simple labelling of all foods which have been sprayed so that consumers can make their own risk assessment and decide whether or not they wish to eat food which has been sprayed with chemicals?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there is a clear distinction between raw milk and pesticides. Indeed, pesticides are only approved for use if they are used in the proper way. Only then are they considered not to be a risk. Raw milk, which is a more variable product, is not tested in that way. The Chief Medical Officer has pronounced that it may contain organisms which are damaging to health. Therefore, there is a clear difference.
As regards the labelling, I am sympathetic to what the noble Countess has said about some form of general labelling of warning, but I am not sure that it would achieve very much. The rules on labelling are subject to the European Union. To make any change, we would have to gain Commission permission and any such permission would only be given for the United Kingdom. Therefore, it would not cover imports from other countries. If the noble Countess thinks about it, the range of products involved is enormous, especially as regards loose products. I do not know whether it is being suggested that every carrot, tomato or loaf of bread, and so on, should be labelled, but it would be an
256
enormous and very expensive operation. I am not sure that such action is justified in a situation where pesticides have already been approved for safe use.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Countess, but I feel that she has perhaps gone a little too far in this case. Can the Minister tell the House whether any significant levels of such residues have been found as a result of the many tests that are being carried out on the thousands of tonnes of pesticides used in this country?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, of the tests that we carry out, roughly two thirds of them show no sign of a residue level at all, about one third show some sign and less than 1 per cent. show a sign at a level which we would consider to be a matter of concern; but, within the safety margin, that means eroding the margin but not actually posing a risk. There have been cases, especially in relation to carrots and apples during the 1995–96 testing, where there was a jump in danger levels. We have taken action in that respect to restrict application use and we did ban one pesticide; namely, Phorate. It appears that such residues are returning to an acceptable level.
I must tell the House and the noble Countess that this is a matter of genuine concern to the Government. I am quite happy for Members of the House to raise such issues and for us to continue to consider them.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, even if the residues in individual foods are at a safe level, is there evidence to show that there is a build-up of such residues in the human body that, ultimately, could be dangerous to people?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. A number of studies are under way. In particular, there is one being carried out in Edinburgh from which we expect results next year. However, I am not sure whether that will provide an answer for the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is available to him and to his ministry the kind of independent scientific and medical advice that is always readily available to the manufacturers of pesticides?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have a very impressive web of advisory scientific committees which are independent. After a while, I discovered that that means independent of government. However, as far as we know, we have the best available scientific advice. The change that we have made to our advisory committees is to introduce into each one of them a consumer element to ensure that they publish their results. For example, the Working Party on Pesticide Residues publishes all its findings in its annual report. It is also on the Website. We have done what we can to

257
open up the advisory network and publish its findings. I am not sure whether, in the end, that will be adequate. Nevertheless, we do the best that we can.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems as regards toxicology is that these things are tested in isolation whereas we actually consume them as a cocktail, together with preservatives, colourings and goodness knows what else?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords; I am sure that that is a problem.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, where the tests show excessive residues, can the Minister say whether the sources are capable of being readily identified thus enabling rapid action to be taken to prevent a recurrence?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, much of this falls within the health department area. However, as far as I am aware, it is possible—indeed, every effort is made—to trace the source of any threatening residue.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, at my age, I am probably absolutely stuffed full of residues? Therefore, does the noble Lord agree that scaremongering can cause great damage to growers of, for example, apples, who are very hard pressed at present?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I would agree with that view. Indeed, the apple and other fruit markets are very pressed. It is quite unfair to have scaremongering. Apples are very safe. If the noble Baroness is the product of all the residues in her, I can only say that they must be a very good thing.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has advised the House that pesticides are safe if properly applied and used. However, can my noble friend confirm that the Government are ensuring that agricultural and horticultural workers receive adequate training in that respect? Can my noble friend also confirm that the introduction of the national minimum wage will provide an incentive for the employers of such workers to ensure that they are so trained?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I support the introduction of the national minimum wage. The question of training in the use of OPs in general has been a major concern of ours since we took office. We have done what we could; for example, we introduced certificates of competence, training schemes and monitoring. We believe that we have done what can be done in that area. As we all know, in real life, if users choose in the end to ignore all of that, there is not much that we can do for them.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the labelling of organic
258
milk in the way that it is carried out at present is labelling the minority product, to try to label the majority product of agricultural produce treated with pesticide spray would be lunatic? It is the minority product which must have the special labelling, and surely that is the organic product which is not so treated. Perhaps the Minister may care to heed my views because I was the person who, in the beginning, successfully proposed that raw milk should be labelled in this way.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on that. I agree with what she said about the labelling of minority products. I believe that this is an occasion when I should stress again that the great advantage of organic products is that they are free from most of the threats which we are discussing today.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have no intention of being a scaremongerer? Indeed, it is only through very hard experience that I have learned what organophosphates can do. In view of the fact that the Department of Health is asking people to eat five pieces of fruit and vegetables every day and there is no limit to the quantity that it is suggested they eat, will the Minister accept that I am particularly concerned for children whose immune and central nervous systems are not fully developed? Indeed, small doses of such residues apparently affect them very much more than is the case with adults on whom such things are tested.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Countess. I would never use the word "scaremongering" in relation to the noble Countess. If I may say so, I welcome every effort that she makes to put pressure on people in this area, because that actually assists Ministers in applying pressure elsewhere to secure some action. I believe that we welcome exactly what the noble Countess said. Moreover, what she has said about children is clearly true; we are aware of that fact. At present, the regulations in relation to children are being reviewed.

Firearms Consultative Committee: Members
2.59 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to ensure that the persons to be nominated to the Firearms Consultative Committee in August are properly qualified.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, under Section 22(1) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, members of the Firearms Consultative Committee must appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of one or more of the following matters: the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms; weapons technology; and the administration or

259
enforcement of the provisions of the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997. Subsection (2) provides that the use of firearms includes their use for sport or competition.
The current appointments are to expire at the end of August 1998. The Secretary of State is considering the composition of the committee and of course will give full attention to the statutory requirements.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful reply because it has been suggested that members of other bodies with no knowledge of firearms may be invited to serve on this committee. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to keep the committee intact in its present form?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the present life of the committee is due to continue until the year 2000. Obviously, one keeps these matters under review. The Secretary of State is considering what should happen when the present appointments reach their expiry date in August of this year.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on education expenditure.

Government of Wales Bill
3.1 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Government of Wales Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Voting at ordinary elections]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 44, leave out from ("have") to end of line 9 on page 3 and insert ("one vote (referred to in this Act as a constituency vote).
(2) The constituency vote is to be given for a candidate to be the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency.
(3) There shall also be calculated the number of additional member votes for each registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included.
(3A) The number of additional member votes for each party shall be the same as the number of constituency votes for the candidate of the party in that constituency.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. Some of your Lordships have heard me speak on this subject before.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am glad that some of your Lordships at least recognise that.
260
I am happy to say that I return to this subject for the last time—I was going to say in Welsh—on the Welsh Bill. This series of amendments tries to offer the Government two possible solutions to what I believe is a real problem which could occur with the additional member system which the Government have chosen for the electoral system for the Welsh assembly.
I shall recap the position briefly in case some of your Lordships are approaching this subject for the first time. The position is that 40 members of the Welsh assembly will be elected for the current parliamentary constituencies by the traditional British first-past-the-post method. I think the majority of your Lordships will recognise that that is the sensible method on which to base electoral systems for a parliament. However, the gremlins have got at the system, so to speak, and a measure of proportionality is to be introduced by what is called the additional member system. In the additional member system, each parliamentary constituency is assigned to a regional seat. Those regional seats happen to be the regions making up the Euro parliamentary seats at present. In each Euro seat, there will be four additional seats.
The electorate will have two votes. The first vote will be in the traditional first-past-the-post ballot, but the second vote will be only for a party or for an independent. I shall come back to that in a moment. At the end of polling, the first votes will be counted in the normal way and members will be elected by the normal first-past-the-post system. The second votes for the parties and the independent or independents will be totalled and a mathematical formula called the d'Hondt system—I shall not bore your Lordships with it—will be applied in order to achieve proportionality. Parties will then gain one, two, three, four or even none of the additional seats in such a way that the proportionality of the total vote will be achieved. A party may have three or four first-past-the-post seats, but when the d'Hondt system is brought into play it may be discovered that it deserves one other seat in order to achieve greater proportionality in the total. It will therefore get one of the additional member seats.
There are a number of problems with this which we have discussed at length in Committee and on Report. One of the problems is rather a philosophical one; namely, that proportionality ought to be based on the first vote; in other words, the constituency vote. I shall return to that matter shortly. The second problem is that as the second vote is designed to ensure party balance, it seems a little odd that independents can stand and gain votes that have nothing to do with the need for party balance as a result of the first-past-the-post seats.
However, in my view, the most serious problem is that political parties could play games with the electoral system in order to gain advantage. If a party wins many seats in the first-past-the-post system, it is unlikely to gain much, if anything, from the second vote and the additional member seats. Therefore, a temptation is being put in the way of the parties.
I shall illustrate that by using the example—I have used this before—of the North Wales Euro constituency and the 1992 general election and assume (as one has

261
to) that the first votes and the second votes are the same. That is not an assumption that one can properly make, but in the absence of any other evidence it is the best anyone can do. In the 1992 North Wales Euro constituency, the Labour Party won four seats; the Conservative Party won two; the Liberal Democrats did not win any; and Plaid Cymru won two. However, if all the parties' votes are added up and the d'Hondt formula is used, out of the four additional seats the Labour Party gained one, to take it to a total of five seats; the Conservative Party gained two, to take it to a total of four seats; the Liberal Democrats gained one, which gave them one seat; and Plaid Cymru did not gain any and therefore remained with two seats. That was closer to the proportionality of the total votes cast in that constituency than was the case under the first-past-the-post system.
Let us assume for a moment that the Conservative Party decided to play this little trick. It is not a trick on the electorate; it is a trick which the electorate would fully understand, especially those members of the party playing the trick. They would see the advantage of it and, in my view, they would be prepared to go along with it quite happily. Instead of the Conservative Party standing in both ballots, it would suggest that a few of its members registered a "Unionist Party" with the registrar of political parties. That is a Bill which is yet to come to your Lordships' House, but it is key to the whole additional member system.
Let us assume that the Conservative Party stands in the first past-the-post ballot and achieves its two seats, but it does not stand in the second ballot; it allows the "Unionist Party" to stand in that ballot. As the "Unionist Party" has no seats, it is in quite an advantageous position. When the d'Hondt calculations are done, the Conservative Party, instead of getting two additional seats—as it did previously—gets three additional seats. Therefore, three out of the four seats go to the "Unionist Party", none goes to the Labour Party; one goes to the Liberal Democrats and none goes to Plaid Cymru. The end result is four seats for Labour, instead of five; the Conservatives gain five instead of four; and the other two parties gain one and two seats respectively. The Conservatives come out with more seats than any other party despite the fact that the Labour Party had more votes.
In the same Euro seat in 1997, the game could have been played much more dramatically by the Labour Party. The Labour Party did rather well in Wales in the previous election, as some of your Lordships may recall. It won six seats in the Euro North constituency. The Conservatives won none; the Liberal Democrats still won none; and Plaid Cymru won two, so the number of seats for Plaid Cymru stayed the same. When the d'Hondt calculator is applied to the last election, the Labour Party does not receive any additional seats; the Conservatives receive three additional seats—simply because, although the Conservatives did not win any seats, they had substantial votes in all the seats they failed to win; the Liberal Democrats gain one; and Plaid Cymru is still left with no gains, because it did not win a large vote over the whole area but did well in two
262
constituencies. So Labour gains would be none, and Labour seats would remain at six; the Conservatives would have three; the Liberal Democrats, one; and Plaid Cymru, two.
If the Labour Party split itself into two, registered the Co-operative Party as a separate party and stood in a first-past-the-post election, gaining six seats, but did not stand on the second vote if the Co-operative Party stood on the second vote—because the Co-operative Party had no seats in the first round—it would gain three of the four additional seats. The Conservatives would gain only one seat; the Liberal Democrats would not gain any seats; nor would Plaid Cymru. The net result would be: nine seats for Labour, one for the Conservatives, none for the Liberal Democrats and two for Plaid Cymru. The House will see that that trick changes considerably the outcome of an additional member system election.
In case some noble Lords think that I have rehearsed that argument again to show that I have cleverly thought up the whole problem, I assure them that I have not; I am not so original. It was thought up initially in a paper by Dr. Michael Dyer, of the department of politics and international relations at Aberdeen University. He presented the ideas in a paper in Scottish terms to show the Labour Party that it could gain considerable advantage if it used that particular trick in Scotland.
On the results of the last election, the Labour Party could gain considerable advantage in Wales if it used that trick. A Labour MP—albeit a Scottish Member, but still a member of the British Labour Party Mr. Ian Davidson, thinks that it is a very good idea. He thinks that it is not necessarily a manipulation of the system but that it would be an excellent idea if the Co-operative Party ran separate candidates. On 28th January in the other place he said:
would thank it for reflecting my idea".—[Official Report, 28/1/98; col. 448.]
So he clearly thrills to the idea. A Minister at the Scottish Office—I apologise, my Lords, at the Welsh Office; I have managed both Bills to date without previously confusing them. I am sure noble Lords will forgive me. Mr. Win Griffiths of the Welsh Office acknowledged this on 2nd March this year. He said:
"I concede that there may be scope for collusion between and within parties to exploit the two-ballot structure of the additional member system in the manner that he [the right honourable Michael Ancram] described".
He went on to say:
"Such cynical manipulation of the system would be an affront to the electorate and would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/98; col. 804.]
I am not exactly sure about that. Contrary to what Ministers opposite may have said about this matter, I believe that the electorate will play this game and will see it to their party's advantage. People do not go into the polling booth to vote for the Labour Party saying that they will help the Labour Party a little but not too much. They go into the polling booth saying that they want to help the Labour Party as much as they can. Or they do the same in relation to the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru. We are wide open to the problem of what is sometimes termed the split ticket, or alter ego party. That is the problem.

263
The Government have so far offered no solution. They have not denied that that could happen; they have merely said that it will not. But the duty of Parliament is to make sure that things cannot happen—not that they perhaps will not happen, but that they cannot happen. Sometimes we do not see problems; we miss them. They come up at some point down the track and we have to do something to repair the situation. Here is a problem that we all see; nobody denies that it is possible for it to happen. We should do something about it now.
I have looked at a number of solutions, as have outside bodies. Essentially, I have arrived at two that are possible. I offer both in this amendment. The first possibility figures around Amendment No. 1, and the subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 3 to 14, 17, 18 and 19. The second is simpler in terms of legislation. It is proposed in Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 1 simply states that there will be only one vote. People will not vote twice, but only once. A total party vote will be obtained by adding all the votes cast for the first-past-the-post candidates of the parties. The total Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru votes will be arrived at by adding up, as we do already for general statistical information, all the votes of the first-past-the-post candidates. We shall then apply the d'Hondt calculation and the additional members seats will be added to the party according to how the calculation comes out. That means that the correction for proportionality would be based entirely on the first-past-the-post seats, and not on any second vote. It would therefore be a calculation to correct any imbalance brought about by first past the post without the complexities of second votes and people moving the second vote around in order to prevent that proportionality happening. So one vote is a potential solution.
I fully accept that there are some problems with that approach. One is that a small party such as the Green Party would find it expensive to field a candidate in every constituency. There is an easy solution to that. The cost of the deposit could be reduced, or something of that nature. It is not an insoluble problem.
Another point that is made is that independents would not be able to stand in the regional list. But if the regional list is designed in order to ensure proportionality between the parties, I find it quite difficult intellectually to understand why independents should figure in the second ballot at all. If the object of the exercise is to achieve proportionality between the parties in relation to the first-past-the-post seats, the concept of an independent standing is rather odd. An independent candidate might not win, but might receive quite a few votes. He or she might be the only named person on the second ballot, because the Government appear to have set their minds against the names of people from the parties being on the second ballot. So the only names are likely to be those of independents. That might give them a slight edge. They might receive slightly more votes—not enough to win, because a large number is needed, but enough to take votes away from parties and perhaps upset the proportionality. Calculations have been done to show that that is perfectly possible.
264
It therefore makes sense to have the system dependent on the first ballot. The objections of small parties such as the Green Party can be dealt with by reducing the cost of the deposit or changing it from a deposit to a number of names, the number of assentors being increased. That would be easy to do. First, I do not believe that any independents will be elected; and secondly, allowing independents to stand on the second vote would appear to contradict the whole objective of the second vote.
One vote would clearly prevent the alter ego or split list party problem from happening. It would be straightforward and simple. It would mean that constituency votes would be used to calculate the party share. There would be no dispute afterwards as to which party had come out on top. There will be disputes if the party share changes between the first vote and the second vote. There will be disputes about which vote is the true one, the first or the second.
One vote has been used in the past. In West Germany, one vote was used between 1949 and 1953. It was then stopped. But although the West Germans use AMS, it is operated over very large areas, much larger than the whole of Wales. It is also operated on a 50:50 basis, half the members being elected by first past the post and half by the additional members system. So West Germany offers an example.
Another example is Italy where, in the chamber of deputies, a two-vote system is used such as is proposed here, but not quite. I shall not go into the complexities. Two votes are used there, but in the senate only one vote is used as I propose today.
The third point I wish to make is that the 1976 report of the Hansard Society, which has been reprinted, given the interest in all the issues which now arise, recommended the additional member system, but with one vote. So I believe that the one vote system has plenty of precedents around the world. It has a good advocate in the Hansard Society. That is my first solution.
My second solution is Amendment No. 2 which relates those standing in the first ballot to those standing in the second. If a party stands in more than half the constituency seats, then it must put up a list of candidates for the second ballot. If a party stands in the list, then it must put up candidates for more than half the seats. I have made the system work both ways. My problem could be addressed if it only worked one way. If any party which put up more than half the seats were forced to stand on a regional list, it might well be the solution the Government would find preferable. We shall see. It would mean that the Greens and independents could still stand on the second ballot. That is not what I have suggested; I have done an each-way proposal because it is more elegant and appears to be the better of the two ways.
I have offered the Government two possible solutions to the problem. No one has denied that it is a scenario that could come about. All that has happened is that the four parties in Wales, or the individuals representing them, have committed themselves not to do it. That is fine so far as it goes for this election and perhaps even

265
the next election. But time passes and the people who gave the commitment pass. New people come along and here in the midst of the Act there will be a nice way for political parties to gain serious advantage. It is our duty to say to the Government this afternoon "You must do better than just give assurances that the Labour Party would never do it and have assurances from the other three. You must take steps to find a way to resolve it". I offer the Government two methods this afternoon, at the very last stage of the Bill, of resolving the dilemma and preventing the problem arising. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I regret that we cannot support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Of course, he has argued them with his usual persuasive and lengthy speech, but we oppose the amendments on principle. The principle to which we refer is choice. There still remains in this country an attachment to the notion that people vote for the man or woman and not for the party, that there should be a link between the elected representatives and the electors who put them into that position.
The proposal that there should be a single vote and no second vote for the regional list means effectively that votes can only be cast for one party. It may well be that an elector will wish to vote for a particular personality, a candidate in a constituency who is well known and well thought of and who has served his constituency well. But at the same time, the elector may wish to register a different view by voting for a candidate from another party on the regional list. One can think of many combinations. It may be that an elector would feel that one of the small parties—the Green Party or an independent—should be represented in an inclusive Welsh assembly and would vote accordingly. Therefore, we think that in order to preserve choice it is necessary to have two votes: one for the constituency member and one for the regional list.
The argument upon which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, rests his case is essentially that the larger parties may be duplicitous in their approach. They may give assurances, as each party has, both in another place and in this House. Each party may say: "We will not split and create a phantom party for the purposes of the regional election. But at some time in the future we will renege on that and put forward another party under a different name". One would hope that the people of Wales would see through such a device instantly and punish that party accordingly.
However, in any event the way to deal with it is not through the processes of this Bill but through the machinery that is being put in place under the Bill that is going through the House for the registration of political parties. It should be a principle embodied in a rule that no political party would be registered without an assurance that it would not indulge in the kind of conduct to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay referred. He stated that Mr. Ian Davidson, the Member of Parliament for Glasgow Pollok, had said that it would be a good idea in Scotland. Those of us who know Mr. Ian Davidson as a genial, pleasant and joking Member
266
of Parliament will accept that he was joking at the time. But even if he was not, his party hardly supports him because it refuses to allow him to stand for the Scottish party. We believe that the single vote is wrong in principle and we prefer the Bill as it stands.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, it seems fairly clear to me that in the Bill we not only have first-past-the-post which is the traditional means by which we have elected representatives, but we have introduced proportionality for a section of it.
However, the Bill goes further. It ensures that candidates will be entitled to their democratic rights. It also ensures that the electorate can exercise its democratic rights in the widest possible way. It seems to me that the amendments are intended to restrict that democratic function on the part of candidates and on the part of the electorate who will vote in the elections.
I also find it somewhat inconsistent because it was not so long ago that the claim from the opposite Benches was: "Give the trade unions back to their members and introduce postal ballots". They initially paid for them and then withdrew that funding. They wanted an extension of democracy with more people participating. Indeed the legislation went further. It introduced the commission for the rights of trade union members so that they could object at law if they felt they were being excluded from membership or did not participate in elections or were not allowed to vote in elections.
Here we have quite the opposite. What arguments are being advanced in support of the amendments? "Tricks will be played". The way they were described, I would not call them tricks, I would call them "sleaze". We know what the public do when sleaze is involved. Knutsford is a prime example of that situation.
Ian Davidson's name has been mentioned. Yes, I am sure he took a view. But I can also advise the House that he has been firmly persuaded away from that view. He has been corrected. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, say that there will be Labour candidates and Co-operative candidates. If he knows the constitution and the arrangement within the Labour Party, he will know that anyone with a relationship in the Labour Party with the Co-operative Party is now called a Labour and Co-operative Party candidate. They are not distinguished from each other, they are as one. Whether the Conservatives would want to set up a unionist party in Wales to be able to play such tricks will be up to them. But I think it would be seen through by the electorate and the press would make hay of such an approach.
The House should support the Bill, support the clauses and reject the amendments. The amendments are intended to restrict the democratic activity of both candidates and the electorate in Wales. That is not acceptable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for entering the discussion on the Third Reading when I have not been present for the debates on the Bill throughout. However, noble Lords had a debate on the subject last night on the

267
Scotland Bill and I have heard my noble friend repeat what he said last night even more clearly and accurately. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, attempted to disparage my noble friend's speech by saying that it was the "usual long speech". It was a clear exposition of the problem and I hope that noble Lords will not treat this as a matter for party political ding-dong. I hope that the Government will look carefully at what may happen if they continue to provide the system as set out in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, takes the view—I am sure with great sincerity—that people will see through this and will not want to take part. That was repeated from the Government Benches. I do not believe that. It may be that people in Wales will do that, but I am convinced that people in Scotland will simply see it as a new way of voting strategically.
The Scottish electorate has been voting strategically for some time. It was done successfully in the last election and, as a result, people got what they wanted; that is, to get rid of the party to which I belong completely from Westminster. They wanted to do that and they did it by strategic voting.
The system will be seen as a new form of strategic voting rather than sleaze. It is not sleaze. It behoves Parliament to provide a system which is foolproof, as far as possible. Just putting it in the registration of political parties is not the right way to do it. Quite apart from anything else, individual candidates will be able to distort the system. My noble friend did not go into that at great length, but that could happen. The system should be as proof as possible against strategic distortion of the proportionality which is the Government's aim.
I beseech the Government, therefore, if they are not going to say today that they will accept one of these amendments, to look seriously at them. It may be that my noble friend will divide the House and that the other place may look at this immediately. In any case, I hope that the Government will look at the matter seriously. It is not a party political matter. A former Minister in the Scottish Office was removed from his seat in Scotland by the electorate being able to use strategic voting to obtain the result it wanted. Consequently, the noble Lord knows how the system works. He is also a mathematician, so he is able to work out these things and can explain clearly to your Lordships how the system works.
I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. They will spoil what they are aiming to do if they do not make some adjustment to the system.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, we are once again being subjected to the fiction of the "Mackay novel", which is the notion that the electorate in Wales can be cheated out of its results in a democratic election by some kind of fictive renaming of political parties or candidates.
I am continually bemused in this place at the ability of the Conservative Party to shoot itself in the foot or to refuse a great opportunity. I want an inclusive assembly, as does my right honourable friend in another
268
place, the Secretary of State, Ron Davies. This is a great opportunity for the Conservative Party to return to serious electoral politics in Wales. There are people within that party in Wales who want to see that happen and I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is representing them in this debate by his argument.
The Government addressed the issue of a political culture being dominated historically by one party for very good reasons. But they are putting themselves on the line in these matters. They are instituting an electoral system which will enable people to make different choices as between the first-past-the-post system and the second vote. Although it is not an ideal PR system—we debated all this in Committee and do not need to go back over it—it indicates the Government's commitment to an inclusive democratic structure.
I do not see why the Conservative Party cannot join in the game or why they need continually to be setting down centralist strictures to control by legislation the choices of the electorate. What are they worried about? Does not the Conservative Party in Wales have a great potential leader in Mr. Rob Richards? No doubt there are other contenders. They are experienced politicians who have been selected to stand for the assembly. They will get themselves elected either through first-past-the-post or on the list and they will then participate actively in the new structure. What is the problem with the Conservative Party? Why cannot the Conservative Party in this House take on the rules of the game—the inclusive and open rules—which the Government established in this Bill?
Returning to this fiction at Third Reading and apparently suggesting that we should divide on this and perhaps return the Bill to another place undermines the role of this House as a revising Chamber. This is hardly serious revision.
Lord Onslow of Woking: My Lords, I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and shall explain briefly why.
Today we are faced with the introduction of a system which is capable of abuse. The Ministers on the Government Front Bench admitted that. It is generally agreed that there is potential for abuse in the system as it stands in the Bill. I believe—I hope that I can take the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, with me—that Parliament has a duty to protect the electorate and to ensure that all votes are of equal value. If the proposition in the Bill is passed as it stands, all votes in the future will not necessarily be of equal value. That is fundamentally wrong.
I add that I do not believe that, in matters concerning the representation of the people, self-regulation is enough. The law should defend the people. We cannot rely on political parties to do so. The suggestion that some condition should be laid down in the Registration of Political Parties Bill is fatuous. The law should protect the people and it is our function today to see that it does.
Even if we accept the self-denying statements of all party leaders represented here today that they would never take part in such a cynical manipulation as was

269
outlined by my noble friend, this is not a matter necessarily confined to political parties. A non-political organisation may intervene in an election seeking to influence events. It may stand under some such trendy name as "the Peoples' Partnership". It may be in sympathy with two parties at once; for example, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. It would be a crypto-Lib-Lab party. But it would not be registered as such. It would be a national pressure group and it may well attract support from the media. It is not impossible that the Sun may find it in its interests to give "the Peoples' Partnership" a fair wind in its pages.
The effect would be to encourage the transfer of support in the first ballot from the Labour Party to the second ballot and thus to the Liberal Party. The devaluation of the Conservative Party would be total, as noble Lords should be able to see. It is not encouraging that, while admitting that the problem exists, the Government failed entirely to deal with it. All they say—I suppose Minsters will say the same today—is that there is a problem, but that the remedy is worse than the problem. I find that difficult to accept.
My noble friend is entirely right. Shame on a Government claiming to be purer than pure that they should seek to enshrine in law a manipulative device like this.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on this topic several times, I think I now see that there is a real problem, certainly mathematically. I am also prepared to accept that it is a problem that is not just mathematical but is real, because from these Benches I am perfectly prepared to believe that any political party will commit any dirty trick which it thinks will be to its own advantage. However, having said that, I have to say also that, at least in regard to the first solution of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, the remedy is worse than the problem. On that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Surely the remedy propounded by the noble Lord is a total discouragement to anyone voting for a candidate on account of his individual characteristics. If, by voting for an individual because he is a very good MP or voting against him because he is a very bad one, one is then doing the same as voting for the list of candidates who come behind him, one is discouraging any form of choice of individuals. It seems extraordinary that it should be suggested in this House that we should discourage choice of individuals on their merits rather than merely by their party label.
The solution to this problem lies in the Registration of Political Parties Bill because the whole matter comes from the noble Lord's assumption that one can register two parties, one of which is a stalking-horse for the other. Why cannot that Bill provide that no party shall be registered without giving an undertaking that it is a genuine independent party and also make provision for deregistration if it uses itself merely as a stalking-horse for another, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested.
270
There is a problem. To my mind, the solution is unacceptable. But surely it can be thought out that other way.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, as many noble Lords have pointed out, we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions and every time I have heard it debated, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has made a truly great speech. Like all great advocates, he puts his case brilliantly and omits to mention any save the weakest arguments against his case.
Perhaps I may summarise the Government's position. First, we think it is unlikely that the problem will occur but we accept the theoretical possibility of the problem. I draw attention, as the noble Lord fairly did, to the fact that each of the major parties has undertaken not to indulge in the kind of practice to which he has referred. Secondly, if the practice was indulged in, we believe that the people of Wales, no doubt assisted by the media, would very quickly see through the kind of manipulation that the noble Lord has in mind. Thirdly, in any event, all the proposals that have been put by the noble Lord, whether today or on other occasions, are much worse than the problem he appears to perceive in this area.
As I understood the noble Lord's speech this afternoon, he is proposing alternative solutions. The first is that your vote for your constituency member should be counted for regional list purposes. The second—I am not sure whether it is an alternative or is part of the first solution—is that you can put up a regional list only if your party stands in half of the ordinary constituencies.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. They are alternatives.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is how I understood the noble Lord's speech.
Perhaps I may deal with the first of the noble Lord's proposals; namely, that your constituency candidate would then be counted for the purposes of the regional list. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, that would give each voter only one vote. The vote would be taken automatically to be a vote for the same party's list in the electoral region. On the noble Lord's first proposal, voters would not have the option to vote for the party list. They would have to take the composition of the list into consideration when making their constituency selection. That would reduce the election for the four additional members in each electoral region to an indirect election.
If voters want to vote for the candidate of one party in the constituency and for the list of another party in the electoral region, why should they not have that choice? That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Under the noble Lord's proposal, you would have to vote for a particular party if you wanted that to be reflected in the electoral region. We believe that is not democratic and does not give effect to a direct election system.

271
The second problem with the noble Lord's proposal is that it would have a serious impact on the ability of small parties to mount a realistic campaign for seats in the assembly. It would, as he expressly acknowledged, prevent independent candidates from being candidates at regional level. For smaller parties, their main hope for winning seats in the assembly may be the party list vote in the electoral region. To maximise its potential for party list seats, a small party would have to run candidates in all the constituencies in the electoral region. That would be a daunting prospect for such a party, which would have to find suitable candidates and the resources to contest between seven and nine constituencies per region. That may be beyond many of them. Why should they be denied the opportunity to concentrate their resources to their best advantage? Why should not the electorate have the option of voting for particular favoured constituency candidates but for small parties in the regional list? I submit, for the reasons I have given, that the noble Lord's proposal is much worse than the problem as he perceives it.
His alternative proposal, as presently drafted, is contradictory. He proposes to amend Clause 5(1) to say that a registered political party may submit a list of candidates to be assembly members for the assembly electoral region provided it puts up candidates in half of the constituencies in the region. It permits a party to put up a regional list only where it has candidates in half the constituencies. Yet the second part of Amendment No. 2 states:
"A registered political party shall submit a list of candidates to be Assembly members for each Assembly electoral region in which there is a candidate of the party in at least one half of the Assembly constituencies included in that Assembly electoral region".
The first part of the amendment provides that a party is allowed to put up a regional list if it has candidates in at least half of the constituency seats; the second part of the amendment provides that once a party has put up candidates in half of the constituencies it has to put up a regional list. The amendment is contradictory. It is doing precisely what the noble Lord said he was not doing in his second amendment; namely, requiring a party to put up a regional list where it stands in half of the constituencies.
As a matter of drafting, the amendment is fundamentally flawed. But the problem goes further than simply drafting because one cannot tell from the amendment which of the two choices the noble Lord has made. Is he saying that a party has to put up a regional list when it has candidates in at least half the assembly constituencies, or is he saying that a party may put up a list when it stands in half of the constituency seats?
Whichever it is, all parties wanting to put forward a party list for an electoral region would be required to contest at least half the seats in that region. In four of the regions that would mean contesting four constituencies and in the North Wales region the threshold would be five seats. I do not accept that the state should be entitled to exercise such authority over the political parties. It is for the parties to decide where to mount their campaigns and where to target their resources. We should not be directing their involvement in the political process. It would be very wrong if we
272
were to oblige parties to engage in what were token contests in some areas simply to allow them to pursue their real intent in another.
I do not exaggerate when I refer to token contests. Parties which ran candidates in at least half the constituencies in a region would be obliged to put forward a party list for that region, whether they wanted to or not. Why should these token contests be inflicted on the electorate? What intrinsic democratic purpose would they serve? We would have party lists which were no more than penalties imposed for exceeding the approved threshold for the number of constituency candidates in a region. The noble Lord has not addressed any of those concerns. It was the skill of his speech that made the argument sound so attractive. He did not address the real problems in the proposals that he was making. We have thought carefully about the problem that the noble Lord identified, which we accept exists in theory. But for all the reasons I have given I submit that both his solutions are substantially worse than the alleged problem. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. If he is not minded to do so, I invite the House to reject it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he saying that the Government are not going to think any more about this matter because they do not accept that there is a great flaw in their arrangements, even though they do not like my noble friend's suggestions? I accept that there are disadvantages in what my noble friend has said, but are the Government not going to give any more thought to this problem? Are they totally satisfied?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have thought carefully about this. They are aware of the problem. All the proposals that have been put forward to deal with it, including those put forward by the noble Lord this afternoon—and all the others—in the Government's view are much worse than the alleged problem in their effect. Plainly, if someone provides a solution that deals with all the problems the Government will certainly think about it. They have given considerable thought to it. We do not have a closed mind, but we do not believe that any of the proposed solutions could possibly be better than the alleged problem.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that we have made some progress. The noble and learned Lord has gone a good deal further than anyone on the Government Benches has gone before in both accepting the theoretical problem and admitting that the Government have looked at it with a view to finding a way to tackle it. I imagine that the search has been long and detailed; I cannot believe that it has not come up with some solution. Perhaps it lies in the Registration of Political Parties Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. After today I shall perhaps have to turn my attention to that Bill and how I might amend it. I look forward to his support if some clever person arrives at a solution which might allow us to use the Registration of Political Parties Bill as a way of dealing with this issue.

273
Perhaps with the exception of the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Davies of Coity, no one has rejected my proposition that tactical voting could happen. Both noble Lords whom I have mentioned seem to believe that the electorate would not fall for it, but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that people would see through it and punish it. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour has reminded your Lordships, tactical voting is something which people are perfectly prepared to do. They are perfectly prepared to vote for a candidate of a party which they do not support in order to defeat somebody else of another party. I can assure your Lordships that it is a painful experience to be voted against tactically. There is not a great deal that one can do about it. It is a potent weapon in the hands of an intelligent electorate, which is what we have. Frankly, an electorate which uses its vote in a tactical way will not have a problem with using it in the way I suggest because that is all it is: it is tactical voting on a grand scale. I do not take comfort from the assurances that the electorate would see through it. Indeed, the fact that they would reinforces my fear that they will be happy to use it.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I believe that we all understand the problems that can arise and the difficulties with tactical voting. The question is how one finds a solution and at the same time retains the democratic process?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, people will still have the option of tactical voting in the first-past-the-post seats. The two-parties yet one-party problem that I am addressing is a product of the two-vote system. It does not exist in the one-vote system.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that I do not believe that Ian Davidson has been barred from the Scottish parliament because of this particular idea but because he does not actually accord with a new Labour clone. That is his problem and nothing to do with his views.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that I am not dismantling the additional-member system. I attempted to do that by advocating that we retained the first-past-the-post system. We retain the additional member system. The additional members will be the "top up" members, so to speak, to restore any disproportionality that the first-past-the-post system has created.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he not denying the electorate the choice that the additional member system might be from a different party than was voted for in the first-past-the-post system?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, I agree that I am doing that. After all, in our first-past-the-post system people are able to get around the problem by tactical voting, as they have done. I do not believe that that is an overwhelming answer. I am
274
trying to make sure that the rules of the game are not capable of being circumvented. That is our duty at this stage.
I understand the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made about discouraging independence. But if an independent has enough pull it is likely to be on quite a localised basis. Therefore, he must have a far better chance of winning under the first-past-the-post system than he does if his pull has to be spread over a pretty wide region. I understand from the people who run these issues through computers that not one of the systems has so far produced a single independent victory anywhere. If one considers people as independent as Mr. Tommy Sheridan of the Socialist Workers' Party in Glasgow, who commands a pretty substantial vote, even calling him an independent does not succeed in getting him a seat. I believe that the advantage given to independence is more imagined than real.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was kind enough to address the issue seriously and I am grateful for that. I look forward to some thought being given to the registration of political parties. As regards my two amendments with two different solutions, I do not accept his criticism of the 50–50 provision. There may be a slight error in drafting which a noble and learned Lord like himself can spot at 100 yards. I am sure that that can be easily sorted out. It would resolve the problem.
The better solution—because it resolves other problems as well and has some kind of parentage in reports such as that from the Hansard Society—is the single vote. I feel strongly about this. At this stage I would like to take the opinion of the House on the single vote. I assure the Government that I have no intention of asking for an opinion on the second amendment about the 50–50 provision.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 150; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addison, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ailsa, M.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Byford, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Cadman, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Attlee, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Bellwin, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Berners, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Biffen, L.

Chesham, L.

Blake, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blaker, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Coleridge, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Courtown, E.

Brentford, V.

Cranborne, V.

275

Crathorne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cross, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Moyne, L.

Denbigh, E.

Munster, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Donegall, M.

Norrie, L.

Downshire, M.

Northesk, E.

Elibank, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Erne, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fookes, B.

Palmer, L.

Gainford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Glentoran, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gormanston, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

Prior, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pym, L.

Hampden, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rees, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hemphill, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Holderness, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hothfield, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sempill, L.

Inchcape, E.

Sharples, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Jopling, L.

Strange, B.

Kenyon, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swinfen, L.

Knights, L.

Teviot, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thurlow, L.

Lucas, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Luke, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Waddington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Wharton, B.

Marlesford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Burlison, L.

Amos, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Annan, L.

Calverley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Avebury, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Barnett, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Berkeley, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Blease, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bridges, L.

Dixon, L.

Brightman, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

276

Dubs, L.

McNair, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Maddock, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ezra, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gilbert, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nathan, L.

Glenamara, L.

Newby, L.

Goodhart, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Orme, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Grantchester, L.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Hacking, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardie, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hooson, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hoyle, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Sewel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hylton, L.

Simon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Simon of Highbury, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taverne, L.

Judd, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thurso, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Weatherill, L.

Ludford, B.

Whitty. L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 5 [Party lists and individual candidates]:
[Amendment No.2 not moved.]

Education Expenditure
4.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on education and employment which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Statement is as follows:

277
"The announcement made yesterday by the Chancellor heralds a new beginning for our schools, colleges and universities. This is a new contract for education—an investment on an unprecedented scale to deliver a step change in education standards nationwide. Every pound of new funding has been linked to demanding targets, including firm targets for maths and English, to drive up standards across the board. This settlement demonstrates the Government's commitment to fulfilling our pledges, investing in the future of our children and the employability and lifelong learning of our people. It allows us to modernise and renew our commitment to taking on the challenge of a new century.
"It is our intention in the years ahead to create the classroom of the future. Smaller classes and the expansion of modern technology to support learning will be matched by better motivated and more highly skilled teachers. The best will be rewarded, building on the new grade of advanced skill teacher, and we will seek to recruit, retain and reward our teachers to match the task ahead. The settlement will allow us to employ more classroom assistants to back up our teachers. We intend to improve dramatically the adult-to-pupil ratio in primary classrooms to ensure children have the attention which they need to succeed.
"Since May last year we have announced an extra £2.5 billion for education and £3.5 billion for the new deal programme for unemployed men and women. We are building on the progress made this year. From September there will be lower class sizes for 100,000 pupils in infant classes; a new literacy framework; and an early years place for every four year-old whose parents wish it.
"We have made a good beginning. But today I can inform the House that in the next three years we will do even better. A flying start in life is crucial to success. That is why I am announcing a new initiative to link support for families and nursery education in providing a sure start for all our children. 'Sure start' will be a cross-department initiative involving my colleagues in the Department of Health and others with the DfEE to provide comprehensive support for those pre-school children who face the greatest disadvantage. It will include childcare and play; primary health care; early education; and family support. We are spending £540 million on 'Sure start' over the three years. This is in addition to our childcare initiative.
"Nursery education is the foundation of later educational success. I am pleased therefore to be able to announce to the House that by the year 2002 there will be an extra 190,000 nursery places for three year-olds in England, doubling to two-thirds the number of three year-olds who currently have access to a free nursery place. This is the first step towards ensuring universal provision for all three year-olds whose parents want it.
"We promised the voters that by 2002 there would be no five, six or seven year-old in classes of over 30. This is an essential pledge and a key component
278
in raising standards. I am keen to make even faster progress. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the money announced by my right honourable friend yesterday will enable us to achieve that pledge earlier. No five, six or seven year-old will be in a class of more than 30 by September 2001. I can go further. The resources available will enable those local education authorities who wish to do so to fulfil that aim by September 2000—18 months earlier than our promise to the electorate. There will be an extra £160 million available to adapt or build some 2,000 extra classrooms, ensuring that we can underpin parental preference as well as delivering smaller class sizes. There will be an extra 6,000 teachers employed to ensure that youngsters learn the basics. In total, we will be spending an additional £620 million between now and 2002 to deliver our pledge.
"But it is not just our schools who will gain. Our universities and colleges are winners too. We have taken tough but fair decisions on funding for further and higher education. We did so to end the years of neglect—a 30 per cent. drop in funding per higher education student over the last seven Conservative budgets. I can tell the House today that we will carry through our promise to spend the money raised by our new student support arrangements on improving access to, and investment in, further and higher education. In 1999–2000 alone, there will be an extra £280 million for our universities. This is a 5.7 per cent. cash increase for higher education and includes £50 million for research. This will be in addition to the substantial sums announced by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade for research and science expenditure.
"I am particularly pleased to announce today an additional £255 million for our further education and sixth form colleges, a cash increase next year alone of 8.2 per cent. This will enable us to improve skill levels and increase staying on rates at 16.
"The real terms increase in spending on education across the United Kingdom over the next three years will be almost 16 per cent.—an average of more than 5 per cent. a year—and in cash terms an increase of 25 per cent.
"Our school system was failed by the party opposite during the 18 years it was in power. It managed an average real terms increase of just 1.4 per cent. per year. In the three years to 1997, it reduced the amount allocated in real terms to education year on year. Inevitably class sizes rose year on year. Today marks the end of that sorry decline. By contrast we have allocated almost £10 billion in 2001.
"We will double spending on capital investment over the Parliament: money for repair and modernisation; money for classrooms fit to learn in. The Tory government in its final death throes cut spending by £110 per pupil. Our spending proposals mean an increase of £300 per pupil next year, over and above what the party opposite would have spent had it won the last election.

279
"In the months and years ahead the change will be clear for all to see—in the fabric of our schools, in the professionalism and morale of our teachers, and in the results achieved by our pupils.
"This is a historic day for education. It is the largest and the best settlement in any three-year period since the war. It will give every pupil and every teacher, every parent and every governor, the confidence they need to deliver higher standards—essential for all of us in the new millennium.
"We said we would put education as our top priority. We said we would spend more of our national income than our predecessors on education. Today we are fulfilling our promises. Tomorrow we will start to deliver the education service which Britain deserves."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the noble Baroness on their ingenuity in constructing large figures for future spending by counting absolutely everything on top of the cash figures for this year as an increase in spending—future inflation, three years' worth of raids on the contingency reserve, definitional changes, all thrown together in a great hotch-potch.
The noble Baroness did not mention the figure of £19 billion. It would be helpful if that figure can be confirmed. It seems extraordinary that this is an expenditure Statement and the total has not been referred to.
Will the noble Baroness also confirm that, using exactly the government methodology—working from the first year's cash amount and counting everything else as an increase—the Conservative Government presided over increases in education spending cumulatively totalling £250 billion since 1979 and £26 billion since 1992?
The figures have been calculated at 1998–99 prices. It is interesting that over the entire lifetime of the last Parliament the average increase in expenditure was 5.1 per cent. under a Tory government. Taking into account everything announced yesterday, and referred to today by the noble Baroness, the average increase in the education budget over the lifetime of this coming Parliament will be 4.8 per cent.
Will the noble Baroness also confirm that, despite the pledge to increase the proportion of our national output on education, it will take at least four years simply to get back to the position that was inherited? The Government will have to run hard in order to stand still on this one. Why has the proportion of GDP which we devoted to education been reduced from 4.9 per cent. to 4.7 per cent.?
Much play is made of finally getting to the figure of 5 per cent. of GDP in the fifth year in office. Will the
280
noble Baroness confirm that for 12 out of 18 years in office we devoted at least that proportion of national income to education?
Increased expenditure on education was to be financed by savings on payments to unemployed people. Again, will the noble Baroness confirm that today's figures show a second consecutive increase, albeit small, and that, as admitted by Government, the trend is upwards?
The Secretary of State offers a familiar list of areas on which money will be spent. Boasts were made that we will achieve the target for class sizes by the year 2000 rather than 2001. Will the Government confirm that the money saved from assisted places will not go anywhere near funding all the revenue costs? We know—because the Government have admitted it—that it will not fund the capital costs. Will the Minister tell us what resources will be made available for the 1998–99 financial year to meet that pledge? By the end of the 1998–1999 financial year we will be a mere 20 weeks from delivering the whole of that pledge. It would be helpful to know what resources will be applied to it in the coming financial year.
The Secretary of State talks about extending provision in school for three and four year-olds. Is the Minister aware that many independent voluntary nursery schools for four year-olds are closing as a direct result of the so-called expansion of education for four year-olds, which has meant public sector expansion at the expense of others? Much has been made of the voucher scheme having had that effect, but the present proposals, and those outlined in the Statement, are having a much greater effect on private provision. At least the vouchers helped to keep that provision alive. Will the Minister tell us what proportion will sustain the private sector which is now moving down the age range from four year-olds and three year-olds and will move from three year-olds to two year-olds and end up being a baby-minding service rather than a pre-school play service?
Will the Minister say what proportion of the money will address the difficulty of the differential pupil and adult teacher ratios of private provision as opposed to state provision? The Statement is specific about capital expenditure but it is vague about pay. It is no good having nice, shiny brick-built classrooms if one cannot recruit and keep good teachers to teach in them. Does the Minister accept that we are now facing a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention? The Statement almost studiously avoids any reference to pay and conditions; in other words, it seems that the Government are not taking a grip of that problem.
Will the Minister confirm that today's figures rest on the assumption that local authorities spend above SSA on education? It would helpful to know how SSAs will be affected and just how much money will be made available to go from Government to local government and then into the classroom. But is not spending above SSA what the Deputy Prime Minister penalises local authorities for? For example, my authority is spending

281
well above its SSA on education. It is being pilloried by the local Member of Parliament for not passing on to the schools the money that was put into the budget last year. It is spending well in advance of the money that was made available to those schools, so much so that if it spends any more it will be accused of over-spending, and will then be penalised by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Prescott.
We want to hear more from the Minister about the education maintenance grants for 16 to 18 year-olds. There has been no mention of whether child benefit will be removed from 16 to 18 year-olds, again, a factor that will affect young people in education and those contemplating going into further and higher education.
We have heard again the oft-repeated pledge of 500,000 extra places in higher education and further education. But the Secretary of State has been repeating that for over a year now. Everyone in the world of higher education and further education now needs information about what that means in practice. For example, what progress has been made to date? Will the Minister tell us the progress made on numbers into further education and higher education to date? How many of those places will be in further education, and how many in higher education? Will the Minister confirm that many of those are part-time places? If they are part-time places, what is the whole-time equivalent of 500,000, or is the 500,000 a full-time equivalent figure?
Everyone involved in education will welcome the extra money made available from any government, but they will not support interference in every nook and cranny of their schools, colleges and universities. We have seen the Teaching and Higher Education Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill pass through this House recently. The legislation smacks of a great deal of interference and intervention and second-guessing as to what schools and LEAs are doing.
It would be helpful to know more about pay and conditions for teachers, and some confirmation of the figures I have given the Minister. On student loans, what have the Government gained from selling the student loans book to the private sector, and what will they gain from the abolition of student loans and the charging of student fees? The figure mentioned in the Statement is £280 million extra going into higher education, but the cost to students and the saving to government is £600 million on the abolition of maintenance and £250 million on the raising of tuition fees.
Those increases are at the expense of the students, and even then they are not getting the whole increase. Will the Minister guarantee now that moneys raised from the abolition of higher education maintenance grants and the introduction of tuition fees for students in higher education will benefit pound-for-pound higher education spending? So far what has been announced does not equate with what will come from the students.
The spending plans rely upon predicted levels of unemployment and inflation and the degree of growth in the economy. Will the Government guarantee that the level of expenditure announced yesterday and repeated
282
here today—whatever the outcome of those economic factors—will be met? If those economic factors are not as predicted by the Government what will be the source of this expenditure?
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I do not intend to go into great detail as to whether the figures are right and whether they add up. Suffice to say that whoever are in government will always put the best spin on their spending proposals. There is some doubt as to whether everyone agrees on the figures.
We on these Benches come from a party which put education as its top priority not just at the last general election, but the one before, and continues to do so in local authorities. So it would be churlish not to welcome the Government's aims in putting forward the spending proposals and the extra money that is to go into education. We welcome especially the fact that it will cover all sectors of education.
As has been said, we must remember that there is a great deal of damage to be repaired resulting from the past 18 years. Indeed, the damage continued with this Government because they stuck to the previous government's spending targets. Although it sounds good when we talk about how much more money will be spent per pupil, spending per pupil is not the same around the country. When I was in another place I represented a constituency that did especially badly under the present regime. There was a difference of £100 per capita being spent on pupils who lived within five miles of one another.
We welcome the plans for reducing class sizes, but as was demonstrated during the passage of the School Standards and Framework Bill we would like to have seen that reduction in class sizes for all primary children. That is the feeling of teachers, as expressed this morning on the radio when teachers were asked their views about these spending plans.
We welcome also the emphasis on pre-school provision but, as I have said previously in this House, we are disappointed that the Bill on school standards, with which we finished dealing this week, did not do much to sort out the real problem of the different types of provision for young children.
We welcome the plans to double spending on buildings. However, I have two areas of concern. First, the last government reduced the space standards in schools; and this Government still have to reverse that decision. There has been much emphasis on the state of school buildings. While the Minister did not state this today, I understand that yesterday it was emphasised that money would be spent on the pre-1914 buildings. Many of us involved in teaching will know that some of those buildings are not satisfactory, in particular if they have outside toilets. But it is the 1960s buildings which have given so many problems in education. I hope, therefore, that those buildings will be part of the Government's plans.
I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as regards how we shall attract the teachers we need. We have all agreed in this House in recent

283
weeks that if we are to reduce class sizes we need more teachers. If we are to raise standards, we need the best teachers. But we heard little either today or yesterday about how the money will be spent to attract and train teachers; and how it will be used to motivate and keep them. Without doubt, raising standards is in the hands of good teachers.
In The Times today, David Hart commented that we had one of the worst crises in terms of attracting sufficient teachers. In this House I highlighted the plight of the school my children attended—it was brought to my attention by their past headmaster—in attracting enough teachers to apply for posts. In the past two weeks there have been serious difficulties in recruiting people to train as mathematics teachers. As increasing numeracy is part of the Government's plans, that is a serious difficulty. The Government have said that there will be 6,000 extra teachers, but we have had little detail about where those teachers will come from and how the Government will reach those numbers.
At the beginning of the Statement the Government state that every pound of new funding has been linked to demanding targets, including firm targets for maths and English to drive up standards across the board. I hope that next year we shall hear from the Government precisely how their performance stands up against the targets that they have set themselves. That is what is important in the end. That will be the measure of success of any bold statements made in this House today.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not seem able to welcome the additional expenditure that the Government are making available for education. I am a little sorry about that. She asks whether I can confirm the £19 billion that will be spent over the next few years; indeed I can. I can give her the sub-division over the three years. Over and above the 1998–99 figures rounded up the sums are as follows: in 1999–2000, £3 billion; in 2000–2001, £6 billion; and in 2001–2002, £10 billion. I think that we can pass even the most elementary numeracy test; it adds up to £19 billion.
The noble Baroness asked about the Conservative Government's record on spending on education. I believe that she confused real terms with cash terms in the claims she made. Perhaps I can let her have the figures. Over the last Parliament, the average real term increase was 1.4 per cent. per year. However, over the next three years the average real term increase as a result of the Statement will be 5.1 per cent. That is a considerable difference.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has completely misunderstood the point. Over the lifetime of the last Parliament, the average increase in percentage of GDP was 5.1 per cent. The level of GDP spending at this moment is only 4.7 per cent. It will take four years to get back to the level that was inherited. Taking exactly the same methodology that the Government used—not simply the cash but all the other expenditure
284
which is counted as an increase in spending—will the noble Baroness confirm the figures I gave in my response?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness seems to have forgotten how many questions she asked. She indeed asked a question about GDP and I was going to come to that. But before that question, the noble Baroness asked about the per annum increase in expenditure under the last government and how it compared with what is being proposed. I have just given the answer.
Perhaps I may give the noble Baroness the answer to the GDP question that she raises. Under these proposals, on a resource accounting basis—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if it assists I can give the answer on a cash basis. There is little difference in the figures. In 1997–98, the expenditure of the last government on education as a proportion of GDP was 4.7 per cent. Under our proposals, by the year 2001–2002 it will be 5.1 per cent. On a resource accounting basis the figures are 4.8 per cent. under the Conservative Government and 5 per cent. under the Labour Government's proposals. I sought to be helpful to the noble Baroness's case in giving the resource accounting basis but she does not seem to be aware of that.
It is true that at one point earlier in the 1990s the Conservative Government's spending was rather higher as a proportion of GDP. My noble friend Lord Peston is not present. But as any economist will tell us, if one is in the middle of a recession when one's GDP goes down the proportion of expenditure on one's public services will automatically appear to go up.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness really cannot get away with that. Let me give the GDP figures for the whole of the last Parliament. The figure went from 707, 725, 757, 775 and 793. Those were increased GDP figures in each of those five years. The percentage of GDP spent on education was 5.2 per cent. in the first year, 5.2 per cent. in the second year, 5.2 per cent. in the third year, 5 per cent. in the fourth year and 4.9 per cent. in the fifth year. So for four out of the five years it was 5 per cent. or more as opposed to the Government's plans which will not reach 5 per cent. until the last year of this Parliament.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness has conveniently left off the last year of the expenditure under her government. I have the figures in front of me. Under the noble Baroness's plans, the figures fell. The plans were of course inherited; we did not take office until May 1997. It was impossible to change the spending plans for a year in which we took office. We could hardly alter the spending that had already begun in that year. It fell to 4.7 per cent. I have already indicated that I am perfectly clear that in the earlier period the proportion spent was as the noble Baroness has given, but I have also explained to her that there

285
was the biggest recession that we have had for a long time during the early 1990s and that explains why the figures seem rather higher.
I turn to some of the later questions asked by the noble Baroness. She asked about spending on class size reductions in 1998–99. During the coming year, we shall be spending £22 million from savings from the assisted places scheme. We shall be spending an additional £40 million on capital, which the noble Baroness will remember we announced in the March Budget. That comes to a total of £62 million.
The noble Baroness went on to ask about provision for three and four year-olds and claimed that the Government's proposals will reduce the number of private sector providers. She also denied that the Berkshire scheme had any effect on that. I am afraid that I cannot agree with her; I believe that it did have an effect. The noble Baroness will need to wait for our more detailed announcements on this later in the year. The proportion for private sector providers will depend on plans put forward by local partnerships. The Government have already made it clear that they want these partnerships to work. We want the private and public sectors to work together. I see no reason why those predictions should come true.
The noble Baroness went on to mention teacher recruitment and retention, a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Of course, it is vitally important that we both recruit and retain good teachers. But anyone considering entering the teaching profession, or anyone who is presently a member of the profession, will be pleased with what has been announced today. I cannot believe that these large increases in educational expenditure and in our spending on schools will discourage or lower the morale of teachers. On the contrary, I believe that there will be many cheers in school staff-rooms when teachers hear what we propose.
There will be many improvements in the quality of the facilities which teachers have available to them. We have stated that we shall also be providing more teacher assistants to work in classrooms with them. That is important and it is an aspect into which we must put a great deal of effort.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, mention pay. Yes, pay is also important and in no way do I suggest otherwise. There is no question of a pay freeze as regards teachers. We have already announced a new category of advanced skills teachers whom we intend to reward for their success and high performance in the classrooms not only by status but by an improvement in their pay.
The noble Baroness asked about educational maintenance allowances and child benefit. Yesterday my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would be running a pilot scheme on educational maintenance allowances in which we will look at the whole issue. When we have monitored its success—if such a scheme is successful; our hypothesis is that it will be—in terms of retaining young people who might otherwise drop out of
286
education altogether, we will then move forward. However, I can say no more about that scheme, other than that it is a pilot scheme, the long-term intention of which is to consider whether there should be a shift from child benefit expenditure to those aged over 16 into educational maintenance allowances to target those most in need.
The noble Baroness asked about the 500,000 additional students in further and higher education. She is a little confused. I understand that confusion because I know that it is difficult to make the distinction between numbers and places. The pledge the Prime Minister made was for extra people in further and higher education, not extra places. In the year 1999–2000 there will be 35,000 more students in higher education and 150,000 more students in further education.
The noble Baroness also asked about planned expenditure on universities. She mentioned the sale of the student loans debt. That proposal had been made by her government in order to plug a gap in the PSBR. The new Government, having pledged before the election that for the first two years they would accept the public expenditure commitments of the previous government, have already started the sale of the student loans debt. But that was to plug a hole and it cannot be used for additional expenditure.
The noble Baroness also asked about the extra funding that will be raised from fees and from the abolition of the maintenance grant. I must remind her that in abolishing the maintenance grant the Government are making loans available to more people and increasing the size of those loans through an additional hardship loan. We shall also be doubling access funds.
I have pledged on a number of occasions—I repeat it now—that the moneys from the charges which are to be made to students in respect of fees will be available for further and higher education. They will be put back into the system.
I believe that I have more or less covered the questions which the noble Baroness asked, other than the final question in which I was asked to guarantee that the level of expenditure we are announcing today will last, whatever happens. The assumptions on which these expenditure proposals have been made are cautious and carefully constructed. The Government have every intention of ensuring that they will be met.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. In answer to my noble friend, she said something that I did not understand.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am responding to the Front Bench speakers and I have not yet dealt with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I do not believe that the rules of the House allow a Back-Bencher to intervene.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her welcome of the Statement, and in particular the fact that it covers all sectors. We are determined to support not only pupils at school, but also students in further and higher education and those institutions. The

287
noble Baroness said that she did not believe that we had done enough during the past two years. Perhaps I may remind her that we went into the general election making it clear that we would have a comprehensive spending review, that that would take some time, and that until it was complete we would stick with the public expenditure proposals of the previous government.
The noble Baroness also raised questions about school building. We are greatly increasing the amount of capital available for school building. I believe that that will achieve many of the changes for which she has asked. She is right in saying that we have inherited a very unsatisfactory position as regards the accommodation in which our children must operate and learn. We must do something about that.
I have dealt with the point about teachers. The final point raised by the noble Baroness related to our statement that we were setting demanding targets for every pound of new funding. That is right. We will make a further announcement in the Autumn about those targets, extending them into the older age groups which are not yet covered by post-school provision. Of course, we will want to monitor our performance against those targets. There would not be a great deal of sense in having them unless we were to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, there was a question which she did not answer. That may be my fault and if it is, I apologise in advance. I was talking about the class size pledge being met in the coming year. I know the figures for this year because they have been well trailed and mentioned by the noble Baroness in this House. I want the 1999–2000 figures. I do not believe that I am out of order because I am referring to a question that was not answered by the noble Baroness. I want to know the resources for 1999–2000. We are only 20 weeks away from that pledge having to be met in full. What are to be the resources for that year?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Baroness. I thought she was asking about 1998–99. We shall make further announcements about the detailed breakdown of how we shall meet that pledge in the near future.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to welcome this Statement, not just because of the £19 billion boost to education but also because of the way in which that money is to be used. I am somewhat disappointed that there was not a more enthusiastic welcome for it from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, I am probably more disappointed by the fact that she made a comparison with the amount of money that previous governments had spent on education since 1979.
I want the Minister to confirm that if the money that was devoted to education from 1979 had been spent correctly and properly, we would not have the current problems which mean that we now have to have this tidying-up exercise. For example, we should not have to reduce the size of classes in schools. We should not
288
have to tackle levels of literacy and numeracy which are not good enough. We should not have to deal with the problem of truancy. That is to name just a few issues. Therefore, when noble Lords opposite boast about the spending of money, they should remember that it is the way in which it is spent that is important. This new Government are doing exactly that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a point of order, are we not supposed to make very short contributions in order to ask a question?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understood my noble friend to ask if—and he did ask a question quite clearly—since 1979 there had been devoted to education the kind of funding which it needed and the kind of funding which this new Government are now proposing, we would now have the current problems of large class sizes, declining school buildings and so on. My noble friend's question was perfectly clear and I cannot understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, should take up the rather limited time that we have to deal with questions from Back Bench Peers by querying whether my noble friend asked a question.
I can confirm that over the years of the previous Conservative government, there was an average increase of only 1.5 per cent. in spending on education. That is the average increase in expenditure. I can confirm also that spending over the next three years will increase by 5.1 per cent. I hope that that answers my noble friend's perfectly well put question.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, your Lordships may be surprised to know that I spend a lot of time trying to think of something nice to say to the Minister. On this occasion, I can. Universities will be delighted by the announcement of a great deal more money for science.
But that leads to a question because the noble Baroness said also that some of the money which will come from student fees would go to further education and not only to higher education. It seems to me that unless the universities receive all that money—and possibly more—there will not be the infrastructure to make use of that extremely important additional resource for science.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in addition to the announcement by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade of a very large increase of £1.1 billion on science expenditure over the next three years, my department will, in the first year of this settlement, be putting in another £50 million on top of that.
The additional money which the universities will receive will be much more than the net increase available from the charging of fees. Therefore, again, the universities will welcome what the Government are doing.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is a popular fallacy to equate volume of expenditure with quality of outcome. Certainly nobody who has worked in, or had any association with, education in the Home Counties

289
and who has watched the money which has poured into London schools can feel anything other than a certainty that there is no correlation at all. One accepts that in many London schools different and difficult social problems must be faced. But all too often, those social problems are excuses for a poor outcome rather than the reasons for it.
I assume that the Minister's Statement refers to England and Wales. If that is the limitation that is put upon it, the sums of money provided will be transferred in due course to Scotland via the Barnett formula so that the effect there will be somewhat similar. Therefore, the figures which I am about to produce, which fortunately I did not have to produce yesterday, are nevertheless valid. They make the point and I shall then come to my question.
In England, a pupil in a sixth form costs on average £2,290 per year whereas in Scotland that same pupil in a secondary school costs £2,960. Those are annual costs. An English secondary education, therefore, costs £13,740 whereas a Scottish secondary education costs £14,800.
We need to be concerned about quality. The fact is that when the Scots go to university—and we have heard a great deal about that—they require four years to achieve their degree whereas English students, who have cost £1,000 per student less over their period in secondary school, need only three years to achieve their degree.
The question I ask is: how is the quality control as regards that massive increase in expenditure to be measured? What happens if the money is simply churned into the system and the quality does not improve? Will there be any sanctions to ensure that there is some come-back if the volume is up but the output remains the same?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was rather confused by the noble Lord's argument. On the one hand, he seemed to be suggesting that large amounts of additional expenditure have little to do with quality of outcome yet on the other hand he was concerned also that we might not achieve the required level of quality in sixth forms in England and Wales, if I understood him rightly—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I did not explain myself clearly. I am not concerned about quality in either England or Scotland. However, I am concerned about whether the additional money will produce any additional quality or whether it will simply go into the system and churn up the volume.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I assumed that that was what the noble Lord was getting round to by a slightly circuitous route. The noble Lord is right to ask that question. It is vitally important that we ensure that we achieve the very best value for money, although the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, from the Front Bench,
290
said that she does not want interference in schools or colleges. There must be some checks on the expenditure and on performance and quality.
Of course, we will be rewarding institutions the performance of which is high and, indeed, we will be rewarding teachers whose performance is high. Right through the system we want in place proper quality assessment schemes. We already have one available for universities. We also have a further education system of inspection. There is also Ofsted which inspects our schools. That process is a very important way of testing out whether individual institutions are up to scratch.
However, at the same time, through our system of targets we shall also be monitoring and evaluating the impact of this expenditure on the overall performance of the system. Again, I accept that that is vitally important. I should tell the noble Lord that I believe that most teachers, most lecturers in further education and most university teachers are crying out for more resources. They will welcome what has been announced today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, especially as regards the substantial additional resources which will be going into our schools. I also welcome it because of the certainty which a three-year settlement will bring. All too often in the education service—and, indeed, in other public services—the annual spending round means that short-term decisions tend to be made. I believe that many people in the education system will very much welcome the certainty which this three-year plan will bring.
However, does my noble friend the Minister agree that these measures, which will undoubtedly bring a very great deal of confidence to the state education system and certainly to parents, depend crucially on our teachers and on their having confidence in the future? On the crucial issue of recruitment and retention, does my noble friend agree that, although pay is undoubtedly an important issue, what is more relevant is the esteem in which teachers are held by people in this country? In that regard, I welcome the new grade of the advanced skill teacher as a means of enhancing the reputation of teachers, keeping them in the classroom and rewarding them for good performance.
Does my noble friend the Minister further agree that, although the recruitment of young teachers to the profession is important at present, so too is dealing with the problems that we are experiencing because many thousands of experienced teachers are retiring all too early from the teaching profession? Can my noble friend assure me that the Government have some plans for dealing with that issue?
The Government must recognise that the role of head teachers in schools can be crucially important in retaining teachers, in giving the right leadership and in ensuring that, where teachers face very stressful situations, they receive support from the senior management of the school. Indeed, we must recognise the very important role that head teachers have to play in leading their schools, in supporting teachers and in

291
adapting to the enormous changes that are taking place in our schools. Can my noble friend say whether a little of the money that has been allocated will be invested in management development training and support for head teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept that it is crucial for us to support our teachers and that we should do everything we can to boost their confidence, to raise the public esteem in which they are held and to increase the status of the profession. The Government will be introducing a whole variety of initiatives in that respect. My noble friend referred to the advanced skill teacher grade, which I mentioned earlier. I believe that that will be a most important new development. We have also just taken legislation through the House which will set up a General Teaching Council. That is also extremely important from the point of view of giving teachers some ownership of their professional standards.
We are introducing a new scheme of induction to support young teachers. They are among the group to which I believe my noble friend was referring when he talked about stress among teachers. I know that young teachers very often find the early years of teaching extremely stressful.
However, perhaps I may now turn to head teachers. My noble friend rightly singled them out for praise and attached a great deal of importance to them. They are very important; indeed, head teachers lead our schools. We are introducing a mandatory qualification for head teachers, together with the necessary training to go with it. That will help both to raise their status and to improve the management skills that they will need.
Finally, my noble friend mentioned early retirement among teachers. Again, that is something which went on all too frequently in the latter years of the previous government. This Government have no intention of allowing that to continue.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the implications are as regards the increases in higher and further education? For the sake of clarification, am I right in thinking that, because those figures are stated in cash terms, higher education will receive a 5.7 per cent. increase in the year 1999–2000 in cash terms and that further education will receive 8.2 per cent.? However, if inflation should, unfortunately, stand at, say, 4 per cent., does that mean that higher education will receive 1.7 per cent., while further education will receive 4.2 per cent.? Is that what the figures really mean?
Having said that, perhaps I may now make one comment that I meant to make earlier. I am most interested in the Sure Start programme. Indeed, I look forward to hearing more about that and how it will work, together with seeing how it develops, bearing in mind the enormous sum of money that has been put into it. There are great possibilities in that respect.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that the figures she quoted initially were set out in cash terms. However, the figures she
292
quoted for the real-term improvements are not correct. It will be 5.5 per cent. in real terms for further education colleges, as against 8.2 per cent. in cash terms. In higher education, the figure will be 3 per cent. in real terms.
As regards the Sure Start initiative, this is a new interdepartmental programme for pre-school children and their families in areas which are most in need of extra support. It will provide a range of services to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of young children, especially those who are in any way disadvantaged. By the year 2001–2002, Sure Start funding will be £184 million. There will be a further £250 million for the extra nursery places that we shall be providing for three year-olds, together with a further £170 million for childcare provision. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's questions.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as a former teacher, I hope that I do not seem too mercenary in what I say. I realise that esteem is very valuable; but it does not buy the bread or pay the mortgage. Therefore, can the Minister say what proportion of the money that we are discussing has been allocated to teachers' salaries? Further, can she say what allowance has been made for any rise in the rate of inflation?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords; I cannot give the noble Lord those figures. Teachers' salaries are set by an independent review committee. It will be for that body to advise the Government as to what would be an appropriate increase in salaries. However, the Government will be asking the bodies that are responsible for the pay of teachers—whether in schools or in the post-school sector—to take into account the questions of recruitment, retention and morale which I mentioned earlier.

Government of Wales Bill
5.8 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 5.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 3, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Calculation of electoral region figures]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
Page 4, line 15, leave out ("electoral region") and insert ("additional member").
Page 4, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
Page 4, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert ("for a registered political party under subsection (1)(b) is referred to in this Act as the electoral region figure for that party.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Return of electoral region members]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 13:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("or individual candidate").
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("or individual candidate").
Page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("or individual candidates").
Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("figure") to end of line 20.
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("or individual candidates").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Constituency seats]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 33, leave out from ("vacancy,") to end of line 36 and insert ("the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency shall be returned under the simple majority system.
(3A) No election held under this section shall call into question the election of Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency was included at the last ordinary election.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 6, after ("section") insert ("and section 9").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 15 is a drafting amendment. The minor changes to Clause 8(9) extend the description of "presiding officer" to Clause 9 as well, thereby enabling us to delete subsection (8) of that clause.
Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the arrangements for filling casual vacancies in constituency and electoral region seats respectively. There are references in both clauses to the role of the "presiding officer" of the assembly. Clauses 8(9) and 9(8) make clear in identical words that, in relation to the vacancy arrangements, the term "presiding officer" includes anyone performing the functions of a presiding officer; for example, a deputy. This amendment does away with the repetition. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his helpful suggestions which inspired the amendment. I urge the House to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful for this welcome shortening of the Bill. Will the Government accept the comparable amendments, Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33? Amendment No. 32 may be more arguable, but those three are exactly similar to the ones that the noble and learned Lord has just mentioned. In other words, there is a repetition in all three clauses of a definition. By referring in the first to the other two sections by name—just as in the present case—the other two can be eliminated.
This Third Reading follows Report stage with the very minimum interim period that is allowed; in other words, three clear working days. On this occasion, one of those days was a Friday. Unfortunately, I could not get hold of a secretary on Friday. Therefore, the noble
294
Lord, Lord Williams, will have received my letter on this matter only yesterday. Even with all his courteous promptitude he obviously has not had time to deal with it. I hope that in order that later amendments can be shortened, the noble and learned Lord can tell me that the Government will accept the comparable amendments, Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but we shall not accept Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33. We do not think that they are comparable for the following reason. Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33 which the noble and learned Lord proposes in effect insert one definition of "enactment" in one clause which then covers three clauses in the Bill. The difficulty with that is that there is a compendious definition of "enactment" in the definition section of the Bill. If the reader of clauses without the new definition did not know that there was a special definition, he or she would go to the definition section and might get the wrong definition of the word "enactment". Therefore, there is that difference between Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 33 and Amendments Nos. 15 and 20 which we have just discussed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
SEAT OF MEMBER CEASING TO BE MEMBER OF PARTY TO BE VACANT
(" . If an Assembly member returned for an Assembly electoral region as a candidate for a registered political party ceases to be a member of that party, his seat shall be regarded as vacant for the purposes of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships are, of course, aware that there will be two kinds of member of the Welsh assembly. One kind will have been elected on the first-past-the-post system. They will have been voted for as individuals representing their parties in the normal traditional British way. The other kind will comprise four members from each region; they will be elected through the additional member system. Under that system, the Government seem intent that all the electorate will see will be a ballot paper stating the names of the parties. The electorate will be asked to vote for the parties and not for any individuals.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt what will no doubt be another repeat of the speech we heard on the Scotland Bill. Will the noble Lord withdraw his remarks about there being two kinds of member of the assembly? Sixty members will be elected through different methods of voting, but they are all equal participatory members at their point of election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is particularly sensitive this afternoon. I did not make a value judgment as to whether one kind of member is superior to the other. There are two kinds of member. They will be elected by two different methods. The English language must mean

295
something. The two kinds of member are not the same. Some 40 of them will be elected by the first-past-the-post system and 20 by the additional member system. If the noble Lord does not like my describing them as two kinds of member, he should vote against the whole system of additional members and advocate adopting a single system, either first-past-the-post or perhaps even the single transferable vote.
As I said, there are undoubtedly two kinds of member. One kind will be directly elected from constituencies; the others will be elected from the list. As far as we can see, people who are elected from the list will be elected on a party basis. They will be elected to top up a party's position after the first-past-the-post ballot. If a party has four seats on a constituency basis and merits another two, it is the party that merits the other two. The individuals' only merit is that they have been placed first and second on a party's list. They will then be elected in order to give the party six seats to achieve some form of proportionality.
When a member who has gained his seat through first-past-the-post leaves his party because he has fallen out with it, conventionally in this country we have always accepted that the person was elected as an individual as well as a party representative. We always tease that person, but we accept that the person was elected by his constituents as a Member of Parliament. That is what the returning officer says. However, the member elected through the additional member system is different—if I may be so bold as to say this—in that he was not elected as an individual. John Brown was not elected as John Brown; he was picked because he came first on his party's list. The electorate did not see John Brown's name on the ballot paper. Furthermore, he was elected to help to gain the six seats that his party merits through the additional member system in order to achieve proportionality.
Let us assume that a member elected in that way decides to leave his party either to join another party or to become an Independent. Clearly the very proportionality that the second ballot is designed to achieve has immediately been lost. The party which ought to have six seats now has only five. Another party may gain an extra seat which it does not merit under the system of proportionality. If one is to treat this proportional representation system logically, I am afraid that the individual who leaves his party, having been elected on the list system, must leave the assembly and allow the party to propose for election the next person on the list to maintain proportionality.
If that does not happen, those who advocate proportionality will not see that achieved. That means that they are not prepared to address the question of proportionality as it applies in all circumstances. If they are prepared to allow a member to leave his party and join another party—and therefore disturb the very proportionality that the additional member system is designed to achieve—they are not following the logical progression of the principles they are trying to persuade your Lordships' House to accept. If a member elected through the additional member system feels obliged to leave his party, he should resign his seat and allow the
296
party to inform the returning officer of the next person on the list who should receive the additional member seat. That seems self-evident to me.
Over the term of the assembly if two members left a party, the whole concept of proportionality would be blown out of the water. If the additional member seats are designed to achieve proportionality, we must make some attempt to maintain that proportionality throughout the term of the assembly. I therefore recommend that we insert this new clause. It would ensure that additional members who left their party would be obliged to resign their seats and the party whose vote it was would receive another member. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, seems straightforward. It distinguishes between those who are elected on proportional representation and those elected on first past the post. On simple reflection, it could be argued that party democracy needs to be protected. But the democracy of the individual also needs to be protected.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is ignoring the reality of our election process. For a number of years now we have had on the ballot paper for first past the post not only the name "John Brown", to use the noble Lord's example, but, "John Brown of the Labour Party", "John Brown of the Conservative Party", or "John Brown of the Liberal Democratic Party". When people vote in the Westminster elections, in Scotland or for the Welsh assembly on a first-past-the-post system, a large number (dare I say, in most cases a majority?) will not be voting for John Brown as an individual but for John Brown as a member of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democratic Party. It seems a dangerous precedent to introduce a system whereby, on proportional representation, someone can be asked to leave the assembly if he or she leaves the party, but someone who is voted in on the first-past-the-post system on a party label can remain.
Indeed, that has just happened in the other place. A Member has moved from the Conservative to the Labour Benches and still retains his seat in Parliament. He was elected on a Conservative Party ticket. We are playing with a very dangerous weapon if we start introducing this kind of system.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment discriminates against a particular category of assembly member; namely, one who has been elected for an electoral region as the candidate of a registered political party. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, fairly said, that leads to a situation where a member of the assembly, if he ceases to be a member of the party to which he was elected if he is a regional assemblyman, must be expelled from the assembly. The noble Lord's amendment embraces a situation whereby that member of the assembly is expelled by his own party. In those circumstances he would also

297
be compulsorily expelled from the assembly. As I understand the amendment and the noble Lord's arguments in support of it, that is his intention.
We inserted an amendment in Committee in this House to guard against circumstances where a casual vacancy in a party list seat might be filled by someone who had been on the list at the time of the election but who had since left the party. We have prevented that happening. But that was a matter of preventing someone coming into the assembly in the first place. It was not a matter of dealing with someone who was actually in the assembly. I think that we were right to make that change; however, I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is a step too far. There is a long tradition in British politics of "tolerating" Members who cross the Floor. I do not think it would be in anyone's interests if we sought to expel an elected party list member simply for moving from one allegiance to another, or because he was expelled by his own party.
It is curiously inconsistent that the amendment is applied to regional members only. If the noble Lord strongly believes in the principle he has expounded I wonder why he does not think it equally valid for other members of the assembly—independents elected from the electoral region and all those elected from the assembly constituencies—to be affected by the proposal. The British political tradition is one which extols the virtues and advantages of the representative rather than the delegate, and we should be loath to depart from that principle in respect of membership of the assembly. In voting for a party list voters have expressed a degree of approval of the candidates put forward on that list. That endorsement should hold good for any member for the duration of the term for which he has been elected. That is the principle which has long been applied to constituency representatives under the British electoral system and I think that it should be extended to all members of the assembly. Their standing in the assembly and their continued membership of the assembly should depend on the same thing. There should not be two sets of rules.
I am surprised that Members of the party opposite, of all people, have come forward with this amendment. We hear much from them about the need to curb centralising tendencies in political parties. This amendment would give the party machine unparalleled control over certain of its members of the assembly. Party whips would have a very powerful weapon with which to threaten maverick members who refused to toe the party line—the threat of expulsion from the party, which would carry with it expulsion from the assembly. In our view this amendment would give party bosses a quite unacceptable and draconian power over their members. We believe it to be totally inappropriate, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is an astonishing reply from a Government who in every other case argue vigorously in favour of a closed list system and against an open list system. So I do not think the noble and learned Lord has a very good
298
case when he says that my amendment would put power in the hands of the party machine. The whole idea of the additional member system as it has been brought forward by the Government, with a closed list, puts power into the party machine.
The noble and learned Lord did not address—and I am not surprised—the whole issue of proportionality. I am not the person who is introducing proportional representation into the British electoral system. It is the governing party that is introducing it. The Government cannot, when it suits them, wriggle away from the principle of proportionality that they want and return to the first-past-the-post principles.
Of course the point made by the noble and learned Lord about the principle that we have adopted in many years in this country, of the Member of Parliament being a representative, is correct, because that member is directly elected by his or her constituents. His election may be for the party, on the party label, and most people may vote for that person as the party Member, but not all of them. There are a good few examples from each general election where an individual has clearly done better than his party because he is popular and, perhaps more often, an individual has done worse than his party because he is not popular or he has committed some misdemeanour of which the electorate do not approve. The first-past-the-post seats are entirely different. The arguments for the British tradition are ones on which the Government cannot stand, because they have departed from the British tradition of first past the post. They want the principle of proportionality. I am giving them that principle. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60: Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hemphill, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Holderness, L.

Beloff, L.

Home, E.

Belstead, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Berners, B.

Jopling, L.

Biddulph, L.

Knights, L.

Blaker, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. [Teller.]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleridge, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountevans, L.

Donegall, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Gainford, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

299

Rees, L.

Strange, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Tebbit, L.

Roberts of Conwy. L.

Thomas of Gwydir. L.

Rotherwick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Vivian, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Waddington, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wakeham, L.

Sempill, L.

Warnock, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Amos, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Berkeley, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Borrie, L.

Ludford, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Burlison, L.

Calverley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carlisle, E.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNally, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Maddock, B.

Chorley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dholakia, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Nathan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Newby, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dubs, L.

Orme, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gallacher, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Geraint, L.

Rea, L.

Gilbert, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goodhart, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hacking, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hardie, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hayman, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hooson, L.

Taverne, L.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thurso, V.

Jacobs, L.

Tordoff, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

300

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Whitty, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
Clause 9 [Electoral region seats]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 19:
Page 6, line 10, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 11.
Page 6, line 15, leave out ("that list") and insert ("the same list as the last person to occupy the vacant seat").
Page 6, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 34.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power to make provision about elections etc.]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) for the printing of two ballot papers at an election to enable an elector to cast his constituency vote and to cast his electoral region vote separately,
( ) for the ballot paper for his electoral region vote to display upon its face the lists of candidates for each registered political party and the names of each individual candidate under section 4(3),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to move this amendment formally, though as a result of the Division that took place earlier I cannot press it. The previous Division, which appears to have been supported by 90 more Conservative Peers than the last Division, was for the replacement of two votes with a single vote.
I feel as though I have been defeated by the Association of Conservative Peers' Garden Party, which has clearly now started. I am sure that the people of Wales will be interested to know that 90 did not turn up for the second Division this afternoon. I cannot pursue this matter at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this amendment. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has been in communication with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the question of ballot papers and the high degree of importance that we attach to this matter. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will give some indication of the Government's position on this question.
I say this without, I hope, striking any false note. We have consistently supported the Government on this Bill. I hope that they will prove that they are a listening

301
government as they constantly say they are. But I want to leave them in no doubt that, given the fact that they are to produce an affirmative resolution at some stage in both Houses dealing with this question, there is absolute certainty that we will vote against the affirmative resolution if the matter is not resolved.
We take the view that it is totally undesirable and improper to have a ballot paper giving no indication of the names of candidates. We take this matter extremely seriously and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will understand that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says and will not trespass on the time of the House for more than a few moments.
The noble Lord is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I have been in correspondence. I said that we have an open mind because our present view is that, to have an unwieldy ballot paper may be undesirable as long as one has proper publicity immediately outside the polling booth for the list. I recognise that there are different views on that.
The noble Lord is correct in that there will be an affirmative resolution procedure, as provided for within the Bill at present. I do nothing more therefore than refer, for the sake of the record, to Clause 12.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made it perfectly plain that he and his colleagues view this matter seriously. I hope that I have indicated, in correspondence with him on other matters and the amendments I tabled to deal with the point he raised on earlier occasions, that we are open to rational argument. One always has rational argument from at least one section of your Lordships' House.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful for the attention the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given to the correspondence we exchanged on this topic and for his acknowledgement that the Government take the issue seriously, as does our entire party. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 16 [Salaries and allowances]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is linked with Amendment No. 23 which raises a similar point. Incidentally, it was raised at Report stage when the Minister said that he would like to consider it, without commitment, and I therefore withdrew the amendment.
It is a plain case. Clause 16 deals with salaries and allowances. Subsection (1) says,
"The Assembly shall pay to Assembly members salaries",
of the assembly's choice. Subsection (2) says that the assembly may pay allowances. Subsection (3) says that there may be different levels of salary. That is obviously
302
sensible because higher salaries would be commensurate with greater responsibility for those who hold executive positions in the assembly.
However, subsection (4) says,
"A determination or direction under this section may provide for different allowances for different cases".
The only thing that one can say about that is, "Of course it does". At Committee stage the Minister, in rejecting an amendment which in his view was not necessary, said, "It goes without saying". If anything goes without saying it is a provision that,
"A determination or direction under this section may provide for different allowances for different cases".
The only reason for this provision is that it is a variant which turns up time and again because it has got into a computer in Parliamentary Counsel's office. It is practically always unnecessary and particularly so in this case.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe is not in his place. I was going to quote the final words of his intervention on this matter. As he is not here and as his speech was extremely short, I shall quote almost all of it. He said,
"Indeed any provision where you could not make different allowances for different cases would surely need express legislation the other way".
One must remember that my noble friend is an eminent Queen's Counsel with specific expertise on statutory construction. He went on to say,
"If you could make only one allowance for different cases, you would have to award the same expenses allowance for the man who has travelled five miles as for the man who has travelled 50".
I was going to quote only the next two sentences, but I do so with enthusiasm:
"Not only is this unnecessary but it is totally fatuous. The sooner it is removed from the Government computer, the better".—[Official Report, 1/7/98; col. 729.]
I have no hesitation in commending this amendment to your Lordships. Unfortunately, we do not know what argument the Government have manufactured in resisting the amendment—if it is to be resisted—because the Minister merely said that he would like to consider it. I took that to mean, hopefully, that he would consider it favourably. But there is always an alternative explanation; namely, that he did not think that the amendment could be sensibly resisted, but he is having his arm twisted by those who control the computer. They warn him that terrible things can happen if he interferes with a computer. No doubt dark warnings were given about computer viruses and what might happen in the millennium. At any rate, I gather that, as he did not add his name to the amendment, it will be resisted and your Lordships will be all agog to know what has been thought up this time. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not that he needs my support, because I have studied Clauses 16 and 18 and the subsections to which he referred. They appear self-evidently superfluous. I am conscious of the fact that the Bill has grown since it has been in your Lordships' House. It came to us 135 pages in length and it is now 178 pages in length. If my

303
mathematics are correct, that is an increase of about a third. While we may be proud of some of the improvements we have made to the Bill, we would certainly not wish the Bill to include any superfluous verbiage.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, in supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I read two different implications in the clause; not only the one that the noble and learned Lord expressed, that it would mean paying the same allowance for someone to travel 50 miles as to travel 500 miles, but also that it would allow a different dinner allowance to be given to the First Secretary from that given to a mere back-bencher. I look forward to the Minister's response to that point.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the latter seems entirely reasonable to me. I do not think that the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, at Report stage is a good one. An allowance is an allowance per mile, not an allowance per 50 or 500 miles.
I have not had any warnings about the millennium from anyone who controls me, or seeks to, except that I have had the injunction and hope pressed upon me that we might actually finish the Government of Wales Bill before the millennium. I therefore remain reasonably hopeful.
I promised your Lordships, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we would look, without commitment, at these provisions. The context is pay, allowances and pensions. It is a quite sensitive context. We think it should be clear on the face of the Bill exactly what the powers of the Secretary of State and, in due course, the assembly, are, and that one can find that by reference to the Bill. We have not been overtaken by a computer. We have not been threatened by a computer virus. No disconsolate draftsman has threatened either the Solicitor-General or myself. We just think it sensible to have the provision there. This will be a cause of deep mortification and disappointment to the noble and learned Lord, for which I am personally sorry. But obdurate we remain, just in case anyone was going to suggest that we were ever obdurate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has gone back to the argument of the Solicitor-General; namely, it does not matter that it is unnecessary; on the contrary, there is positive virtue in saying what is unnecessary because it makes the situation plain, which I think was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
If we are really going to go on like this, the statute book will swell and swell. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentioned how the Bill has grown by well over the current rate of inflation. We really must seriously tackle this question of statutory inflation. It simply is not good enough to go on making these frivolous responses to weighty interventions. I particularly refer to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe.
Unfortunately, although cumulatively these points of drafting are highly important when it comes to inflationary verbiage in the statute book, they are not
304
suitable for a Division. It is only because of that—and out of consideration for the noble Lord the Chief Whip who has come in to listen— and not because I was in the least convinced by the Minister's response, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Pensions etc.]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—

CONCORDATS
(" . All concordats between a Minister of the Crown, or a Government Department, and the Assembly shall be laid before each House of Parliament:).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we last discussed the matter of concordats, to which this amendment relates, there was a fair measure of agreement in all parts of the House that concordats should be "open, clear and available for the public to read and to understand". I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for that precise form of words which appear in col. 764 of the Official Report on 1st July. I do not think that the Minister can properly object to our new clause—but of course we shall see—because it simply requires that every concordat shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It is clear that such documents will be laid before and agreed by the assembly. Therefore, the major objective of the new clause is to ensure that Parliament is informed of what is proposed by Ministers and civil servants.
In response to the comments that concordats must be flexible and not overly legalistic, we have dropped the subsection giving either House the power to annul. Your Lordships will recall that such a power was included in the new clause which we presented at Report stage. If a concordat is laid before both Houses, Members may take such action as parliamentary procedures allow in the case of documents formally laid.
There can be no doubt about the growing importance of concordats in the coming era of devolved government. They will provide the basis for co-operation between civil servants, whose first concern will be to serve the interests of their respective representative bodies and their executives in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and in England, too. England will be the biggest player and her Ministers will in effect take the lead in representing the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole when non-reserved devolved subjects such as agriculture, fisheries and, increasingly, environmental concerns become matters for European or international negotiation. There must be an agreed basis for such negotiation between the various parties involved in the government of different parts of the United Kingdom.
Devolutionary government will be different from the unitary government to which we have been accustomed. The concordat will be the substitute for the formal and informal understandings that have existed between departments of central government in Whitehall, Cardiff and Edinburgh. If such liaison continues, as indeed it must, its character will be defined in the various spheres

305
by concordat, which is essentially an interdepartmental agreement on how different areas of government will be approached within the United Kingdom context.
While we recognise the diversity of the concordats that will be evolved at different levels, as anticipated by the Government's helpful guidance notes on what they have in mind, we think it important that Parliament should at least be kept in the picture. We also respect the Government's wish that concordats should be non-statutory and flexible, so we are not asking for any specific parliamentary procedure other than that of laying these documents before both Houses.
The Government may say that some concordats may not be published on the grounds that publication might cause substantial harm, as described in the White Paper Your Right to Know: The Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. So be it. I am sure that the Government can devise means of informing Parliament that a concordat exists, but remain secret and confidential as regard its contents. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I support my noble friend and his amendment. We have just had an amendment rejected which will cause the Bill to be cluttered up with something which is wholly unnecessary, as we have heard, on the grounds that everything must be made clear. Here we are simply asking that, on the important question of the concordat, everything should be made clear to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, put a powerful case in Committee about the importance of concordats being presented to Parliament. The debates that we have had on the relationship of the assembly with Europe have emphasised the crucial importance of concordats. We shall return to that point in a later amendment so I need not pursue it now.
It has been made absolutely clear that the vital matter of the way in which the assembly will deal with European issues is to be covered by concordats. I can think of nothing more important for these Houses of Parliament and for the assembly. It is no good Ministers simply saying that all must be made transparent and that the concordats will be published somewhere. It will not be adequate if a summary is put in the Western Mail or some outside advertisement. Parliament is entitled to have these things. There is a very strong case indeed for concordats to be laid before both Houses so that we are fully aware of their contents. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has pointed out, I have expounded at length on the importance of concordats being clear and available as they change and that the public should be able to inspect them. I wait with interest to hear the Government's response.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that we have debated these matters at some length on two previous occasions. Your Lordships will forgive me if
306
I do not rehearse all the arguments. It seems to me that there are two points. The first is whether it is necessary or appropriate for the Bill to refer to concordats to give them some form of statutory backing, as the noble Lord's amendment suggests. We do not believe that it is necessary. The White Paper plainly sets out what we intended concordats to be. It was not proposed that they should be on a statutory footing. I reiterate what I said: it is intended that they should be open, clear and available for the public to understand.
I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The intention is not that it should simply be a summary in the Western Mail, but a public document. I do not believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, at the moment would cater for the exceptional circumstances; for instance, national security and a "substantial harm" test. I do not believe that that would be available within his present amendment. I recognise that that concerns a minority of cases and it is an example that was given to your Lordships on earlier occasions.
The second point is whether or not concordats should be subject to parliamentary procedures. In the case of this amendment, the requirement that the noble Lord identified is that they should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The concordats will be documents signed by the assembly and by the appropriate government departments. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, described them as "Relationships of government". I believe that that is a fair description. They are not going to regulate the relationship between the assembly and Parliament.
There are hosts of such documents signed by government departments every year ranging in importance from treaties and heads of agreement concluded with foreign governments to internal documents as, for instance, something like an accounting officer agreement between the Intervention Board and the Welsh Office or a memorandum of understanding between the Welsh Office and the Teacher Training Agency. I suspect that few of those are subject to a statutory requirement to be laid before Parliament as this amendment proposes.
I reiterate that we expect the concordats to be published, clear and fully available. Members of both Houses can ask Ministers in Westminster about concordats. Nothing is being hidden.
I agree with the thrust of what has been said by noble Lords. The concordats ought to be transparent. The real question between us is what mechanism one wants for that transparency and public awareness to be brought about. I do not believe that it is necessary that every concordat in every circumstance should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Some documents of relatively modest significance have been subject to that procedure. Therefore, we give undertakings about publication, public accessibility, clarity and transparency, but we do not believe that this is the way to bring all that about.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply. After all, it is a

307
minimal requirement that we are putting to the Government; namely, that,
"All concordats between a Minister of the Crown, or a Government Department and the Assembly shall be laid before each House of Parliament".
It is almost the equivalent of asking that copies of these concordats shall be put in the Library of both Houses. So it is very much a minimal requirement. It is asked of non-departmental public bodies that their reports should be presented to the House. It is a requirement of, let us say, the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and so on. Why cannot we have a similar requirement for these concordats? After all, they are instruments of government which will be fully known to the assembly. Presumably, it will have agreed to them. Why cannot these documents be made available to each House in a formal way, as requested in this new clause?
I understand the point that not all of them may be publishable because of the potential harm that publication might cause. In that event I doubt whether either the public or Members of Parliament would know of their existence. In any case if the Government wish to make their existence known I am sure that they could devise ways and means of informing Parliament that a concordat exists, but that it is confidential and cannot be published.
As I said, I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. I have no option but to test the opinion of the House on this very simple basic request.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 88.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Beloff, L.

Marlesford, L.

Biddulph, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blaker, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleridge, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Newall, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Donegall, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gisborough, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Savile, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Hothfield, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kenyon, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

308

Trefgarne, L.

Waddington, L.

Wakeham, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Orme, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gainsborough, E.

St. Davids, V.

Gallacher, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sewel, L.

Grantchester, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Simon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hacking, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.17 p.m.
Clause 31 [Consultation about governments legislative programme]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 20, after ("State") insert ("for Wales").
The noble Lord said: My lords, this group of amendments comprises Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 and 36 to 38. It may be convenient if I speak to them all now. Clause 31 provides for consultation with the assembly on the Government's legislative programme. Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28 make it plain that the consultation is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. Amendment No.26 explains that the

309
consultation process must include his personal attendance on at least one occasion per session for this purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised this matter previously with great moderation and skill. He invited the Government to think about this with care. We concluded that there was merit in the noble Lord's approach. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord on this matter.
We believe that in the context of the consultative obligation in Clause 31 it is right to specify that the Secretary of State for Wales should personally attend the assembly as part of the consultative process. Therefore, there will be one personal attendance by the Secretary of State for Wales on at least one occasion each session, albeit not in response to an assembly summons. I indicated previously that the Government believed that a "summons" relationship between the assembly and the Secretary of State for Wales was inappropriate. I hope that this amendment achieves what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has in mind.
As to Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 within this grouping, these go in the opposite direction to the amendments to Clause 31. There we have recognised the distinctive role of the Secretary of State for Wales as a channel of communication between the Government of the United Kingdom and the assembly because we have placed on the holder of that office a specific obligation to attend and participate in the assembly proceedings as I indicated a moment ago.
The amendments propose that any Secretary of State should be able to attend and participate in assembly plenary proceedings. That is wrong. It does not recognise the distinctive role and place of the Secretary of State for Wales in our proposals. The assembly committee could invite any Secretary of State to discuss matters of mutual concern; there is nothing in the Bill to preclude that. It is important that the Bill should clearly mark out the particular responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales with regard to dealings with the assembly. The amendments would undermine that and I ask that they are not pressed. In respect of my own Amendment No. 25, I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for tabling this amendment. On a number of occasions—at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—I have referred to what I regard as an essential feature of the assembly; namely, that there should be close communication between the assembly in Cardiff and the Westminster Parliament. The link person as far as I am concerned is the Secretary of State for Wales.
We ought not be in a position where the Secretary of State for Wales could say to the Cardiff assembly—as he could have done under the clause as originally drafted—"I do not believe it is necessary for me to come and talk to you at all". This is a great improvement.
310
I am grateful for the effort that has gone into the drafting of this amendment and for the principle that has been established.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in spite of the support that these amendments have now received from two notable lawyers, I ask whether Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28 are really necessary. In constitutional theory, statutory interpretation, and invariable statutory practice, there is only one Secretary of State. Any modern Secretary of State can act for any other, the one who is appropriate will act in the circumstances. Under these circumstances, without any question, it will be the Secretary of State for Wales. It is unnecessary to say so.
Later in the Bill there is repeated reference to "the Secretary of State". If, as we now hear in this group of amendments, that refers to the Secretary of State for Wales, that can only cause confusion and possibly give rise to argument.
As to Amendment No. 26, a different matter arises. That provides that the Secretary of State should attend and participate on at least one occasion in proceedings of the assembly relating to the legislative programme at Westminster. That seems to run counter to the spirit of the amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell; which was accepted by your Lordships, and which is now Clause 12(1)(e). It is very much in the spirit of devolution and subsidiarity—particularly of devolution—that the Secretary of State should be kept separate from the assembly. He can perfectly well correspond by telephone between Whitehall and Cardiff, and the postal service is reasonably reliable. It is quite unnecessary and undesirable to stipulate that he should attend on at least one occasion to explain the legislative programme. I hope that further consideration might be given to that.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my amendment, which is now incorporated in the Bill as Clause 12(1)(e), has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I entirely agree with everything that he said. What is being done here is curious. It is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should be the lead Minister in most matters in the relationship with the assembly. On the legislative programme, it is not clear to me that he is the most appropriate Minister. The Secretary of State for Wales is not the Minister in Cabinet normally responsible for devising the legislative programme or presiding over the Cabinet committee which decides on it.
It is a curious introduction that there is to be a debate held about what is to go into that legislative programme in the assembly with the participation of the Secretary of State. It is not clear when that debate is to take place. Is it to take place before the Queen's Speech so that it can influence the legislative programme? It is odd that before the Cabinet has decided on the legislative programme the Secretary of State should participate in a debate on the subject in the assembly. That raises all sorts of interesting issues.
I originally intended to intervene on another point. At the moment, my Clause 12(1)(e) is in the Bill. I suspect that another place will seek to remove it. I am entitled,

311
therefore, to refer to the arguments that I advanced previously. It would be pretty odd if the Secretary of State for Wales consulted with himself (as a member of the Cabinet) about the legislative programme in his role as first secretary of the assembly—that is, if he chose to occupy both offices, as apparently he intends.
Whether or not that is true—whether or not the Secretary of State is going to have such rather curious conversations with himself—I particularly draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 31(4). With this amendment inserted, that clause would read:
"does not require the Secretary of State for Wales 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".
In terms of conflict of interests, it is a bizarre proposition that the Secretary of State for Wales, wearing his hat as a member of the British Cabinet, should decide that there are considerations which make it inappropriate to consult with himself about any matters that should be brought before the assembly. It is an example of the nonsense that would be created if my provision was removed in another place—and then brought back to this place. We will get into a mess if the Secretary of State carries out these double duties. I hope that the Government will not seek to overturn the decision of this House on an earlier occasion.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lord is unfortunately reverting to his former self. His self of last week was an improvement on his self of the previous week. Now he is reverting to that argument again and denying the electorate of Wales such consultation. He is also denying my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Ron Davies, the right to make personal and political judgments about his own political career.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that when he was Secretary of State, he was continually consulting with himself about issues in relation to Wales. Those consultations took place entirely in private, within his own cranium, and were not subject to scrutiny by anyone.
We are in a new situation where the Secretary of State for Wales may, for a transitional period, be also the first secretary of the assembly, dependent entirely upon the political will of the people of Wales. It is high time that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, whom I greatly respect, gave up this argument.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He overlooks the fact that for every action I took as Secretary of State for Wales I was answerable to one Parliament, and, indeed, had to answer to that Parliament. My objection to what is being proposed here is that one individual will be answerable to two separate assemblies simultaneously. That will inevitably cause conflicts of interest which it may be impossible to resolve.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. As he knows well, publicly and privately, I am a great supporter and respecter of
312
what he achieved as Secretary of State. He was the greatest Secretary of State for Wales until Ron Davies. I stand by my view on those matters. I thought the other week that the noble Lord was putting himself in the same perspective when we talked about the Pathway to Prosperity. It seemed to me that he was asserting that he was the progenitor of many of those great things, and that there was a great consensus, apart from during the interregnum of the right honourable Member for Wokingham.
We will not go back over all those arguments, because that is not what I was going to talk about. I was going to talk about the fact that the views of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford have been accepted by the Government. I regret that the views I tried to put forward have not been accepted in full. At this late stage I am asking whether the consultations that are referred to, as the Secretary of State appears during his attendance to discuss the programme, might be two-way consultations. I invite the Minister to envisage a scenario where the Secretary of State presumably appears in a public plenary session of the assembly, a member of the assembly gets up to ask—in English or Welsh, it does not matter because both will be equally valid and translatable—"But why aren't you legislating on this matter which is of great concern to us in this assembly?" The Secretary of State will explain.
In that position the Secretary of State will have heard a proposal for legislation emanating from the assembly itself which is being passed on, as it were, to this Parliament. That is an issue about which I should like the Minister to think again. It makes eminent sense that there should be a cycle of responsibility and a full circle of communication on these matters. It should not be just a matter of the Secretary of State appearing and saying—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—"We have decided that there shall be this legislative programme from the point of view of the UK Cabinet". Surely there should be an opportunity also for the assembly to say, "But in our activity on delegated legislation, we have identified these issues which require primary legislation, and, will you, as Secretary of State take that on?" I am keen to establish that there is room here for a cycle of communication which would be helpful to the relationship between Parliament and the assembly, for which I believe that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has been seeking.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I seek an explanation of one or two points that arise from these amendments. May I have some clarification? Is it the effect of the Government's amendment that it is the Secretary of State for Wales alone who is involved in consultation about the Government's legislative programme under Clause 31? Because it would appear that if that is the case of course assembly men and women would be prevented from seeking consultation with another Secretary of State with more direct responsibility, perhaps, for a piece of legislation that interested assembly members. They might, for example, be interested in a piece of legislation not connected with the devolved field—a Home Office or Treasury measure with a special potential effect on Wales.

313
The question is whether the relevant Secretary of State would be debarred from attending the assembly to talk about such matters. There is the further question of whether the Secretary of State for Wales would be adequate to advise the assembly on such matters.
Until the Government's amendments, I think that I am right in saying that Clause 76 was the only one that referred to the Secretary of State for Wales. Our amendments to Clause 76 would allow any Secretary of State to attend and participate in the assembly's proceedings. It is conceivable, after all, that a situation could arise, as happened in the history of the Welsh Grand Committee, where a Minister, other than a Welsh Office Minister, would be called upon to participate in the proceedings. I understand from the Minister's last remarks that other Secretaries of State would not be debarred from approaching the assembly, or being approached by the assembly, and addressing it. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, surely the Secretary of State's role changes with the Bill. He is not just a member of the Cabinet, he is a conduit between the assembly and the Government. It is highly desirable that only the Secretary of State should be the conduit. It may well be that when approached by the assembly he would suggest that an approach should be made to another Minister. Surely it would then be open to the Secretary of State to authorise the other Minister, as the link man, to go to the assembly. I should have thought that that would rarely arise.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, used that classic Welsh phrase, "We will not go back into all those old arguments". No one is that lucky! I shall not go back into all the old arguments about the Ron Davies disenablement clause, because presently, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly pointed out, it is part of the Bill. I shall attend to the points put originally by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, expanded today by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
In response to the propositions which were argued by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, our intention is that it shall be the Secretary of State for Wales—the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is right—who is to be the conduit between Westminster and the assembly. To make that plain, we have suggested Amendment No. 25—that once per year obligation should rest on and should devolve to the Secretary of State for Wales, and the Secretary of State for Wales alone. His duty is to consult about the Government's legislative programme. That is not therefore an entry upon a white horse preceded by trumpeters and a convenient diktat; it is consultation. That will of course develop in an organic way, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has pointed out on many previous occasions.
It is right of course that there may be some Bills which have to do only with England and which are of no interest, or relevance, or connection with Wales or the assembly. Clause 31(4) deals with that situation: the Secretary of State for Wales is not required to undertake
314
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. One could think of many examples which have nothing to do with Wales at all, and which may have just to do with England or a limited part of England. We intend it to be the Secretary of State for Wales, which is why we wanted to make it plain.
I shall turn now to one or two wider questions, including the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. Clause 33 allows the assembly to consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting Wales; and that includes the opportunity to make representations about its views on the Government's legislative programme to any person, including any other Secretary of State other than the Secretary of State for Wales.
We have tried to meet the argument put forward—we thought that it had validity and value—so that there will be this obligation once a session on the Secretary of State to undertake consultation by attendance and participation. I know the virtues of the telephone, the fax and even the postcard. But we do not think that that treats the assembly in a decent, respectful way. It will be an assembly of value, entitled to proper respect, not just a postcard. Therefore, we think it reasonable, having considered with some care the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and others, that the requirement should be the attendance and participation of the Secretary of State for Wales alone.
If another Secretary of State or Minister wishes to attend the assembly, and the assembly wishes to make those arrangements, that is entirely for the assembly to decide when it has come to its conclusions about what its standing orders should or should not say. Therefore, I shall not be drawn into the argument on whether or not a particular Secretary of State will suffer from incipient schizophrenia. I have to rely on the Bill as amended in its drafting by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
Perhaps this is an object lesson: never try to be helpful; and never listen to anyone's arguments. I think that we have a perfectly sensible, reasonable, workable scheme. Doubters there may be, but they do not persuade me.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he be good enough to deal with the argument, such as it is, that in well established constitutional and statutory law there is only one Secretary of State, and it is always the Secretary of State who is referred to; and whoever is most suitable among the various Secretaries of State responds to the task? If that is so, it would meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts; namely, that there may be in some cases some more suitable Secretary of State to attend than possibly the Secretary of State for Wales who in any case answers to the description of the secretary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand the noble and learned Lord's point, but we are dealing with a specific limitation which is intended to be the limitation to the Secretary of State for Wales. It is the Secretary of State for Wales—not for Northern Ireland,

315
for Defence and not even the revered Secretary of State for Home Affairs—who is to go down to Cardiff to the assembly and have this attendance and participation. That is what we intend. That is why we have drafted the Bill in this way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 20, line 22, at end insert ("but including attending and participating in proceedings of the Assembly relating to the programme on at least one occasion.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 20, line 32, after ("State") insert ("for Wales").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 20, line 34, after ("State") insert ("for Wales").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—

CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION OF ASSEMBLY IN RELATION TO COUNCIL OF MINISTERS MEETINGS
(" .—(1) Before any Minister of the Crown attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which consideration is to be given to any issue relating to functions which have been transferred to the Assembly, the Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly and seek its views on that issue.
(2) When a Minister of the Crown attends such a meeting of the Council of Ministers, he may permit a member of the executive committee of the Assembly to attend with and participate in the United Kingdom delegation.
(3) Following such a meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Secretary of State shall report the proceedings of that meeting to the Assembly and answer any questions that Assembly members may have.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this new clause rather late on the second day in Committee. The basic issues have been touched on in other debates, such as the debate on agriculture on the first day on Report. I am prepared to accept the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General on 2nd June, reported at col. 312 of the Official Report. He stated:
"The starting point is that the UK is the member of the EU. The UK can choose who is the most appropriate person to speak … on behalf of the UK, in the Council of Ministers. The UK could choose to have as its representative a secretary from the Welsh assembly".
The noble and learned Lord went on to say that such a person would be in a parallel position to that in which I found myself when speaking occasionally on behalf of the United Kingdom. That part I do not accept. I was a Minister in the United Kingdom Government, while the assembly secretary would not be. I was answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament while the assembly secretary would not be. There are other consequential differences but I shall not pursue them.
However, it is worth noting that we have been able to establish in the course of our discussions that attendances in a leading role by non-central government Ministers at the Council of Ministers have been limited to attendances by a representative of the Land Government of Bavaria and the Government of Catalonia to participate in discussions on cultural and linguistic issues. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was a Minister in the Scottish Office, attended as a United Kingdom Minister with a brief to represent the interests of the United Kingdom fisheries. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, was in a similar position. He described it clearly during Second Reading of the Scotland Bill.
Our discussions on such matters have tended to obscure the fact that these issues are peripheral to the conduct of business at the Council of Ministers where the lead is normally taken on behalf of the United Kingdom by the relevant United Kingdom Minister. That is the usual practice when important issues are at stake. In our view, that practice is unlikely to change substantially after the assembly has come into being. There may be occasions when an assembly secretary may attend the Council of Ministers with the agreement of the leading UK Minister, and theoretically he or she may participate in negotiations, but in our view such participation will be a rarity rather than a common practice.
The procedures before and at negotiations are likely to be similar to those described by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on the second day in Committee when we discussed the new clause. If we are to ensure that the best interests of Wales are served, in agriculture for example, we urge the Government to accept the new clause. It gives the Secretary of State for Wales a well defined role in consulting the assembly prior to important negotiations at the Council of Ministers, and in reporting to the assembly on the outcome of the negotiations.
That would not debar the assembly from taking any supplementary action it feels necessary. The assembly secretary could still attend a Council of Ministers meeting at the invitation of the leading UK Minister. We believe the involvement of the Secretary of State is important because he is a Member of the United Kingdom Government and on a similar footing to the lead Minister. He will be able to safeguard Welsh interests in a way that the United Kingdom Minister is under no obligation to do. Welsh interests will be the paramount consideration of the Secretary of State for Wales.
We are all aware of the great changes facing the European Union and the important developments ahead in many areas of policy. It is clearly important that Wales should have its input into those changes, and that can best be achieved through the United Kingdom Government who will have their own perspective on them. Welsh views will have to be incorporated in the

317
perspective. Who would be better placed to ensure a favourable outcome than the Secretary of State acting on the advice of the assembly? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I wish to pose a question to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. We are dealing with three subsections in a new clause concerning the responsibilities and authority which will be in the hands of the Welsh assembly; the functions for which it will be responsible. It is inconceivable that any Minister of the Crown would enter into any discussions, particularly with the Council of Ministers, without keeping in close contact with the assembly, its officers, its leader and the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not believe that the clause is required in order to place such an obligation on a Minister of the Crown who could never be in a position of entering into discussions and reaching conclusions on matters which have already been given to the assembly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have discussed this amendment on two previous occasions. Two separate issues are involved. Subsections (1) and (3) put the Secretary of State as an intermediary between government and the assembly on policy discussions with European partners. He is to consult the assembly and then report back on what has transpired. That is not what we propose. The position of the Secretary of State as nanny, to coin a phrase, would be enshrined in statute. That is not the arrangement we seek.
We look to the assembly to play a direct role. It is not appropriate that the Bill should attempt to delineate that role by prescribing exactly how there are to be discussions between the assembly on European Union matters in the United Kingdom and European institutions. We believe that they can be handled on an administrative basis where necessary through concordats.
The assembly is to be involved in discussions which decide the UK negotiating line on proposals for EU legislation; for instance, on agriculture and environmental issues. There will need to be close liaison between the assembly and government departments, but we believe that the assembly itself ought to be carrying out conversations and discussions with government departments rather than giving in subsection (1) an intermediary role to the Secretary of State. I should make it plain that the intention is that the assembly should deal directly with relevant government departments on these European matters. We anticipate the same arrangements for the Scottish executive.
I turn to the somewhat different question of whether the assembly secretaries should form part of the United Kingdom delegation at the Council of Ministers' meetings. We do not believe that we need to interpose the Secretary of State, as suggested in subsection (3). We discussed the question of representation at length and on 9th July I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and placed a copy in the Library. We believe that assembly secretaries ought to be able to participate in policy negotiations, but subject to the agreement of the lead United Kingdom Minister. We
318
disagree as to whether it is necessary for the Bill to make provision for that. We do not believe that we need to make provision in the Bill. If an assembly secretary joins the UK delegation he would have to adhere to the UK-agreed line. I am not entirely certain from subsection (2) of the amendment whether the noble Lord intends that "participate" should include speaking or voting. That is not plain to me.
In the letter to which I referred, I replied to the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on 1st July. It is plain that assembly secretaries can speak on behalf of the United Kingdom only with authority from the United Kingdom Government. I do not believe that there is any disagreement between us there. I sympathise with the motives behind the amendment—
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He referred to the letter that he wrote to me. I would have intervened earlier, but I confess that I temporarily mislaid the letter. I am grateful to him for confirming in the letter that in practice, in relation to the major issues such as agriculture, industry and the environment, representation of United Kingdom interests will almost invariably be made by a UK Minister. It will be on other matters that from time to time an assembly minister may speak. That emphasises the importance of having an adequate system of communication and consultation, which is the subject of the amendment.
I wish to ask the Minister a particular point, because he misrepresents the position in his letter. I asked about the right under the treaty for a representative who is not a Minister to speak. The Minister said that anyone who was authorised to commit the Government could represent. I must refer him to the words of the treaty. It states that the council shall consist of a representative of each member state "at ministerial level" authorised to commit the Government. What puzzles me is how an assembly member could be described as a representative "at ministerial level". I should be grateful for a response to that precise question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not see the difference or the distinction between the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that representatives of the German Länder, for instance, by definition would not necessarily be members of the Federal Government in Germany and the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that representatives of Catalonia are not ministers in the central Spanish Government but of provincial assemblies, and I use that word without disparagement. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Lord's point is a good one.
As I was about to say, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is seeking to achieve. However, conscientiously responding to the spirit of his proposal, I say that we do not believe that the Secretary of State should have this intermediary role. We believe that the Secretary of State should be on one side when one is having negotiations and discussions between the assembly, other

319
government departments and other institutions. Therefore, we believe that to introduce or to re-introduce the Secretary of State to what is in this context the domestic jurisdiction of the assembly, then extending into the European context, is not the way to do it. We believe that the right way is concordats and sensible working arrangements between the assembly and other government departments.
I stress that we have not dismissed the issue, but we believe that although our objective is not entirely dissimilar the way of reaching it is different. I hope that having explained the Government's position, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am afraid that there is a major difference between us in that we still believe that the Secretary of State has a very important role to play. He will be on the same footing as the lead United Kingdom Minister in most negotiations that take place in Europe.
The other factor which affects our view of the matter is the enormity of the problems which are facing us in Europe and the discussions which will take place.
With all due respect to the assembly, it will be very much a novel body when it is established as a result of the elections next May. I doubt whether it will be able to develop the expertise required to oversee the negotiations which will decide much of the future of Welsh agriculture and other aspects of Welsh life. There are extremely important issues arising for discussion in Europe, as we all know. It seems to me that we should have a Secretary of State in charge of those negotiations.
7 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it seems a very strange argument. Is the noble Lord suggesting that Conservative candidates who might be elected to the national assembly would not understand the CAP?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I do not believe that any of the candidates for the assembly of whom I am aware have had any experience whatever of European negotiations. I am not speaking about Conservative candidates. I am thinking of all the other candidates of whom I know to date. I am sure that in due course they may well acquire sufficient experience. However, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will know of the extremely important, crucial discussions which will be taking place in Europe in the not too distant future.
The Government's view is that the assembly should take full responsibility for those discussions, albeit under the leadership of a UK Minister. I wish the assembly well. But I should feel safer about the outcome being favourable to Wales if those matters were the responsibility of the Secretary of State. There is a difference between us which I am sure will persist. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Different exercise of functions by Assembly]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 23, line 39, after ("section") insert ("and sections 43 and 45").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 31, 32, which is not perhaps quite on a par with the others, and 33. This group of amendments is exactly parallel with the others which the Minister moved earlier and to which I put my name which resulted in some economy in the statute.
Clause 42 ends:
"In this section 'enactment' includes an enactment … (a) contained in an Act passed after this Act, or (b) made after the passing of this Act".
Clause 43, to which Amendment No. 31 relates, is in exactly the same terms. It states:
"In this section 'enactment' includes an enactment",
and so on. So it is in Clause 45(4)(b) which states:
"'enactment' includes an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act or made after passing of this Act".
That is exactly the same but expresses it more succinctly.
The amendment seeks to provide in Clause 42(6):
"In this section and sections 43 and 45 'enactment' includes",
and so on. That enables one to omit the other provisions in Clauses 43 and 45 which are referred to. Up to that point it is absolutely clear. There is a mere repetition in the subsequent clauses and all one has to do is to refer to those clauses the first time it occurs. That is exactly what was done by the Government in relation to the earlier amendments.
I sought from the noble and learned Lord an assurance that the Government would accept this group of amendments because, as I suggest, they are exactly comparable with the earlier amendments. However, he said that the Government were not prepared to do so and so far as my aged and unagile mind managed to pick up the argument on the hoof, so to speak, I believe that he was referring to Clause 155. That provides:
"'enactment' includes subordinate legislation".
The important matter is that in each of the provisions that I have cited, including Clause 155, the crucial word is "includes". It does not say "means" which the draftsman sometimes uses in an interpretation clause. Therefore, there is absolutely no inconsistency between Clause 155 and the earlier clauses to which I referred.
Moreover, if there were anything in the point about Clause 155, it would apply equally to Clauses 42 onwards to which I have referred. Therefore, I fear that there is nothing whatever in that point. It is most unfortunate that Third Reading is following so quickly on the Report stage. There has been only the minimum of three clear sitting days and one was a Friday. Therefore, the Minister had no opportunity to answer my query on the point. If he had, I should have been reasonably confident of convincing him. In fact, I do not despair of it, even at this stage.
As your Lordships know, every brief for an amendment ends either "accept" or "consider" or, all too frequently, "reject". It is perfectly obvious from what the noble and learned Lord, said earlier that his brief ends "reject". But I would venture to remind him that he and not the draftsman of the brief is in charge of the amendment. I call to his attention the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he was a Home Office Minister. An amendment was moved to a Home Office Bill relating to touting. There was already a provision relating to touts operating outside football grounds where the mischief was established. The amendment sought to extend that to touts working outside Wimbledon. The noble Earl read through his brief, which was obviously going to end with the word "reject"; but, to everyone's surprise, he contradicted it by saying: "My Lords, I accept the amendment". I commend that course to the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for proposing that the definitions of "enactment" in Clauses 42, 43 and 45 could be brought together in one place. Unfortunately, I do not think that the method he has chosen for doing so is necessarily a sensible way to deal with the matter. I concede straightaway that the amendments of the noble and learned Lord stand up as a matter of law; indeed, they would achieve the effect that he wishes them to achieve. However, if this House were to accept the amendments, there is a risk that future users of the legislation may be misled.
The noble and learned Lord's amendments would have the result that the word "enactment" for the purposes of Clauses 42, 43 and 45 would be defined in Clause 42 as including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act or made after the passing of this Act. But someone looking at Clause 43 or Clause 45 in isolation, without the benefit of a legal textbook to assist him or her, might most naturally turn to the list of defined expressions in Clause 155 and mistakenly assume that the definition of "enactment" in Clause 155(1)—which says that enactment "includes subordinate legislation"—was the end of the matter.
Therefore, the point here—and it is perfectly good one—is that, if you take the special definition and put it into Clause 42, when people look at Clause 43 and see the same word they will turn to the definition section instead of going back to Clause 42. The noble and learned Lord's answer to that is to say that there is no problem because there is no necessary inconsistency between the definition of "enactment" in Clause 155(1) and the definition of the word which is to be put into Clause 42. That is right. There is no necessary inconsistency. However, they are different, and they seek to make different points.
If, as the noble and learned Lord suggests, we encapsulate the extended definition only in Clause 42, the reader of the Bill who only turns to the main definition section will not get the broader definition contained in Clause 42. Therefore, the whole point would be lost. It is worth emphasising that some of the
322
people who will be reading the legislation will not, so to speak, be the most distinguished Law Lords of their generation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I fear that that is not the best argument of the noble and learned Lord. However, it is also fair to say that it is not the worst. We still have to come to his arguments, which are mutually inconsistent, on the phrase,
"with the consent of the Treasury".
In so far as there was anything at all in the noble and learned Lord's point on Clause 155, that would apply just as much to the Bill as it is drafted; indeed, it is not an inconsistency, but a difference of wording as to the inclusion. It certainly would be different under my amendment from Clause 42. However, in exactly the same way, it is inconsistent or cannot be easily read with Clauses 42, 43 and 45 as drafted.
I also said something about Clause 44. I had thought that the point was a little more arguable now. I would have asked the Government to accept my amendment to that clause and, if it needed adjustment, I would have asked them to adjust it when the Bill returns to the other place, which is where it must go. However, as the noble and learned Lord has set his face against my amendments, it would not have been worth my while to make that point. Nevertheless, I emphasise that if you stop at Clauses 42, 43 and 45, the situation would be exactly comparable to the earlier amendments and would result in a considerable saving.
In so far as Clause 155 has any relevance, it is equally relevant to the Bill as drafted. As I said earlier, however exasperating the Government's response may be, these drafting points are not really suitable for a Division. Therefore, solely on that ground, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Construction of references to Ministers and departments]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Parliamentary procedures for subordinate legislation]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Laying of reports and statements]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 56 [Executive committee]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 28, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) No Minister of the Crown shall be a member of the executive committee.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords may wonder why we are returning to this amendment, which would prevent a Minister of the Crown from becoming a member of the Welsh executive, when we have already carried an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell which will prevent a Minister of the Crown becoming a member of the assembly.
The amendment now before us is a narrower one upon which I have consulted the authorities of your Lordships' House. I am told that there is no reason why we should not present the other place with a choice of amendments. Of course, if the other place accepts my noble friend's amendment, the amendment now before us will fall as the question of a Minister of the Crown becoming a member of the assembly executive will not arise. Indeed, there will be no such persons in the assembly to be chosen for the executive. However, if the other place rejects my noble friend's amendment, it can consider the one now before the House.
During our debate on the first day of the Report stage on 1st July, I set out the case for the amendment. I pointed out then that, although there appeared to be little objection to dual membership of representative institutions such as this Parliament and the assembly, the position was different when the member concerned was a Minister of the Crown whose first allegiance was to the UK Government. Indeed, I pointed out that that might well be in conflict with the assembly's executive of which he could also be a member.
Our contention is that a Minister of the Crown cannot serve two masters: he cannot be loyal to the UK Government with their principle of collective responsibility and to the executive of the Welsh assembly, which will operate on similar principle and on similar lines. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the question of British Ministers acting for the European Union during our recent presidency while remaining loyal to the Crown. I believe that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith gave the right answer when he said that the European parallel was incorrect and that the most apposite comparison in terms of the amendment was the problematic situation which would arise if a British Minister were to become a European Commissioner. That situation has never been allowed to happen because it has always been understood where the loyalties of Ministers and Commissioners lie.
We are not addressing a hypothetical issue here. The Secretary of State for Wales has let it be known that he may well stand for membership of the Welsh assembly and indeed seek to become its first secretary. The possibility was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General during our Second Reading debate on 21st April when he said,
"The Bill does not prevent one person being both assembly first secretary and Secretary of State for Wales".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1134.]
The noble and learned Lord went on to describe in effect how that might be brought about.
I contend that such a development would make a nonsense of these devolution proposals. The essence of this Bill is the transfer of functions from the Secretary of State to the assembly under Clause 22. The assembly first secretary under Clause 56(6) is accountable to the assembly,
"for the exercise of functions by the executive committee"
which he chairs. There are some functions which may be reserved by the assembly for itself, but the first secretary's functions are substantial. We are therefore faced with a constitutional contradiction, circumvention,
324
illusion, legerdemain—I do not know which word is the most appropriate. It is quite clear that if both positions are held by the same person, we shall witness the Secretary of State giving powers with one hand and taking them back, as assembly first secretary, with the other. That is a constitutional nonsense. It is hocus-pocus of the worst order.
I cannot believe it was in anyone's mind when this Bill was drafted that the post of first secretary would be held by the Secretary of State; otherwise, we have all been hoodwinked. There are a number of clauses where the Secretary of State or a Minister acts independently of the assembly and intervenes on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, as, for example, when the assembly takes action contrary to United Kingdom treaty obligations, or in cross-border areas where English electors not represented in the assembly may feel aggrieved. Therefore it is hard to see the Secretary of State acting against himself as first secretary. There have been other instances referred to earlier today by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
This situation whereby the Secretary of State may stand for the assembly and become first secretary is a comparatively recent development. We are told that it is inspired by the Secretary of State's desire to see the assembly firmly set up and running. We are also told that holding the two positions will be a temporary transitional phase lasting no more than a few months. Your Lordships may agree with me that the implementation of an Act of Parliament should not, and does not, depend on individual Ministers, however high the office they hold. I think the Secretary of State's mind can be put at rest with a clear assertion that Parliament's will will be done irrespective of persons and who holds particular offices. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, continually speaks against himself. I think the rhyme goes,
"Hocus-pocus, I am a diplo-docus".
I nominate him for the diplo-docus award for repeating this debate. When he argues that the implementation of an Act of Parliament should not relate to the position of an individual Minister, it seems to me that the tactic of the Conservative Opposition on this matter is entirely to do with a political campaign they are running against Mr. Ron Davies, my right honourable friend in another place. Clearly I have no brief to defend Mr. Ron Davies. I have no cause to defend the right honourable leader of my party, Mr. Dafydd Wigley. However, I have cause to try to prevent the Conservative Party once again from shooting itself in its foot and in its mouth. Either it wants to see this new creation, the National Assembly for Wales, work, or it does not. Either it participates actively as a Conservative Party to seek representation in that body, or it does not.
It seems to me that the main interest of the Conservative Party is to try to run a political campaign to undermine the structure of the assembly and the transitional period. Why is the noble Lord arguing—as he did in the previous debate—that there are no experts in Wales who understand how to negotiate agricultural matters in the European Union, or any other matter?

325
Apparently none of us in Wales has any information or knowledge about European policies, regional policies, structural funds, or whatever, that is appropriate to the assembly. Yet at the same time he is saying that no Minister of the Crown should be in the assembly. On the one hand he is saying that there is no expertise but on the other hand he is saying where there is expertise it should not be put at the disposal of the assembly.
Let us take a case other than the Secretary of State. Let us take the hypothetical case of Mr. Win Griffiths, an excellent and able environment Minister in the Welsh Office. What if he were to stand for the assembly—I understand that he will not do so—as a Minister of the Crown? He is a parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Welsh Office. Why should he be prevented from doing that?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I understood he was a Minister of the Crown. However, I am now told he is not. I assumed he was, as he is a parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Lord Crickhowell: He is!
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, he is a Minister of the Crown. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I shall continue my argument without being interrupted by a representative of the English regions. Let us take the case of Mr. Win Griffiths, an environment Minister in the Welsh Office. He is a knowledgeable and able Minister with European experience as he was formerly an MEP. What is to prevent him from becoming a Minister in the assembly? This amendment would prevent that. The noble Lord would do us all a great service—it would mean we could get to the BBC Wales current affairs party earlier rather than later—if he were to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I must apologise for not having been in the House when my noble friend began to speak to his amendment. Having spoken at some length on earlier occasions, I had not intended to intervene again on this subject. However, I cannot allow the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to get away with what he has just said.
To begin with, I deny absolutely that there has been any campaign against Mr. Ron Davies personally. Indeed I went out of my way on a previous occasion to make clear that I followed no such campaign. A curiosity of the debates that we have had on this occasion is the ferocious way in which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has on each occasion defended Mr. Ron Davies, for whom he seems to have an extraordinary personal loyalty at this time. I hope in due course he is thrown a bone or two and is rewarded for that devotion.
This is a matter of pretty important principle. My objection to what is being proposed, quite apart from the issues of constitutional propriety and the impossibility,
326
I believe, of holding these offices without a grave conflict of interest, is that I regard it as totally insulting to the people of Wales to be told that Ministers should hold this dual office and therefore ensure that far from being an independent assembly able to act as it thinks fit for the people of Wales, it will be dictated to and obliged to conform to the government agenda laid down by Cabinet. That, of course, is the reality of the matter if one has a dual agenda of this kind.
The noble Lord is talking nonsense when he says that we are preventing the distinguished public servants to whom he has referred—I grant those able Welsh Ministers their ability—from standing for the assembly or being Ministers in the assembly. We are not doing anything of the kind. They can stand down as Ministers of the Crown and stand for office in the assembly. I am not like those on the Liberal Benches who have argued against a dual mandate; I welcome a dual mandate. I think there is much to be said for a dual mandate and to have people sitting in the House of Commons who are also sitting in the assembly and perhaps in Europe too. I have nothing against that. However, I am against any Minister holding a dual ministerial mandate. I believe that to be improper and an extraordinary curtailment of the freedom and independence that this assembly should have.
I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord, whom I respect for his belief in the importance of the assembly, believes that the kind of control from the centre that would be inevitable if we have this structure is defendable and acceptable. It is a nonsensical proposition. I strongly support my noble friend in the arguments that he has advanced. If we are to have this assembly, I want more than anything for it to be strong, free and independent.
The noble Lord again advanced the absurd argument that that would be necessary in the transitional period; otherwise the poor, inexperienced assembly members (if ever there was an insulting comment) would not be able to govern Wales. The reality is that the whole Welsh Office will be behind them, still serving the assembly. Indeed, experienced people will be there, such as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who has been around quite long enough to look after himself and the work of the assembly. My noble friend is right that there will be certain functions that those people have not undertaken. They will not have negotiated in Europe. But assembly representatives and secretaries will not negotiate on important issues in Europe anyway. Noble Lords do not have to take my word for it. I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, telling me that he agrees exactly, and that it will be in only a minority of cases, and in particular circumstances, that they will be likely to negotiate in Europe. The House should firmly support this proposition and reject the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the decibels have been rising, as in the male voice choir competition at the Llangollen international eisteddfod last Saturday afternoon, at which the noble Lord was present. We should approach this matter calmly and rationally. As

327
the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell said, we on these Benches are in principle against the dual mandate extending far into the future. As my noble friend Lord Hooson said when he spoke on this topic at an earlier stage, we see advantages in having experienced people in position for the assembly's first term. Accordingly, it is perhaps better to have the acerbics whom one knows in the Labour Party taking charge to start with than those one does not know. It may well be that experienced Ministers can play a part at the beginning of the period of office. But after that, when experience has been gained, whether in Europe or elsewhere, of how the assembly works, it is our view in principle that after the first term there should be no dual mandate and that Ministers of the Crown should not be involved in the workings of the Welsh assembly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have listened with care to the previous remarks. My background makes me rather reluctant to accept the proposal in the Bill as it stands. We should be creating a precedent which could be used in other parts of the United Kingdom. What would there be to stop somebody coming up with the idea that a Minister could be the Lord Mayor of London? In terms of population, London is at least four times larger than Wales. What would be wrong in somebody claiming that? Why is the privilege merely for Wales? When the English regional bodies are brought into being, although they will not be elected, quite a number of them will represent a larger population—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, will my noble friend consider that such a system seems to work well enough in Paris? If it works in Paris, it could probably work in Cardiff, Leeds or Manchester.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am not talking about Manchester; I am talking about the proposal for Wales. The case that is being made; namely that total experience is available, is pretty thin. Some years ago, a Conservative, against all the wishes of people in the hinterland, decided to form metropolitan corporations. Some of the areas they covered were larger than Wales in population terms, but they were not run on a "dual purpose" basis. The elected members made the policy and those authorities were soon manned by people with adequate training from other authorities under the political guidance of the parties that happened to win the elections.
There is no need for the system of dual responsibility that is suggested. It would be to embark on a slippery slope. I am not prepared to say that I shall vote for the proposal. However, I offer words of caution: this would be a difficult and dangerous precedent to set. We cannot suddenly take one part of the United Kingdom and say that it is different—other than Northern Ireland, where the situation has to be catered for differently. I should not like to see any Minister, whoever he is, running an authority such as the assembly or the new Scottish parliament. That is alien to our beliefs. There could be a clash of interest. My view is that it should be left alone.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, given that your Lordships have already amended Clause 12 of the
328
Bill to provide that a Minister of the Crown is disqualified from membership of the assembly, this new amendment is wholly unnecessary, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conway, acknowledges. If such a person cannot be a member of the assembly, neither can he be a member of the executive committee. However, I understand from the noble Lord's remarks in moving the amendment that he wants to provide a menu to the Commons from which they can select, even though the items may be unnecessary and even inconsistent. The amendment is unnecessary.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, however, to deal with the substance of the matter. It is said that a clear conflict of interest would arise for a person who was simultaneously a Minister of the Crown and a member of the executive committee. Accepting that argument for the purposes of the debate, does it follow that a provision is required in the Bill to deal with it? We believe it does not.
I invite your Lordships to consider the position from the point of view of the Prime Minister of the day. He or she will be free to recommend for appointment as a Minister of the Crown any Member of Parliament. In so doing, he or she will have as the primary consideration whether the potential appointee is best placed to do the job, both individually and as a Member of the Government as a whole. If the Prime Minister takes the view that a particular person, already serving as an assembly secretary, is the best appointee also to be a Minister of the Crown, I do not see that it is our place, by a provision in this Bill, to deny the Prime Minister that choice.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, we have now had the clearest declaration of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to move to a presidential, rather than a parliamentary, system of government that I have ever heard from Benches in this House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I could not disagree more. I should have thought that it is an established part of our constitution that the Prime Minister of the day is entitled to pick his or her Ministers from Members of Parliament, whether in this House or the other place. To suggest that that basic constitutional principle equals moving to a presidential system is wrong. The Prime Minister will be accountable for his nomination, and will, if necessary, have to defend it—that is the proper constitutional way.
Let us consider then the situation from the assembly's standpoint. If the assembly is content to have as a member of the executive committee someone who is already a Minister of the Crown, or if it is content to retain as an assembly secretary someone who is subsequently appointed as a Minister of the Crown, why should your Lordships seek to deny that by amendment to the Bill? The assembly—a mature, democratic body accountable to its electorate—will have taken such decisions in full knowledge of the competing pressures to which, under the noble Lord's scenario, the individual will inevitably be subject. If the assembly decides that the benefits of the arrangement outweigh the disadvantages, that, I suggest, is an assessment which it should be permitted to make and be accountable for.

329
So even if noble Lords accept the assessment that conflicts of interest would undoubtedly ensue, it by no means follows that Bill provision of the type proposed in these amendments should inevitably result. In my submission, these decisions should be left to the assembly and the Prime Minister of the day, in full knowledge of the circumstances and accountable for the consequences.
As I have already said, in the light of the existing amendment to Clause 12, this amendment serves no useful purpose. It is clearly otiose and its inclusion in the Bill would not reflect well on the House. I ask that it be withdrawn.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, as I said earlier, the passing of this amendment would give the Commons a clear choice. It is a narrower amendment than the one that was carried by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
I wish to make two points—first to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. There is no trace of any antipathy towards Mr. Ron Davies in any of the remarks that my noble friend or I, or anyone else that I am aware of on these Benches, has made. I must warn the noble Lord that he should be careful what he says, otherwise he may well be accused of "cronyism".
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his observations, but what we are concerned about in the amendment is the nonsense that is made of devolution, if both the offices are held by the same person. As I said in my speech, under Clause 22 the Secretary of State transfers his functions to the assembly. Under another clause in the Bill, as first secretary he takes up those functions again. He is accountable for them to the assembly. So where does that leave devolution when he has given away his functions with one hand, as Secretary of State, and taken them back again with the other, as first secretary?
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. Let us nail this point, once and for all. Mr. Ron Davies, our Secretary of State, in becoming the first secretary of the assembly is in precisely the same position as every public official in that great department of state, the Welsh Office. Those civil servants, by virtue of the transfer order, are being transferred; indeed they are transferring themselves from being servants of the Secretary of State to being servants of the assembly. They are in a precisely similar position. We are talking about a transitional period while the assembly is established.
The noble Lord denies that this is a personal attack on Mr. Ron Davies. Why do noble Lords always return to it? Why do they seek to legislate against an individual whose political position will surely be decided by the electorate?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we return to it for the simple reason that it makes a nonsense of
330
devolution. I stress again that we have nothing personal against Mr. Ron Davies. He has always been something of a friend of mine.
Several noble Lords: Cronyism!
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I have respect for him. But the whole purpose of devolution is to transfer the functions of the Secretary of State to the assembly. If, as is clearly the case, the Secretary of State, Mr. Davies, actually becomes the first secretary of the assembly, although it may be subject to an election, it is a contradiction in terms. It makes a nonsense of devolution.
I am bound to tell the noble and learned Lord that were it not for the fact that there is a gentlemen's agreement between both Houses that we shall not divide, I would otherwise divide this House. I have a fair idea that we might win. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the House returns to this business not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Registration of Political Parties Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

The New Forest
7.46 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their reactions to the recommendations of the Countryside Commission for the future management of the New Forest in the light of the environmental and economic conditions of that area.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in raising this Question, I should declare an interest inasmuch as my family has lived in the New Forest for generations and both my grandfather and father, as well as myself, have always retained a close interest in New Forest affairs.
Arguably, the New Forest can claim to be Britain's oldest and first national park, created in 1079 as a hunting area by William I. In the past nine centuries it has witnessed a monarch murdered, has provided the background for a famous children's book, oak timbers

331
for the Royal Navy and the famous New Forest ponies. Since the 11th century, it has always been administered locally by what is claimed to be the second oldest administrative and legal body in the land—the Verderers' Court. In 1851, in exchange for removing the deer which were causing so much damage, the Crown won the right to enclose up to one-third of the forest land to grow timber commercially. Thus today's New Forest has been shaped and continues to be administered by the Forestry Commission, constrained by the Verderers, in accordance with recurring Acts of Parliament over the past hundred years.
Today's problems arise from the changing conditions of the 20th century which have led to inevitable conflicts environmentally and economically between the Verderers, the Commoners who graze the Forest, the Forestry Commission, landowners and local residents, tourism and traffic. Today the New Forest is under severe threat and that is why all concerned welcomed the recent Countryside Commission's report on the New Forest which came out on 26th May. Due to the urgency of the matter, I make no apology for raising this subject so soon.
The Government, when in opposition, and the Opposition when in government, were aware of the problems facing the New Forest. The Countryside Commission points out clearly that the New Forest lacks a comprehensive landscape definition, despite its equivalent quality and character to a national park. It is a matter of concern that there is still no permanent statutory boundary for the heritage area, the delineation of which was after much discussion completed in 1990 and which covers land in more than one county.
Admittedly, in 1994 the previous government implemented equivalent national park policies for the New Forest largely through changes to Planning Policy Guidance No. 7. However, they signally failed to add amendments to secondary legislation in order to bring permitted development rights into line with national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
In the meantime matters have not stood still in the New Forest itself, as the Government are probably well aware. The agencies, local authorities, the Verderers and representatives of the farming and landowning communities, who together form the New Forest Committee, launched a strategy for the New Forest in 1996 but it is not statutory, nor is the New Forest Committee. The existing arrangement encourages partnership and co-operation towards a common vision for the future of the forest, but although admirable, it is only a voluntary body. The Countryside Commission's report now emphasises that the New Forest heritage area needs a new statutory body to co-ordinate management, be consulted and, where appropriate, give advice. At present, the New Forest Committee relies entirely on financial support from the agencies and local authorities. Although the committee has commendably managed its budget, it does not have the resources to co-ordinate delivery of the management plan; nor does it have adequate resources to support environmental projects or appropriate agricultural initiatives, especially commoning. Both are vitally necessary to preserve the New Forest landscape.
Commoning—in other words, the annual turning out onto the forest for grazing of about 7,000 animals such as ponies, cattle, sheep, pigs and donkeys—is accepted to be critical by the Verderers to the survival of the New Forest as we know it today. This view is strongly supported by the New Forest Committee, the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, the National Farmers' Union and the New Forest Association. Such unanimity in the New Forest is rare. Indeed, the very special character of the forest was created and preserved by the activities of the commoners.
If the forest is under-grazed, great damage is caused to the landscape because the open forest will be covered by inappropriate vegetation. The forest's natural history and ecology has been dominated for so long by this grazing regime that it is one of the finest surviving examples in Europe of pastoral woodland. Thus, commoning in the New Forest is a unique cultural heritage in its own right. Unfortunately, commoning is under great pressure at the moment because the low prices received for stock, combined with the knock-on effects of the BSE crisis, mean that many commoners are seriously considering whether it is worth continuing. The disincentives that exist for young commoners to continue in the tradition, with the high costs of housing and back-up grazing, mean that their whole way of life is under threat. It is therefore essential, if the forest as we know it is to continue, for commoning to be placed on a sound financial basis. Any future management of the New Forest must be designed in such a way that it cost-effectively deploys available financial resources to commoners (and Verderers) as the persons best able to put such resources to practical and beneficial use on the ground. Any new New Forest management structure should be drawn up in a way that makes it the best possible conduit for the allocation of funding.
In contrast, the national parks, which are protected and nationally valued areas, owe their existence to the 1949 Act and have access to appropriate resources to deal with problems that affect their vitality. The New Forest does not. The Countryside Commission wisely emphasises that, and there is therefore great need to support the Verderers in their efforts to keep this grazing regime going against considerable outside threats. If hill farmers receive subsidies, why could not some similar scheme be devised for commoners?
The Countryside Commission and the New Forest Committee argue that the best way forward is to support the bodies that have joined together in the New Forest Committee so that their individual and sovereign responsibilities can continue to be carried out in unison as successfully as they have been over the past eight years. The legislation, the Countryside Commission advises, should be designed to deliver exactly what is required and must be tailored to the needs of the New Forest, rather than fitting awkwardly into some existing legislative box; for example, the national park Acts. There is very little support for national park status in the forest. Most people feel that the New Forest has adequate legislation of its own, but they would like equivalent benefits and status of a national park. However, they do not want the image of a national park, with its prevalence of tourism.
So new legislation would need to designate the New Forest area and fix its boundary, confirm its planning status and confer on it the highest level of protection. Clauses would be required to establish a statutory authority to co-ordinate management over the whole heritage area, with the necessary influence over other bodies but without blunting their powers. This must be designed in such a way that it would not add another bureaucratic level or further burdens. It would help secure a statutory management plan, which already exists in a voluntary form.
It is nevertheless important that planning and development control should continue to be delivered by the democratically elected local authorities. Any new New Forest "authority", or whatever one might call it, should be given the right to be consulted over all strategic plans and activities. But since at the moment it does not have a democratic base as we know it, any powers given should remain in careful hands and always be advisory and powers of veto should not be given. It must be said that some New Forest bodies are strongly opposed to the committee having statutory powers or indeed the New Forest being designated a national park. But I believe that such a committee would play an important role in co-ordinating so many interests and, further, it would be important to look at the composition of such a committee, perhaps making it more democratic and making sure that all forest interests are represented, not just official bodies.
Of course, the New Forest Heritage Area also includes a considerable amount of privately-owned land. The farmers and owners of land within the heritage area of the New Forest would wish to play their part in protecting and properly managing the land so valued by the public. The legislation must allow management agreements to be made with private land managers to support necessary measures. Strict land use criteria should be the basis on which the boundaries of the management body are defined.
It is interesting to note that where other areas in the country have been designated as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) the blessing and necessary financial support have allowed them to adopt their own management regimes. However, in the New Forest, where the landscape has no such designation, every official designation from a nature conservation point of view is relevant to the New Forest. It must be a leading candidate for being declared a special area of conservation and recently received from Europe the accolade of a European LIFE grant in order to correct some of the depredations of the post-war years.
The sad fact is, however, that in terms of government appreciation for status, provision of resources, the confirmation of the boundary and an understanding of the imperatives that I have highlighted, the forest is naked. If the Government accept the carefully considered recommendations of the Countryside Commission, backed locally by all connected with the New Forest, the position may be rescued in time to save it.
I speak passionately because I wish the Government to understand the urgency of the problem. My grandfather made a similar plea in 1874, when a Select Committee was appointed. The problem then was the Office of Woods. Its successor, the Forestry Commission, is now held in high regard in the New Forest and in recent years has done much to nurture and enhance its plantations and make them better for the public to enjoy them. The pressure is now not on the Forestry Commission but on Her Majesty's Government. No more inquiries are needed, and I hope not to hear the noble Baroness mention the word "review".
Although we now require action, it should not be rushed as mistakes might be made to be regretted later. I am therefore delighted to hear that Mr. Elliot Morley, Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, will be visiting the New Forest tomorrow and I hope he will look, learn and inwardly digest all he sees and hears. Perhaps the noble Baroness will make sure he has a copy of tonight's Hansard in his briefcase to read on the way down.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for his continuing interest in the welfare of the New Forest. The appearance of this Motion on the agenda took me back over 20 years when I was chairman of the Forestry Commission and had responsibility for the administration of the Crown lands in the New Forest. At that time I had a good Minister—he is not in his place tonight—in the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who at that time was Minister of Agriculture. We both learnt then how sensitive an area the New Forest was with its variety of interests, some of them conflicting and some of them complementary.
But there was a great deal of special interest involved in the administration of the New Forest. Some of the parties were extremely active and had the private telephone line of the Minister of Agriculture. At that time Jim Prior called me and said, "I am receiving calls nearly every day from people with special interests in the New Forest. I am finding great difficulty in carrying out my other responsibilities. Will you take it off my back?"
I went down to the New Forest and called a meeting of all the parties with special interests—the Verderers, the commoners, the Forestry Commission people and the local authorities. I established what was known then as the advisory committee. That took a load off my back as well as off the back of Jim Prior. It was a voluntary agreement, as mentioned in the report before us. I am not sure that the special legislation that is now asked for by the Countryside Commission will solve any of the problems we sought to solve.
I am all in favour of voluntary agreements. I am all in favour of consensus when we can achieve it. I am not sure that special legislation, such as is proposed in the Countryside Commission report, will achieve what it seeks to achieve. I am not sure that there is room anyway in the legislative processes for a special Bill

335
governing the affairs of the New Forest. It would be a very contentious affair and I am not sure that it would achieve some of the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, seeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, acknowledged the fact that the Forestry Commission has done a remarkable job in difficult circumstances in administering the area. I very soon discovered that what I needed down there was not simply a good forest manager but also a diplomat who could live with all the conflicting interests. Without a great deal more evidence, I would be reluctant to believe that a change involving legislation would achieve any better solution than the present regime.
We are indebted to the Countryside Commission for acknowledging the difficulties of the national park solution. According to the report, it would deny the local authority some of the substantial responsibilities it has in the planning process. One has the verderers and the Forestry Commission. Overall, one has planning powers in the hands of the local authority, which, after all, is made up of the elected representatives of the people who work and live in the forest. I would be reluctant to see any diminution of the planning powers. The local authority is bound to be sensitive to the very special needs of the New Forest and will also be much concerned about protecting the amenities.
The Forestry Commission has discharged at no cost to the people in the New Forest its responsibilities for recreation, for amenity, for protection of wildlife and for all the things that add up to good management in a sensitive area. I look at the recommendations in the report and I see that they involve additional costs—for setting up a new body, presumably a quango. That would represent a demand for further government funds. I would be very careful about making the changes that are suggested with the best intentions because I am not sure that they will achieve any more than we have achieved by voluntary agreement.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for initiating this debate. His family has for generations been at the very heart of the New Forest and has cared profoundly for it. I declare an interest. It is not the interest of someone who has a large holding in the New Forest—woodland, farming, or any other kind—but because I have lived for many years in the New Forest, as has my family. I was in part brought up there.
It is difficult, unless one has walked through the New Forest beechwoods on an autumn day or watched in the spring the countryside change from pink to bright green, to understand how deep is the sense of tie one has with the New Forest if one knows it very well. It is a very special place and one that it behoves us to do our very best to protect and to care for. I say that not least because in this country it is all too evident that the remaining areas of outstandingly beautiful countryside that lie south of Birmingham are under tremendous
336
pressure. That pressure, as we all know, is being increased by the need to build around 3 million new houses.
As a county, Hampshire is one of the most pressed of all counties. It has absorbed a large number of people since the war in the shape of Basingstoke, Eastleigh and many other parts of mid and north Hampshire. Perhaps the point at which I would take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for whom I have the greatest respect, is that I think he has somewhat underestimated the sheer scale of the pressures upon this piece of unspoilt land. Anyone who has lived in the forest and has seen over the past 20 years the gradual effect of those pressures, not least of tourism, camping and the nibbling at the edges for the purposes of housing, must be concerned about whether the 1,000 year old heritage that we have can be protected for another 1,000 years.
As the noble Lords, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, pointed out, there are a large number of somewhat contentious and occasionally conflicting interests in the forest. As the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said, there are the interests of the commoners. Those interests are central to the whole environment of the New Forest—the nature of what is pastoral woodland and not a commercially managed forest in the modern sense of the term. The commoners' interests are of crucial importance. Up to now they have, like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, taken the view that they want no change. However, if they knew that their interests would not only be protected but also represented on a new body, they might well be willing to accept it.
Secondly, there are the interests of the Forestry Commission and the foresters. Those are important interests but ones which always need to be qualified by the significance of maintaining the character of the forest. In recent years I have been pleased to see a greater emphasis on planting deciduous trees and some reduction in the emphasis on conifers, which, long before the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was in charge of the Forestry Commission, looked as if they might take over the whole character of the forest as great areas of larch and other conifer species were planted.
There are a number of other particular interests; for example, the interests of environmentalists. The New Forest is one of the very last areas of the south of England where there are still substantial areas of bogs and marshlands. One may think it strange to wish to protect a bog. As one who has fallen into a New Forest bog, which is quite an experience, I can understand those who wish only to drain them. But bogs are a fundamental part of a rare piece of landscape and certainly they are critical to the character and nature of the New Forest.
There is also the invasion by rhododendrons, which are very beautiful in May or June. Walking down the Rhinefield walk is a great experience when the rhododendrons are out. The only problem is that these tough creatures, which are rather like triffids, bid to take over a great deal of the forest. If one walks in the forest today one can see large areas of young deciduous trees

337
choked by rhododendrons, as well as holly, almost before they start their life. Therefore, the rhododendron must be controlled. Fortunately, the forest has received £2 million from the European Union to preserve the forest and to remove some of the species that are seizing hold there and are not native to the area. That is an important element of management.
I conclude by returning to what the Countryside Commission suggested. I make it clear that I stand with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, in saying that the compromise it is suggesting is probably the best one. I wish one could say that it is not necessary to do anything, but I believe that the pressures are now so great that some additional statutory protection for the forest must be written into the future. One of the possibilities is the national park. It is exactly right that we should take the view that the administrative overload of national parks and the costs of them are probably unnecessary in this case and would also mean that some of the crucial interests, like the commoners and the grazers, would find it difficult to get proper representation. Therefore, a tailor-made commission is suggested in the report of the Countryside Commission and is clearly indicated to be its favoured solution. It seems the best answer—there are no perfect answers—that we can hope to find.
As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said about local authorities, before this debate I took the trouble to speak to a number of councillors on the New Forest District Council whose own feeling is very strongly that the problem with any continuation of the present structure is that under the pressure of the demands on rates it is already clear that a number of local authorities are beginning to cut back on—and in some cases actually stop—paying what has been a series of voluntary contributions to the New Forest Committee. It lives on very small sums of money and therefore if there is a reduction in voluntary donations it could be in very great trouble.
The advantage of a new proposal for a tailor-made outcome, rather like that for the Norfolk Broads, is that there would be local authority representation adequate to meet the requests and the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. At the same time there would be some underpinning of the finances from the local authority and others which would make the protection of the New Forest viable and real.
I do not wish to detain the House further. This is a matter of very great importance. I believe that the Government would wish to see the New Forest continue for another 1,000 years. What could be more suitable at the point of the millennium, at least for this part of our country, than to ensure that William the Conqueror's hunting forest is retained for future generations.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, it is with the greatest pleasure that I rise to support all that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has said. He raised many important points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. We have known each other many years.
338
I particularly value the time when he was chairman of the Forestry Commission. His description of the qualities of the man who should be the deputy surveyor is absolutely right, particularly when he ended by including the qualities of a diplomat.
I feel that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but I do not believe that I do. It was lovely to hear her speaking of the forest so very intimately. I was the Official Verderer at one time. I learnt that it was very difficult to be right. There were so many multi-interests from the woods, the nature people and the commoners with their animals. There was generally conflict and I had to strike a balance and keep it.
I have always had a great interest in the forest. My childhood was spent on its edge and I have never lived very far away from it. As Official Verderer, I was supported by the Court of Verderers. It is a very interesting body. It is worth mentioning its establishment. Five are appointed and five are elected. It was really a feather in the cap of any Verderer to be elected. The appointed Verderers are also extremely valuable. They represent the Forestry Commission, Hampshire County Council, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Countryside Commission. It is a body of men truly interested in the forest.
I believe that, as has been mentioned already, the Court of Verderers is the oldest administrative and legal body in the world. The Open Court is held regularly 10 times a year. It is not held in December and August, which is quite understandable. The Official Verderer of the day looks towards the Senior Agister and gives him the signal for opening the court. With such a long-standing body formality is very important. The Senior Agister says,
"Oyez, Oyez, Oyez! All manner of persons, who have any Presentment or matter or thing to do at this Court of Verderers, let him come forward and he shall be heard. God save the Queen."
Those presentments are taken very seriously. They are the forebears of parliamentary questions and they have to be answered—not necessarily that day because some research might be needed, but they are always answered and have to be.
The people who make the presentments have to address the whole court and not an individual. On one occasion when I was in the chair as the Official Verderer, a presentment was made individually to a particular Verderer. The rest of the court had to say loudly, "We can't hear you". That went on for some time and the petitioner started shouting. In the end he got the message that he must address the court. That is important.
The presentments and the establishment of the court show that it is a body with great knowledge and understanding. Indeed, it is important to understand what the forest people want, which is to keep the forest as it is. That has been mentioned by the previous three splendid speakers who know the forest.
We encountered great trouble when the gridding and fencing was erected because straightaway that confined the grazing in the forest. When I was a boy, it was quite common to see the animals, which had left the forest in February, March and April, out grazing in the lanes and

339
on the sunny side of the early bite. During those months and weeks, the forest was being rested so it could support many more cattle.
Forest rights of pasture extend outside the forest. I believe they go almost as far as the centre of Bournemouth, and certainly deep into Southampton. I have known of one or two people who have tried to put their cattle in the forest and it has been a dead loss. I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned that it is essential for the cattle to graze the forest to keep it open.
The New Forest Committee is valuable in terms of co-ordination and liaison, but in my opinion it does not need powers. The powers are with the Court of Verderers. I strongly recommend that it remains, but it must be funded. I do not believe that I have any more time, but I must reiterate that it is the desire of everyone in the forest to keep it as it is.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, one of the problems about holding a debate in the Dinner Hour is that, as happened last night, one does not have time to thank the noble Lord who tables the Unstarred Question. We have a little more time tonight. I should like to join all other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for tabling this Unstarred Question. He brings to this debate such knowledge, experience and tradition of the New Forest. At the same time I thank the Countryside Commission for its report.
It would be wonderfully convenient for civil servants and politicians at all levels—which in a democracy means all citizens—if all problems could be slotted into neatly labelled pigeon holes. One has SSSIs, AONBs and national parks. Governments devise schemes to try to cut the British countryside into pieces and stow them in the appropriate files. But the British countryside is not like that. Each historic part has its distinctive shape and ethos which forces us to look not only at what a particular area needs but very much at what its people (with their traditions) want. We had the sense to recognise that in the Broads, for which a tailor-made, as opposed to an off-the-peg, solution was found. It is clear that we must do the same with the New Forest, as is suggested by the Countryside Commission.
The New Forest has a long and distinguished history, which includes—I speak as a Norman by descent—its foundation by one Norman king and the assassination of the next. We must look carefully at such traditions. My party has always believed that we must combine that with the maximum say for the people of the area who have inherited those traditions. We need grass-roots decision-making. Like my noble friend Lady Williams, I have spoken to councillors in that part of the world. It is important that planning decisions are made locally and are subject to the will of the people concerned within the democratic process. The commoners should have a strong role. That part of the tradition must be preserved and even strengthened.
It is very important that the New Forest be preserved. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Williams that it is no longer possible for the New Forest to continue without further powers to protect it. The threats will
340
continue to grow over the next 50 or 100 years or perhaps beyond that. The pressures in the south of England are enormous. It is very important that we provide real protection for those parts of the countryside that are in most need of it. If we can do that while preserving the democratic rights of the people who live and work in that area, that is the best possible solution. Almost certainly a tailor-made solution is required. I hope that the Government can see their way to taking this matter into account.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I too add my immense thanks to my noble friend Lord Montagu for bringing this very important issue before the House tonight. He has described the situation in the light of his great experience and knowledge of the area. We are indebted to my noble friend and his predecessors for their interest in the New Forest.
In its report the Countryside Commission has looked at four options to deal with the New Forest. One option is the status quo. This evening the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, have spoken in favour of that option. At the moment the arrangements are by voluntary agreement. I believe that they should be allowed to continue. But if the Government having sought advice from different bodies believe that that is not possible they should ask themselves several questions. For example, what are the most important issues? Is it the great pressure of housing? Is it the ability to retain the forest as it is with the verderers and commoners operating as they do now? Are there more specific issues relating to tourism and general environmental issues? All of these concerns come from different angles. As noble Lords have said this evening there are conflicts of interest. Before the Government come to any decision they must give careful thought to these conflicts of interest.
The commission also considered designating the whole area as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Part of the New Forest already has that designation in the Southampton coastal area. But the commission concluded that such status would not deliver the recreational and commoning purposes sought. The question of the creation of a national park has also been debated by many. This evening noble Lords have recognised that to give the New Forest national park status will provide some of the protection that they seek, although they believe that it means additional bureaucracy which they regard as undesirable. The commission also takes that view. Others have argued that the powers of a national park authority may conflict with the present arrangements that apply to Verderers, the Forestry Commission and commoners. The Government face a difficult problem.
Another option mentioned by several noble Lords tonight is the promotion of tailor-made legislation to suit the particular area. That is much favoured by several people in the area, although they are anxious that if such legislation is introduced it should not give rise to conflicting interests among those who already work in and ensure that the forest area is well managed at the present time. The National Farmers' Union has written

341
to me and, I am sure, other noble Lords. That body strongly believes that the future management of the New Forest must be designed in such a way that it deploys cost-effectively the available financial resources to commoners and verderers as the best persons to put such resources to practical and beneficial use on the ground. It also strongly argues that if tracts of the countryside such as the South Downs and the New Forest are to have management structures they should be tailor-made to suit the particular requirements. We all wish to ensure the preservation of this particular area, but none of us should forget that it is a living and working environment.
Reference has also been made to the financial implications. The current annual budget for the management of the New Forest is £130,000. If the Government decided to create a tailor-made authority it is projected that the annual costs would rise to about £500,000. If they went for the national park option—which is not one put forward by noble Lords tonight—the estimated annual cost would be £1.5 million.
The other considerations that have already been mentioned, for example development pressure, are real questions that must be answered. What are the best measures to introduce to ensure that there is the highest level of protection from inappropriate development? As other noble Lords have mentioned, the local authority is responsible for that and for the planning in its area.
The New Forest area is a working environment. Some may argue that the only way forward is to create a statutory body. I suggest that we do not need new bodies to take on this role with new powers, nor old bodies with new powers. We do not want more formal structures; we want to protect what we have there already. If, in doing so, that means that we need additional legislation, then perhaps the tailor-making legislation is the way forward.
We have managed to exist down there. I am only sorry that I do not live in that area but in the Midlands. We have there a wonderful environment, a working environment, a place where people can go to live and enjoy, can go to the countryside. Whatever moves the Government make, they must protect the environment while recognising that there are people who live and work there. That is the challenge. It is a working forest; it is not a park. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer this debate on a particularly beautiful area of England with a very rich history. It goes back over many centuries, as many noble Lords have mentioned. There could not have been a more appropriate Member of your Lordships' House than the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, to introduce this debate. The noble Lord's family has, as he said, had a very long connection with commoning in the New Forest and with the Verderers' court. I understand that his grandfather was one of the early Verderers. I agree totally with the tributes paid by many of your Lordships, particularly the noble
342
Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I acknowledge the valuable contribution, over many years, of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury.
The Government share the recognition of the New Forest as one of the most important areas of our beautiful countryside. That is why we asked the Countryside Commission to take a fresh look at the current position of the New Forest and to recommend the best way forward we start future management and protection. In looking at the best way forward we start with the benefit of its long history. I pay tribute to those bodies which are already working hard on the ground to conserve the forest's beauty and to manage it sympathetically. They include the New Forest Committee and all its members, the committee that has brought together many voices which are vital to the life and health of the forest. It has furthered understanding and produced a management strategy for the New Forest. At the end of the day, the existing arrangements which the committee has put into place are purely voluntary.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Forestry Commission has an excellent track record in its management of the Crown lands in the New Forest, reflecting the importance that the commission attaches to its duty of care in the forest. The commission is careful to ensure that all interests are taken into account when developing management programmes and introducing new initiatives and facilities.
This is a timely moment for the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, to have secured the debate. The Government have only recently received the Countryside Commission's formal advice on protecting our finest countryside. It concerns the future arrangements not only for the New Forest but also for the South Downs and the whole family of areas of outstanding natural beauty of which there are 37 in England. There is a great deal to consider in the Countryside Commission's advice.
The Government recognise the challenges that we are facing in protecting our finest landscapes. We are determined to make the right decisions. Noble Lords will recognise that I am not in a position tonight to offer any firm conclusions on the Countryside Commission's advice. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment has said that we hope to be able to reach initial conclusions in the autumn. We want to act with the benefit of the views of those who know and love the New Forest. We shall take full note of the views expressed by your Lordships tonight.
It was a Labour Government who, in 1949, secured the passage of the legislation on which our landscape designation system has been based ever since. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 provides for the designation of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The New Forest has never been given one of those designations. The forest has long been considered by the Countryside Commission as worthy of a national park level of designation. That was looked at in the early years of this decade. The then government announced their conclusion in July 1994 that the New Forest was not to be given a statutory

343
designation or a new statutory body to look after it. The Government in 1994 did decide that the New Forest Heritage Area should be given the same planning protection as a national park.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe is right that the national park solution would normally mean that planning powers would rest with the national park authority. It would also be possible under the legislation for the national park authority to delegate the powers back to one of the local authorities— in this case the New Forest District Council. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that local commitment and knowledge are vital for sound decisions to be made in the interests of all those who wish to enjoy and live and work in the community.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me as someone else who is sorry, in one sense, that this is not my home territory. I did notice, as another Leicestershire girl, the slight slip into "national forest" from "New Forest". I recognised it as someone born in Leicestershire.
In its new advice to the Government the Countryside Commission has drawn attention to a number of what it sees as needs to secure the effective management of the New Forest. The commission recommends the designation of the heritage area as equivalent to a national park, with measures to ensure the highest level of protection from inappropriate development. A co-ordinating body would have the right level of resources and executive power and would prepare a statutory management plan. The co-ordinating body would act as a statutory consultee on planning matters. It would be able to enter into management agreement with those managing the forest on the ground.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, the Countryside Commission has recognised that designation as a national park under the 1949 legislation with the powers and responsibilities that would be available through the Environment Act 1995 would be one way forward. The commission sees a number of reasons to conclude that this would not be the best solution—and that includes the need to take account of the powers and responsibilities of the bodies already working there, especially the Forestry Commission and the Verderers.
The Countryside Commission would prefer the Government to deliver tailor-made legislation, a point amply supported by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. We will look into that. There is extreme pressure on the legislative timetable and legislation of this sort would obviously have to compete with many other priorities. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we will consider all the issues to which she referred. The Government will look very carefully in the coming months at possible solutions for the New Forest.
My right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment, Michael Meacher, has already met with the New Forest Committee to seek its advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said, the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for forestry in England, my
344
honourable friend Mr. Elliot Morley, is visiting the New Forest tomorrow to listen to the views of the forest community and to launch a new consultation on the mandate for the Forestry Commission in managing the forest.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Because of the legislative timetable, will she consider the possibility of the Government at some point making their intentions clear because that, by itself, would probably help with some of the pressures?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that is a helpful suggestion. I shall have pleasure in writing to the noble Baroness on the matter.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the DETR, Angela Eagle, is planning shortly to meet the local MPs and a representative of the Verderers in the New Forest. She plans to visit the New Forest in the autumn.
Various interesting and detailed points were raised during the debate. The important issue of commoning was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. We recognise that commoning is a traditional aspect of the forest which has helped create the landscape which is so loved. As the noble Lord said, it is essential that the open forest is grazed in order to maintain the forest landscape. We recognise the difficulties facing the commoners at present. I can assure noble Lords that we shall consider the need for further support and that that would be one of the key tasks of any new statutory authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, suggested that the forest be designated an environmentally sensitive area. That is one possibility. He mentioned also the problem of under-grazing which, as we saw earlier this week in the West Country, carries with it the risk of fire. That emphasises the need for continued grazing of the heaths. I am sure that my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture will be considering the points raised and whether there is need for further agricultural support. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that hill farm support is not available, but the Ministry of Agriculture will consider the points that have been raised.
I pay tribute to the commitment of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe who pointed out that a new statutory authority could be seen as a quango, creating additional bureaucracy and spending more money. However, a new authority could also benefit the forest. I can assure noble Lords that we will not create a new authority unless we are confident that the benefits would more than outweigh the costs.
The Countryside Commission has proposed that local authorities should be given the legal duty to manage areas of outstanding natural beauty sympathetically. That is one of the points we shall be raising. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred to the fact that the Countryside Commission considers that designation of the New Forest as a national park could be justified. Those issues are important, and we shall take account of the points they have made.

345
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, spoke of our not referring to a further review. Noble Lords will be aware that the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review across departments were announced yesterday. There are increased resources for the DETR on the whole over the next three years. There will be an increase in overall spending in the department's countryside and wildlife budget. Full details will be announced later. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that a review which brings additional resources, including resources to assist the Forestry Commission, is valuable.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on securing the debate this week on the future of the New Forest. It is an especially appropriate week. It is national heath week. The New Forest is one of our most important heaths. Heath week is designed to draw attention to the importance of the few remaining heaths in southern England, and to the need for their full protection, continued support and management.
This has been an important debate. I can assure noble Lords that we shall listen carefully to the views expressed tonight and those which will be expressed in the coming weeks. If my honourable friend the Minister can take a copy of Hansard with him tomorrow, I know that it will help him to have a greater understanding when he visits the New Forest.

Government of Wales Bill
8.45 p.m.
Consideration of amendments after Third Reading resumed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
("Planning appeals

DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPEALS
. Where the determination of planning appeals on planning applications under town and country planning legislation has been transferred to the Assembly by an Order in Council under section 22 of this Act, the standing orders must include provision for this function to be exercisable by one person appointed by the Assembly for that purpose.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of three amendments in my name which try to put wealth creation, especially in the rural economy, as a priority for the assembly. As I have been trying to point out, without a flourishing economy there will be little room for culture.
The amendment tries to simplify the planning system. As your Lordships will be aware, if a farmer, entrepreneur, or wealth creator wishes to diversify, he or she has nearly always to apply for planning permission. The route is tortuous, expensive and time-consuming, often to the extent that it delays matters so much that the opportunity is lost, and so a few more rural jobs are also lost.
The first stage is to persuade the local planning authority of one's case. As was clearly pointed out on Report by my noble friend Lord Kenyon, local councillors are often swayed by their constituents. They may prevaricate beyond the permitted time, as they did in a case in which I was involved, or they may decide against guidelines laid down.
The next and expensive step is to go to appeal where, if the inspector rules that the applicant's case is justified and valid, he will recommend to the Secretary of State that planning permission be granted. However, as the Bill is written—I have pointed this out before—the decision will be left in the assembly's hands. Unless your Lordships support my amendment, in theory the whole of the assembly could re-examine the case, thus reverting to stage one; that is, the case being decided by vociferous and articulate NIMBYs who may reverse the decision.
Apart from being time-consuming, that destroys planning law, for it is essential for farmers and wealth creators to have strict guidelines which they can follow so that they can know how and where they can diversify or develop. I hope, of course, that the assembly will study the complexities of the problem. I am sorry to say that the corruption—potential—that the planning system, encourages will make that difficult for the assembly. As I understand it, the assembly will have the power to do so. I hope that it will discipline local planning authorities when they behave irresponsibly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who said that the system could be made to work if only one managed it properly (Hansard col. 1451). I would add to that "honestly". That is why I have tabled the amendment after Clause 72 which I call the "sleaze" clause. I hope that the assembly will study the French system.
The amendment is a simple first stage. It would ensure that the final decision would be taken by one person. That person will be decided by the assembly. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It also, I hope, satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Williams. At col. 1452 of the Official Report of 9th July, he said,
"it is always an advantage in Wales not to be a committee".
I am sure that with the exception of my noble friend Lord St. Davids we would all agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was kind enough to take the trouble to write to me reiterating his sentiments, and stating that he would draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that I, and I think he too, preferred one person to adjudicate. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that; and I hope that your Lordships will give him every encouragement to urge the Secretary of State to take a similar view.
As always there is a snag in life. That snag was vividly pointed out by my noble friend Lord St. Davids. At col. 1450 of the Official Report of 9th July, he stated:
"The National Assembly Advisory Group has discussed the matter. It came to the conclusion that responsibility should go to the first secretary, and perhaps through him to a relevant subject committee. It may be the wish of the first secretary or the subject committee to appoint a panel drawn from the national assembly members to hear such appeals".

347
Golly!—or whatever parliamentary words I may use to that effect. It goes without saying that I much regret disagreeing with my noble friend's inept remarks although I entirely accept that they put the whole problem into a nutshell. I most sincerely hope that those are only the mistaken views of the noble Viscount, and not those of NAAG, for they spell out delay, confusion and political intrigue, and, perhaps some noble Lords might say, sleaze and all the symptoms of a waffle shop—something about which I and the 74.4 per cent. who did not vote for an assembly were concerned. Fortunately, my noble friend, like me, often gets the wrong end of the stick. However, I hope that, like me, he will admit it.
It is up to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and, I hope, the Secretary of State to prove that my suspicions about what might happen are unjustified. The noble Lord could do that this evening by accepting my amendment.
Finally, I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his letter and sympathetic reply to my queries at Report stage. However, I point out that his letter was slightly incorrect in stating that this is an identical amendment to the one tabled at Report. It is not. I had taken his advice and specified that the function should be exercised by one person and, with regard to the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—I am sorry that he is not in his place today—that the assembly should decide who that person should be.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be able to accept this minor amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when I sat on the Benches presently occupied by noble Lords, I used to say that any amendment I contended for was minor on the basis that it might well be accepted. The noble Lord is right: it is not an identical amendment because he now specifies one person rather than the presiding officer of the assembly.
We do not think that this is a matter for the face of the Bill. However, I reiterate that it is essential that all planning decisions, whether at first instance or on appeal, should be made without unnecessary delay; and, crucially, that they are seen to be transparent and impartial. One of the reasons that sometimes they are not is that one has an overpowerful monolith, whether in local government or in an assembly context. That is one of the important reasons why we wanted a proportional system which would give opposition parties a fair crack of the whip in the new assembly.
I can reaffirm that I believe the present system should be properly managed, efficiently and effectively. I do not refer simply to farming applicants for development because all applicants should be treated in the same way; I entirely agree with the noble Lord. An appeal or process that continues for two years is extremely expensive in terms of money, energies lost and dissipated, and perhaps employment chances which are lost forever. I can say—I hope that it is helpful—that my right honourable friend Ron Davies, the Secretary of State, shares those views.
348
The real question is how we can best improve the planning system in Wales. We are waiting for the National Assembly Advisory Group's views. We expect those to be at hand in the next few weeks. Thereafter, the Secretary of State will use NAAG's report as a basis for preparing detailed guidance which he will put to the commission which is to prepare draft standing orders.
Those decisions are yet to be made. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure that simply identifying one person will be the solution. It will not necessarily be so because it depends which person is identified. The noble Lord probably envisages that it may be the first secretary or a subject committee secretary; I do not know. I can only say that I entirely sympathise with his views. I believe that the planning regime at present is too slow, cumbersome and expensive and does not deliver the goods for those who are entitled to look to it. I do not refer only to applicants. Not everyone who raises an objection is of necessity self-evidently just a NIMBY. People often are rightly conservative in their views about changes to their habitat and environment.
On the principle, the noble Lord is pushing at an open door so far as I am concerned. I cannot prescribe what the assembly will do, but I can reaffirm the fact that the Secretary of State has every sympathy with his objective. However, I do not believe that we should put on the face of the Bill this narrow prescription that it should be only one person. After all, he or she might be someone entirely unsatisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. It is a possibility.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it would be churlish if I were to divide the House on this issue because the Minister has come so far my way. I make one point. The noble Lord says that some conservative members do not like planning proposals. I should make it clear that it is "conservative" with a small "c". In most cases I would disagree with their views.
I am worried that NAAG will get the better of the noble Lord and the Secretary of State and will put in a panel. But the noble Lord has persuaded me that I am pushing at an open door. It would be foolish of me to divide the House and create a division between us. I think that there is little between us.
I thank the noble Lord for his efforts, the letters he has written, and the thought that he has put into the provision. I hope that he, I, and the Secretary of State will be successful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 76 [Role of Secretary of State for Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Clause 80 [Grants to Assembly]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 41, line 41, after ("State") insert (", recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a sense, this amendment to Clause 80 has been overtaken by events, in particular the Chancellor the Exchequer's Statement of yesterday announcing the planned increase in public spending over the next three years.
The application of the Barnett formula to the increase in education and health spending in particular means that Wales, too, will have increases. However, there is some doubt about how significant those increases are to be. They will be related to key targets which the Government and I might usefully define as "needs".
The realisation of those spending plans in Wales, as elsewhere, will no doubt depend on the progress of the economy. There are different predictions as to what the future holds in that regard and how the spending plans will be affected. However, your Lordships will be glad to know that I do not intend to engage in an economic debate.
I tabled the amendment in its revised form in order to make clear that when we discussed the needs of Wales on the second day of our Report stage we were referring to the needs of Wales in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole. Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has written to me. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library. He expanded on the information given by his noble and learned friend as regards the Government's difficulties in accepting my amendment, with its requirement to recognise the needs of Wales and reconciling that with the continued application of the Barnett formula. As the letter puts the matter very succinctly, I shall read two paragraphs for the record. However, the Minister has yet another argument to adduce which I find less persuasive.
The argument that appeals to me is as follows:
"The last Labour government undertook a review of the relative needs of Wales in the late 1970s, prior to the introduction of the block and formula arrangements. The Welsh baseline has since been uprated annually by application of the formula, as well as, of course, being subject to change when further functions have been devolved to the Welsh Office.
To introduce an assessment of need into the annual payment mechanism—as your amendment would have required—would be radically to alter the formula, if not to do away with it altogether. Rather than simply applying the multiplier, the Secretary of State would have to determine the needs of Wales. This would effectively mean recalculating the baseline figure rather than applying a population-based ratio. Under this approach, there could be no consistent and automatic variations to the Block such as the formula provides, as the Block itself would necessarily be subject to continuous annual review. That, it seems to me, would make the formula effectively redundant".
That is a clear exposition of the key argument. The Minister knows that I do not wish to jeopardise the application of the formula, imperfect as it may now be. However, I shall continue to argue that if and when the Government come to revise it, the needs of Wales should be recognised in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole.
There is a need for a review such as was carried out in the late 1970s to take account of subsequent changes over the past 20 years or so and the present position. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that I do not intend to press the amendment to a
350
Division. I shall simply reiterate my concern at the lack of principle, referred to in an earlier debate by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, behind the clause and the Secretary of State's absolute discretion in allocating grants to the assembly. The assembly will be dependent each year upon the good will and ability of the Secretary of State to secure a good deal for Wales. Yet in all probability he will have far less say in Whitehall after devolution. If he should belong to a party which does not control the assembly he will have little chance or incentive to fight for extra resources for his political opponents.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, to which he will speak soon, presents a fascinating proposition. I shall listen to him with great interest and to the Government's comments on his remarks. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 40 is grouped with Amendment No. 39. I should begin by apologising to the House for tabling an amendment of such substance at Third Reading. When I did so I was advised that it was outwith the custom of the House to discuss new business, which the formula is, at Third Reading. Indeed, I would not have tabled the amendment except for the terms in which at Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, dismissed my noble friend's amendment on the needs of Wales.
I should also explain to the House that I have tabled what I might call the elder brother of the amendment to the Scotland Bill. I had originally thought that with a bit of fortune and a fair wind, the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill would be completed before we reached the Third Reading of the Wales Bill. However, in a way, the Wales Bill is finishing with a strong sprint, whereas the Scotland Bill is still languishing in the early laps, steadily going round and round the track.
I was advised also that it is for the House to decide what is a matter of substance which should or should not be discussed. At this stage, I had better pause before I continue in case anybody would like to say that I am strictly out of court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to raise this matter and to have it discussed.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that and I shall attempt to explain briefly the effect of the amendment. It is an attempt to put on the face of the Bill a method of calculation for the funds for which the Welsh national assembly will have to be responsible. In so doing, I say to all noble Lords in the Chamber that if we can achieve it, that is a great insurance for the funding of that assembly.
Everything which is taking place at present in the field of devolution is building up to the point at which there is likely to be an English backlash. If we have something like this on the face of the Bill, although I agree that it provides a method by which the formula can be changed, it also ensures that funding for the Welsh national assembly can be guaranteed into the

351
future on the basis of legislation—that is as opposed to the present situation in which, as my noble friend on the Front Bench pointed out, the Welsh national assembly's funding depends on the success of the Secretary of State for Wales in his negotiations not just with the Chancellor of the Exchequer but within the Cabinet. If he is a good Secretary of State, he will secure a good volume of funding. However, one can envisage circumstances in which he may be metaphorically sand-bagged or, perish the thought, "handbagged" into something which may be less advantageous.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord with great care. I am sure that he will be aware that my noble friend Lord Barnett has indicated that Wales is under-funded under his formula at present.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I shall deal with that point. However, I should point out that as I understand the Barnett formula, it never considers what I regard as the base block of Welsh expenditure, but it applies the increases pro rata.
My formula goes to the heart of the base block. It is essentially population-based. I had to consider whether that was wise given that in respect of local authorities, a population base would be inappropriate because, by and large, local authorities are too small and there can be extremely large variations in demographic factors between local authorities. But once one is dealing with a region or a nation of the size and population of Wales, population becomes a valid factor, albeit I have varied it to a small extent to take account of the lower population density of Wales which is not as low as the very low population density of Scotland. That is why I have tabled a different amendment in relation to Scotland. It is right, however, to acknowledge that particular factor. After that, we can leave it aside.
Two other factors are involved. The first is relevant public expenditure. Public expenditure in Wales is a vastly greater figure than the expenditure which will be delegated to the national assembly for Wales. Therefore, I have concocted that phrase "relevant public expenditure", which is that proportion of public expenditure which is delegated to the national assembly of Wales in relation to, or as a percentage of, total public expenditure for Wales.
One then takes that percentage figure and applies it to national United Kingdom public expenditure, divides it by the total population of the United Kingdom to reduce it to a per capita figure, and multiplies that by the population of Wales.
I have also introduced a third factor, namely, the relative prosperity or, if one wishes to be pessimistic and look at it that way, the relative poverty of Wales. I have produced a sliding formula which would increase the amount for public expenditure if Wales were relatively unfortunate and relatively less prosperous and which, of course, would diminish it if that were turned round and it became of more than average prosperity.
It could be argued that the slope on the graph that I have produced is too steep. In fact, I believe that Wales would probably do extremely well out of my formula.
352
As it stands at present, the Welsh GDP per head, which I have used as a measurement of prosperity, is quite low relative to the UK average. Therefore, the Welsh would get considerably enhanced public expenditure and I believe that that would be right. If, as a result of that enhanced public expenditure Welsh prosperity began to increase, so the volume of public expenditure would go down and there would come a point at which it might even go below the UK average if Welsh GDP per head went above. If one looks at what has happened over a 20-year or 30-year period in Scotland, it will be seen that the Scots have moved from a period of relative poverty to a situation now where they more or less match the average GDP per head for the United Kingdom, although there is some debate as to whether they are immediately above it or below.
My formula takes all those factors into account and would produce a finite sum. If it were on the face of the Bill, that finite sum would be due to Wales and there would be nothing that a future Secretary of State or Chancellor of the Exchequer could do about it. In order to avoid the need to recalculate that sum annually, there is also a provision which says that it needs to he recalculated only triannually. That is in line with the practice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of trying to have triannual calculations of funding to produce a degree of stability. There is also a mechanism to permit the formula to be changed by affirmative order in both Houses of Parliament, after consultation with the Welsh national assembly should that prove to be necessary.
In all seriousness, I do not expect the Government to adopt my formula. I also stress that I have no desire to supplant the name of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Indeed, I would rather that he were present this evening so that he could adopt my formula as "Barnett Mark II", because it seems to me that that is what it sets out to be.
I shall finish where I began. My proposal would be a great security for the future of the Welsh national assembly because its funding would be on the face of the Bill, whereas at present it is dependent on the good will and success of the Secretary of State for Wales in negotiation with the Government. We should not assume that the present apparently happy situation for Wales will continue for all time.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I listened with care to what the Opposition spokesman said about his amendments. One tries to keep pace with events which are relevant to what we discuss in this House as they are taking place. The noble Lord said that he had no idea of the value of the settlement or of how much money was involved. However, I understand that that has already been announced. Nevertheless, there is reference to it in today's edition of the Financial Times. With the leave of the House, I shall quote from the article, which says:
"With an eye to the devolution elections in Scotland and Wales next May, Gordon Brown [has] provided significant"—
I emphasise "significant"—
"real terms increases for the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office".

353
But nothing is said there about what has been provided for England; in other words, whether it will remain static or whether our percentage has been increased. Indeed, nothing is said about it. We have been left out completely in the cold in terms of announcements.
I took the trouble to read in detail in Hansard what was said yesterday by my noble friend Lord McIntosh while repeating the public expenditure Statement. Again, for the benefit of the House, I shall repeat what he said:
"At every stage we are linking investment to reform and it is on this basis that the Education Secretary tomorrow will announce the biggest single investment in education in the history of our country. In this and in other services there will be separate announcements based on the Barnett formula for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 14/7/98; col. 133.]
All those three parts of the United Kingdom—and there may be good reasons for it—are heavy drawers, in debt, if you calculate what they put in and what they have to take out to run the countries. Northern Ireland is grossly overfunded, but that is necessary because of the situation there. The latest figures that I have seen show that Northern Ireland contributed £3 billion, but took out £7 billion. That money was needed for certain measures because the people in Northern Ireland cannot learn to live with one another. However, all that money has to be found from somewhere. There is no one to speak up for England in the same way as there is in Wales and Scotland because the population of England is more fragmented.
I assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reached decisions on this matter with the authority of the Cabinet. The person who knows more about the Barnett formula than anyone else is the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself. He thinks that formula has fallen by the wayside and needs to be reassessed. Some £871 more of expenditure is spent on each person in Scotland as compared with England. That is a large sum of money. As I have said, if we brought the expenditure on each person in England up to the level that it is in Scotland, it would cost over £300 billion. That calculation was done for me in the Library. If you multiply 5 million people by £871 that amounts to a great deal of money. To try to find out the relevant figures I tabled today a Question for Written Answer. I asked what the Chancellor's Statement of yesterday means in terms of expenditure on each person in the various areas of the United Kingdom.
There is no question in my mind that some kind of a review must take place. Wales may be getting a bad deal. However, if we continue with the Barnett formula in its present form, Wales will continue to get a bad deal. Certainly England is getting a bad deal. Therefore it appears to me that the only people who are getting a good deal are those north of the Border. I wish someone would tell the Scottish people that because they should have been told about that much earlier.
This is a bizarre situation. This Bill will set the scene in Wales for time immemorial. It will not be changed within the lifetime of anyone here. We have heard catch-phrases about formulae but we do not have any hard and fast figures. It appears that we cannot alter that
354
situation; it is almost a waste of time debating it. However, if the differences in expenditure on the various parts of the United Kingdom widen still further that will be a serious matter.
I have been called an English nationalist because sometimes I stand up for England. If I were doing the same for Wales or Scotland, I would be called a patriot. Someone has to say something. The Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly will act as focal points. In my opinion there will be interminable strife between those bodies and another place. Whatever economic measures the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts in place, they will never be sufficient to satisfy the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. The nationalist parties in those two areas will make sure that that is the situation.
We shall have to examine the Scottish Bill when it comes before this House. Given the way business has been calculated, we shall probably take the Report stage when we return in October. We shall have a hefty meal on the Bill, because the sums will probably be known by then. I am not sure that it is not a deliberate sleight of hand that all these announcements have been made before the Bill becomes law, when it is in its final stages, as a fait accompli, and neither the other place nor this House can have any say as to what is taking place on a major issue such as this. I wanted to make this comment, and to lay down markers in respect of the Bill. This is not the best way to treat another place or this House. I am sure that most Members in the other place do not have a clue as to what will happen in terms of finance for the people they represent south of the Border.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I spoke rather late in the course of the Bill's passage, at Report stage, on a similar amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. I attempted to argue that in the case of the Welsh assembly, which does not have tax-raising powers—that is an important distinction between the Welsh and the Scottish case—the formulation presently on the face of the Bill is probably as good as we shall get, and we should stick with it. It allows for flexibility and does not lay matters down in writing. I attempted to argue that if matters are laid down in writing, what may seem advantageous now is likely to cause a problem when circumstances change.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has proposed that the Barnett formula should be on the face of the Bill and the question is: should it be adopted? Matters which may appear harmless in administrative or political office calculations are extremely dangerous when they are set down in a piece of legislation. That is partly because expenditure per capita, GDP per capita, and population will become great matters of contention if they are set out on the face of the Bill. As I said previously, we do not know the population of Wales accurately, except in census years. They would be calculations, albeit good calculations.
We referred to regional per capita GDP estimates when we discussed the form of the European structural funds. The UK stands to lose quite an amount as a result of the reform of the conditions adopted. Now, the regions of the UK are arguing that the per capita income

355
formula is not good enough, and that it should relate to unemployment. But our unemployment is lower than in the rest of Europe. We should not take just any unemployment, but the full cycle. We should try for a definition under the current cycles which is as advantageous as possible. There will be a lot of battles about variable definitions and so on.
What happens currently, so far as I understand it, is a mixture of an administrative and a political process. My right honourable friend has not changed the Barnett formula in his latest Statement. Because he has upped the expenditure for the whole of the United Kingdom, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office will receive more money.
I say to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick that £300 million is roughly what the Government spend on the whole country. To take round figures, for 60 million people it is about £5,000 per capita. About 54 million—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, on the figures that I received today, Scottish per capita spending is presently nearly £600, not £500. That difference represents quite a lot of money spent on 5½ million people.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Desai, continues, perhaps I may make two observations. I love to listen to economists, but I am reminded of the old cliché about the exam questions always being the same but the answers different. Of course, one could put it the other way round.
I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he agrees with this point. I have used figures that are either available in the Library or could be easily calculated. They are sufficiently generally available to be regarded as facts in my formula, so it is not what I would call a speculation; it is pretty finite. One would go back to the last census for an accurate figure for the population of Wales. Even that figure is projected forward in official figures to take account of what is happening.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I do not doubt that. However, if it is made a legal matter, the projections will become the subject of debate. The noble Lord was rightly sceptical about economists, just as one can be sceptical about statisticians. Projections are not easy to make.
What I am saying is that we will not remove contention by putting something down on paper. I wish to illustrate for my noble friend that if we spend £300 billion and England's population accounts for the bulk of the 60 million, England's portion is easily calculated. All we are doing is to make a marginal adjustment for Wales and Scotland which allows for the sparsity of population. The noble Lord may argue that it could turn out that the English portion could be higher or lower. There is no rule that equal per capita expenditure across the country is necessarily any more equitable than expenditure which depends on various other calculations, such as one relating to sparsity of population.
I would rather leave the matter to be decided by administrative and political bargaining outside legislation than include it in legislation. That would
356
make the process much more contentious. If my noble friend Lord Dean wants the Barnett formula to be reformed, he should oppose the amendment because the only hope of the formula being reformed is not to put it on the face of the Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said and with his approach. It seems to me to be asking for trouble to spell out any kind of formula on the face of the Bill.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dean, refer to the product of Northern Ireland taxation and the cost. I believe he has done the same for Scotland and Wales. Let us take the Welsh economy as an example. Most of the companies which operate in Wales have their headquarters in England. They pay their taxes in England. How does one account for that? There is the sparsity of population problem, both in Wales and Scotland, but it is particularly acute in Wales.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the relationship and the financing are best left as a matter of political judgment to the common sense of the negotiators. They generally end up with something reasonable and fair.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may make a contribution from my place on the Back Bench. I wish to say a few words about Amendment No. 39. It refers to a principle, not a formula. It is a fair point to make because on Report, the House had the choice between a principle and a formula. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has pursued persuasively the principle of the amendment at every stage of the Bill's progress through the House. That is an indication, in my view, of the importance which he, with his long experience as a Minister at the Welsh Office, attaches to the amendment.
I listen, as always, with great care to my noble friend Lord Desai, when he casts light on economic and financial issues. I take the point, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that at times there are dangers in setting down a principle in print. However, a matter which at the outset appears to involve a point of mere administration, may turn out in the end to involve a point of principle. What is missing from this clause in the Bill is the principle.
I had hoped that the Government would bring forward an amendment to meet the anxieties which a number of us expressed. But be that as it may, I listened also to what my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, said. In addition to the technical arguments for or against the amendment, a political issue arises in relation to Clause 80 which should not be overlooked; namely; that an assembly of the Welsh people which cannot call in aid an objective statutory principle for determining the fairness of the block grant with which it is funded, could quickly become dissatisfied with its position. The dissatisfaction therefore may not just come from the English regions; there could be dissatisfaction also within Wales.

357
I have sought to emphasise that point to Ministers and to emphasise that all this could create a grievance. I have received no assurance on the point and can only hope that the Government have taken that risk fully into consideration.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is too modest. If there was a vacancy for Chief Secretary of the Treasury and he was there, we would now be debating the Dixon-Smith formula. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we should not be asking to put a formula such as his on the face of the Bill, so I am sorry to say that I shall not be supporting him in that respect.
However, I believe that there is a genuine anxiety here which I expressed in my speech on Second Reading. I can see that the English regions may become restless at the fact that Scotland and Wales may receive more by virtue of the Barnett formula, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, drew that to our attention. A debate, probably in relation to the Barnett formula, has gone on throughout the passage of this Bill and no doubt the Scottish Bill as well, to a much greater extent than it has done for the past 20 years. It may be that the time has come to review the Barnett formula.
Earlier today we had a Statement on the settlement in education and were told what is going to come next year, the year after and the year after that. But the government of Wales have not got a clue what is to come next year, the year after or the year after that. I believe that the amendment as tabled by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy is a modest amendment which will give some certainty to making sure that Wales is not ignored should the colour of the government change at the next election, or should other circumstances change. I hope therefore that the House will support him in his amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, was certainly economical when introducing his amendment. I hope to emulate his economy. The question he put on the last occasion, which I think he graciously accepted was substantially dealt with by the letter I sent to him, was: would his amendment jeopardise the Barnett formula? We have no doubt that it would because the Barnett formula does not seek to recognise the needs of Wales,
"in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole",
which are the words of the noble Lord's amendment.
The Barnett formula has applied to the Welsh block a proportion of changes to comparable English—I underline the word English—spending programmes which emerge from the Government's spending decisions. The proportion applied, as your Lordships know, is that of the population of Wales relative to that of England. To introduce an assessment of need into the annual payment mechanism, as the noble Lord's amendment would require, would involve radically altering the basis for current arrangements, if not doing away with it altogether.
358
I turn to the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. His amendment demonstrates the difficulty of trying to put a funding formula on the face of any legislation. It is not workable. First, it does not seek to define relevant average government expenditure per head. Secondly, it relates the level of Welsh funding to the average figure for the United Kingdom. But I remind the House again that the Barnett formula does not work with reference to the United Kingdom. It works to relevant spending programmes in England. Thirdly, the noble Lord's amendment would involve a never ending spiral because the figure produced by subsection (2B) could be increased, as mentioned in subsections (2C) and (2D), which would then, in turn, affect the average government expenditure per head of the United Kingdom which had earlier been used as the basis for the calculation in subsection (2B). I shall not say "touché", but I did think about it.
I entirely understand the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment, which is perhaps to draw out some anomalies. But I think that he simply substitutes further anomalies for his presently observed anomaly. It is on occasions like this, when I study the noble Lord's amendment, that I deeply regret that I was not brought up in a Jesuit school.
We believe that what is on the face of the Bill is right, not least for the reasons set out more authoritatively than I can do by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Hooson. We cannot accept these amendments. That may come as no surprise. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has been partly satisfied by the explanation that I gave in the letter and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will understand that we cannot in all the circumstances, not least because it is not workable, accept his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I said earlier that I would not press the amendment to a Division. I thank my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for the thought he has given to this issue. Although the reception which his idea has received this evening may not be altogether satisfactory, it may well be the start of something that could develop in the not so distant future. I think that his formula is right to concentrate on the Welsh figure for GDP, which is about 83 per cent. compared with the average of 100 per cent. Wales has very substantial needs and it would benefit under my noble friend's formula, which is generous in that respect.
A number of speakers have said that perhaps it is as well to leave the formula outside the Bill. I am not sure how long we can go on talking about needs while knowing that those needs are met through a formula calculation. I am not sure how long we can listen to the author saying that it needs revision and how long we can abstain from carrying it out.
One must also have some sympathy for the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who I am sure understands that the principle that I have been enunciating takes into account the needs of the English regions as well. The fact that we have asked for the needs of Wales be met in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole indicates that we have the interests

359
of England as well as Wales very much in our minds. I believe that it is only a matter of time before the Government are forced to reconsider their view on the Barnett formula and the way in which both Scotland and Wales benefit from it. They will have to have new thinking. I am sure that the thoughts put forward by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will figure in anybody's consideration of what should be done in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 40.
Page 41, line 42, leave out from ("Parliament") to end of line 43 and insert—
("(2A) The first payments under subsection (1) shall he calculated in accordance with subsections (2B) to (2F).
(2B) The relevant average Government expenditure per head of the population of the United Kingdom shall be multiplied by the population of Wales.
(2C) The figure arrived at by virtue of subsection (2B) shall be increased by 5 per cent. to take account of Wales' population density compared with the United Kingdom.
(2D) The figure arrived at by virtue of subsection (2C) may be increased or decreased by 1 per cent. in respect of every 1 per cent. by which average gross domestic product per capita is less or more (as the case may be) than the average gross domestic product per capita for the United Kingdom.
(2E) The formula set out in subsections (2B) to (2D)

(a) shall be used to recalculate the basis on which payments under subsection (2) are to be made every three years after the first calculation is made and every three years thereafter;

(b) may be amended by order made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Assembly.

(2F) The power to make an order under subsection (2E)(b) shall be exercised by statutory instrument which shall be laid in draft before Parliament for approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion. I shall not add very much. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that if my formula proves to be unsatisfactory at some point in the future, he will be aware—since he has read my amendment—that there is provision for it to be changed. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, hit the nail precisely on the head when he mentioned the potential for dissatisfaction with funding in the Welsh national assembly or in Wales at large under the present arrangements. Although we have a Government who believe greatly in openness, the way in which these aspects of funding are calculated is something of a closed book.
For better or worse, as the years roll by the Welsh national assembly budget and that of the Scottish parliament will be shredded by Members in the other place and possibly even by Members of this House. Comparisons will be made item by item. Regrettably, it will become a battlefield. I do not wish to say anything more. I accept the point that the Minister made about the roundabout effects of my amendment. That is the disadvantage of putting it forward at this stage of the Bill. I accept that. I also accept that it would be wholly inappropriate to take it further.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Loans to Assembly by Secretary of State]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 43, line 5, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is my last attempt to remove unnecessary words from the Bill. The phrase to be omitted in this case is unnecessary beyond any rational argument. I emphasise "rational". The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General at Committee stage at least accepted that the words were unnecessary. The tune was changed at Report stage. I ask noble Lords to look at Clause 82. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to make loans to the assembly. Subsection (2) is vital:
"The Treasury may issue to the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund such sums as he needs for making loans under this section".
The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General at Committee stage drew attention to that provision which means that the consent of the Treasury is in any event required if the Treasury stands on the path between the Secretary of State and the national loans commissioners. Subsection (5) limits the amount of loans that may be outstanding to £500 million, but subsection (6) provides:
"The Secretary of State may from time to time by order made with the consent of the Treasury substitute for the amount specified in subsection (5) such greater amount as is specified in the order".
It is perfectly obvious that the words "made with the consent of the Treasury" are unnecessary.
When the great jurist, Sir Frederick Pollock, handed over the chair of the Law Quarterly Review to another great jurist, the father of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, he gave the following advice about commenting upon judicial pronouncements. If one needed to criticise a judgment one should say, "With respect"; if the judgment was clearly wrong one must say, "With great respect"; but if it had to be read to be believed one must say,"With the most profound respect".
It is with the most profound respect that I turn to the Government's argument on this provision. At Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General accepted that the words were unnecessary but bravely went on to say that that was not a matter for criticism; on the contrary, it was a matter for congratulation because the Government were making plain what was necessary.
By the time we came to Report stage that argument could not be sustained; indeed, it was expressly withdrawn. The Government then accepted that unnecessary words should not be in the Bill. But the first argument having failed another two were cooked up. The noble and learned Lord's first argument was that although your Lordships know and others know that the consent of the Treasury is necessary under the circumstance the members of the assembly and the general public might not know. That is a completely fantastic argument. They have only to look at the clause to see that the consent of the Treasury is required under subsection (2), to which I have just referred.
There are only three people under the clause who are concerned: the Secretary of State, the Treasury official and the national loans commissioner. Nobody else. So that argument was obviously not a very convincing one. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord went on to a second argument which he said was more substantial. Well, it could hardly be less substantial than the first. However, when one looks at it, it has no substantiality at all. The argument was that under the draft transfer of functions order made under Clause 2 the consent of the Treasury under a number of statutory provisions and secondary legislation is no longer required. That, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is because they were inconsistent with devolution. The noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"While I accept that that process is somewhat removed from that of raising the assembly's borrowing limit".—[Official Report, 9/7/98; col. 1400.]
That was real understatement. Not only is it somewhat remote; it is utterly irrelevant. Will the Minister say whether he stands by those two arguments, the only ones we now have? In particular, what is the possible relevance to the abrogation of the need for Treasury consent under the draft order?
The House will remember that the famous philosopher, Bradley, described metaphysics as finding bad reasons for what we believe on instinct. What have been advanced so far are bad reasons for what the Government do not wish to concede because they once put their hands to the letter. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the utmost ineffable respect I cannot agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. We have debated this interesting point at some length. There are many Acts over the past decades dealing with borrowing from the National Loans Fund and the like where legislation has explicitly imposed a requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the Treasury's consent. I refer to the well known paragraph 4, of Schedule 3 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 as an example.
I do not resile from anything that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said. He has every confidence that I shall maintain his position steadfastly—so much confidence that he demonstrates it by not being here on this occasion. It is appropriate to have it on this occasion. At the end of the day, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is saying that what he says three times is true; I am saying that what the Solicitor-General has said twice and I a third time is true. We are not going to agree.
10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is not enough to say that we think it is appropriate. None of the arguments has been addressed. It is absurd for a government who parade under the banner inscribed "Modernisation" to cling to these ancient phrases just because they turn up in the computer in parliamentary counsel's office. However, as I have said, these matters
362
are not suitable for a Division. Therefore, without thinking for a moment that the case has been made out, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 [Consultation with business]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 60, line 43, leave out ("it considers appropriate") and insert ("is reasonably required").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have two amendments grouped with this one. The first amendment, Amendment No. 42, again tries to bring wealth creation to the forefront of the assembly's mind because, having followed the Bill through, my feeling is that it is a second-class citizen to culture. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Roberts who said:
"But it is curious that there is not more about partnership with business in the Bill".
On Report the noble Lord, Lord Williams, tried to tell me that his amendment dealt with my concern, but I must point out that as the Bill is written there is no need for the assembly to consult business. Following the Government's amendment of the clause on Report, the assembly is now charged to:
"carry out consultation with such organisations representative of business and such other organisations as it considers appropriate".
The clause as now worded appears to me to have some ambiguity as to whether the assembly's discretion relates now to the matter upon which it consults or whether its discretion relates to such other organisations. However, the Minister interpreted the wording as meaning discretion on the consultation rather than the organisation (Hansard col. 1458).
The purpose of the amendment is to give reassurance to business—as I have already learnt from the noble and learned Lord business includes agriculture—that the assembly will be under an unambiguous statutory obligation to consult business except where such requirement is patently unreasonable; for example, except in special cases no one would expect the assembly to consult the agricultural industry about policies or possible legislation which are remote from farming issues, such as the powers proposed to be devolved under legislation dealing with public museums and galleries.
On the other hand, the agricultural industry must be consulted not just on matters directly affecting it, but on such other issues which indirectly affect its interests such as planning, environmental protection, the compulsory purchase of land and housing policy. I co-operated with the noble Lord the Chief Whip on that matter.
On Report the Minister stated:
"its decisions on how consultation should be organised will need it to be reasonable".
By importing the words "reasonably required" into the Bill the House would merely be giving statutory force and more certainty to what the Government had already clearly agreed should be the right way to proceed.
The amendment would reassure business and of course agriculture that the Government were devolving discretion,
"as well as avoiding over-prescription".—[OfficialReport, 9/7/98; cols. 1455–59.],
to use the Minister's words. If nothing else—I hope for more—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will at least give my advisers credit for carefully studying his words, trying to ensure that they are clear and encouraging for business and agriculture.
Amendment No. 43 makes it possible for someone knowledgeable in agriculture and rural development to be considered as a member of the Welsh Development Agency. Again, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his letter, a copy of which is in the Library. It helped me to understand the Government's views. However, needless to say, I feel that too much emphasis in the Bill is placed on culture to the detriment of wealth creation.
On Report at col. 1472 of the Official Report of 9th July, the noble and learned Lord said that the criteria for appointing members to the Welsh Development Agency,
"include industry which, of course, covers agriculture as well".
I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord say that and I thanked him when summing up. It would be difficult to define rural development. If the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, cannot do so, I shall not attempt to do so here, although I am sure that I could do so outside the Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, wrote in his letter of 13th July:
"However, it has been the policy of successive governments not to add to the competency list as the view taken is that the existing provision already allows the Secretary of State to exercise a wide interpretation as to the extent of competences he should bring to the board of the Agency. In this way, the need for greater prescription as to the range of experiences sought—or having continually to add to that list—is avoided".
I have two matters to raise on the letter. First, in future the Welsh Development Agency will have only nine members. I approve of that. Indeed, it gives me heart that the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are determined to avoid the wish of my noble friend Lord St. Davids to have a waffle shop. I hope that he can assure me that the Secretary of State will make every effort to ensure that agriculture and rural development are taken fully into consideration.
Secondly—it is a technical point—I ask the Minister to explain what I call the Renton rule. My noble friend explained it to me many times during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I often wanted to add or subtract a species to a schedule. My noble friend warned me that if I then left any species out, lawyers would assume that it was, or was not, protected. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, understands what I say. I think that it is a well-known legal position.
Why will lawyers not assume that someone experienced in agriculture and rural development does not fall into what I call the Renton trap to which I have just referred, and therefore be assumed not to have a
364
place on the Welsh Development Agency board? That is why I wish to have those words added to Section 2(3) of the Welsh Development Act 1975.
Finally, I repeat my plea that by accepting the amendments the Government will be drawing the attention of the assembly to the importance of wealth creation in the countryside. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I shall speak briefly against the amendment. I am able to confirm what I was not able to say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on 9th July when I disappeared to Llangollen,—it being a more profitable that night to be at the centre of international Welsh culture than your Lordships' House.
I offer the noble Lord my support for Clause 115 as amended on Report. I express my satisfaction that the broad wording of the clause—and it is why I oppose the amendment—means that there will be a serious consultation with business, including consultation with trade unions as appropriate. I also welcome the fact that it will be for the assembly to decide in which ways that consultation is operated. I oppose the amendment and endorse the clause as it stands.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 amended Clause 115, as the noble Lord kindly indicated. There is no doubt that
"business and such other organisations as it considers appropriate"
includes agriculture and rural development. I am happy to affirm, as the noble Lord specifically asked, that the Secretary of State pays particular attention to the interests of agriculture and rural development. We believe that the amendment has got it about right, but, equally, I recognise, as I have on many occasions, the legitimate concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I hope that I have tried fully to recognise those in writing, as he indicated.
He is right that the list of competencies in the 1975 Act has not been extended. We do not believe that that is necessary and perhaps I may give an example. Recently, the Secretary of State instituted a public open competition for appointments to the board of the WDA, which is to be reconstituted later this year. We have received more than 200 applications. The WDA is to assume the responsibilities of the present land authority for Wales and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Within that total, 15 per cent. of the applications relate to individuals with direct experience of farming, tourism, food and catering and entrepreneurial skills in rural areas. Therefore, it is plain that the list of competencies does not discourage or dissuade people with relevant expertise in the area which the noble Lord has identified from putting themselves forward.
Furthermore, as I have indicated on earlier occasions—perhaps it is helpful to repeat it—the agency will set up a rural policy unit based in mid-Wales. There is no doubt that the agency, working under the strategic direction of the Secretary of State, will ensure that it pays careful attention to the vital contribution which is made to Welsh economic life by rural areas in Wales, rural development and the business of agriculture.

365
I have said it before and I will say it again: it is not simply the economic aspects of rural life, agriculture, farming, rural development and rural activities which are important. As the Secretary of State has demonstrated abundantly, we believe that there is a very important social and cultural context to rural life in Wales, quite apart from its economic contribution which we all value and cherish.
I believe that the amendment has got it about right. I hope that the assurances I gave to the noble Lord in my letter and to your Lordships tonight will suffice for his present purposes.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I point out that he has not answered my question. My Amendment No. 42 proposes to leave out "it considers appropriate" and insert "is reasonably required", which I explained at considerable length. Why is not that better than the provision written on the face of the Bill? I do not believe that the noble Lord addressed that point at all.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I believe that the present drafting is perfectly suitable to bring about any consequence that the noble Lord requires. We thought about the issue quite carefully and took quite a lot of trouble to get it, we thought, right. We believe that if one is devolving powers to an assembly one ought to say that what the assembly considers appropriate is the test that ought to be applied. The noble Lord is right; I omitted to say that and I am sorry.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the noble Lord's answer to the final question is deeply unsatisfactory. I am merely putting on the face of the Bill what the noble Lord said on Report. I am minded to press the amendment to a Division, but I am sure that the noble Lord would find that extremely churlish. In order to be more reasonable, I shall conclude my remarks on this series of amendments by saying something that has worried me considerably throughout our discussions on the Bill. Every time that I have moved an amendment—and this applies also to all noble Lords on this side who have moved amendments—I have been told by the Minister to trust the assembly. I have been told to get lost.
I gave reasons earlier why I felt it was my job to examine the matter and not necessarily to take everything on trust. If your Lordships did that, it is time they went home. Perhaps we should. I realise that what I am about to say may well upset noble Lords on the Benches opposite because of the matter that I have just mentioned.
I have tried to go beyond that assumption of saying, "Let's trust the assembly", but I must go further. I remind your Lordships that 74.4 per cent. of the Welsh did not vote for an assembly. That means that they, like me, did not really trust the assembly to work for their best endeavours. I am trying—I realise inadequately—to represent the views of that 74.4 per cent. of Wales. In that regard, I know I have the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who raised that issue earlier.
366
Before the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has a coronary, I remind your Lordships that I live and earn my living in Wales. Last night I listened to a group of Welsh-speaking farmers who, as is their wont, spoke in English for my benefit. They too are concerned, although, like me, they want the assembly to work well, which means efficiently, to encourage efficient farming and not be the waffle shop which both I and they are most fearful of, and I still am most fearful of, particularly hearing the remarks of my noble friend Lord St. Davids.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division. However, I am disappointed by the fact that the Minister did not look carefully at my Amendment No. 42. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, briefly on this occasion I should like to say a few words. I am extremely indebted for the support that I have had from noble Lords on this side of the House throughout the five gruelling days in Committee and the two days on Report. We have just been listening to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. To come along the Benches, as it were, we have heard from my noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Kenyon, Lord Balfour, Lord Rees, a former Chief Secretary and, of course, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who has the distinction of having carried the only amendment that we are sending to the other place.
I believe that it is in order to thank some noble Lords on the Cross Benches. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am sure that we have all enjoyed listening to him, as we have the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. He does not always agree with us but we know it is a passing phase and we shall be somehow together in one way or another on some platform or another. However, my real thanks must go to my redoubtable colleagues; namely, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I want to thank the latter most sincerely for the help that he has given me in the heat of the day. Perhaps I may also extend my particular thanks to my noble friend Lord Courtown—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, for the sake of the record, I should inform the House that the noble Lord who has done so much work on the Bill is the Lord Mackay, but not of Drumadoon.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; indeed, he has given me the opportunity to recall my noble friend Lord Onslow of Woking, who has also participated in our proceedings.

367
Finally, perhaps I may thank the Ministers who have dealt with us with courtesy and who clearly had a genuine desire to deal with our concerns. I and my noble friends have very much appreciated the letters that we have received, which have not been slow in amplifying replies given in debate.
Of course, we still have our concerns about the Bill which are very well known. For example, there is our concern about proportional representation, the whole set-up and, indeed, the indecision as to whether we will have a Cabinet-style or a local government committee system. Frankly, we are appalled by the proposal that the Secretary of State should also be the first secretary because to us that is a complete denial of devolution; indeed, it is a complete nonsense. Similarly, we are not altogether happy with the inclusive political approach. There is a potentially corrupting element within that inclusive politics. I also believe that the values of adversarial politics are underestimated.
We are also very much concerned—as, indeed, are Members in all parts of the House—with the absolute discretion left to the Secretary of State as far as concerns the financing of the assembly. We know that the assembly will start with a great many commitments that have been entered into by those who become members of the assembly. Despite yesterday's announcement about spending by the Secretary of State, and later the assembly in Wales, my own simple view is that such increases as we have seen will be totally inadequate to meet the needs of the assembly.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is my pleasant task to congratulate the Government on a great achievement in bringing forward the Government of Wales Bill. It is an important milestone for Wales and the fulfilment of the longings and expectations of many of us on these Benches over many years. The first stirrings of a parliament for Wales can be traced to the Cymru Fydd movement at the end of the 19th century led by David Lloyd George. It was a tenet of the Liberal and, subsequently of the Liberal Democrat faith, that there should be devolution and that Wales should have its own parliament.
We are most of the way with the Bill. We have said from the beginning—indeed, from Second Reading—that we feel that there is a logic which will drive the assembly to require primary legislative powers. I have in mind the conflict which will exist between the programme laid down by the Westminster government and the reduced role of the Welsh assembly in merely dealing with the secondary legislation under that programme. We believe that that tension will ultimately lead to the sort of parliament that we have sought all our lives. I pay tribute to my noble friends for carrying on that fight over many years. Both my noble friend Lord Geraint and my noble friend Lord Hooson have been foremost in projecting the concept of the parliament of Wales over that period of time.
I believe this Bill has shown the value of inclusive politics. We are grateful for the way in which since this Bill came to your Lordships' House. We have been involved at all stages of its consideration with the Government and with others as regards the way in which
368
things can be progressed, what concessions can he made and so on. We have welcomed that. I believe that Welsh people have an agenda for ourselves which goes far beyond party politics. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to whom many tributes have been paid— I add my own as regards his period as Secretary of State—laid the foundations for the way in which Wales has progressed. That has been followed by others, currently by Ron Davies. No doubt that will follow through into the assembly. We all know what needs to be done in Wales in terms of improving indigenous industry, improving our education and our health and bringing us up to standards which compare not simply with the rest of the United Kingdom but with the very best of world standards. I believe that the assembly, with the power and the enthusiasm that it will have, will achieve those goals.
I pay tribute to others who have contributed to our discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said a moment ago that he has constantly heard the phrase, "Trust the assembly". I pay tribute to the way in which the noble Lord has constantly reminded us of the most serious crisis and challenge that faces us in Wales at the moment; namely, the agriculture crisis that affects so many of the people for whom he has spoken. But when the noble Lord uses that expression, "Trust the assembly", he brings to mind the words of William Ewart Gladstone—the centenary of whose death we celebrated last week in Hawarden, in my part of the world—when he said that the Liberals trust the people and the Tories fear the people. That is something that I read 30 years ago. It has remained with me and it has inspired my Liberal politics throughout that time. Trust in the people and trust in the assembly will make the assembly succeed.
I also pay tribute to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who has, without question, abandoned many of the former demands that his party has made and has contributed so much to these debates. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, say that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would be joining the Conservative Benches. I think that was the force of what he was saying. It was once said of the noble Lord that he walked around with a copy of Marx's Das Kapital under his arm. It is said to be the Good Food Guide these days. Perhaps in the future it will be the works of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I do not know, but I hope the noble Lord is not moving too far in that direction.
I, of course, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, whose contributions have been so important. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for the way in which they have steered this Bill through the House, answering all the questions that have been put to them in a succinct, amiable, sharp but pleasant way.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, in pursuance of my role as the honorary president of the Welsh national culinary team, I am very happy to carry the Good Food Guide under my arm. It reminds me of the wonderful eating places that we have which I shall not name. I do not need

369
to carry the works of Karl Marx under my arm because they are in my head. They are part of the cultural history of this century and of Welsh politics. I am proud to be in that tradition, although in a re-invented form.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that when he discourses upon the values of adversarial politics, I shall respond by saying that the only platform I intend to share with him is that wonderful platform at Llandudno Junction station, when I shall be, God speed, en route to Cardiff by train.
In endorsing everything that has been said, I wish to pay two tributes. I want to mention in particular, if I may do so without embarrassing him, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. He has been a beacon of light to me over many years and in many contexts in Welsh politics. He inadvertently lost a certain by-election, which was won by my previous leader in another place, Gwynfor Evans. Certainly he is also with us still in the great debate on the national question in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, perhaps more than any other member of the Labour Party, has played his role in bringing us to where we are today. He has argued the national question, in and out, in difficult times. I remember him as a political adviser to the previous Welsh Office administration under the right honourable John Morris, the Minister in another place. I remember the difficult times that we had following the failure of the Wales and Scotland Bills and of the referendum. My noble friend kept faith, and the changes that have taken place in the Labour Party since have been in no small measure due to him. I hope that I do not embarrass my noble friend. We are both Meirionnydd boys at heart, and that is important to us.
Finally, by convention we never speak in this place of the unsung heroes of our debates, who are those who sit in the Box. I thank the officials for their effective briefing at all stages of the Bill. They have kept Members of all parties in touch. I say that because I hope to work with them again!
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it would be wrong to let this moment pass without saying just a few words. First, I very much hope that the assembly will be an effective organ for government in Wales. I wish it well. I have expressed doubts in the past as to whether this was the right way forward. But once the decision had been taken in the referendum, I had no doubt at all that it was our job to make the legislation as effective as possible and to seek to ensure that the assembly acts for the total good of the people of Wales. I hope that it does.
I wish to thank in particular both Ministers who have replied to our debates throughout with courtesy. They have sought, both in the Chamber and through correspondence, to respond to us and meet the points that we have raised. Of course I rather regret that they have not shown more willingness to accept some of the suggestions that we have made to strengthen the Bill. They will have learnt at least one lesson during the passage of the Bill; namely, that if they wish to shorten the time which the debates occupy on the Floor of the House, they would do
370
well to avoid unnecessary verbiage in the legislation, and therefore miss the chastisement that they have justifiably received in the notable contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
It has been a courteous and sometimes lively debate. I have much enjoyed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who, with dog-like devotion, has supported the Government throughout. No Labrador has been more faithful, though at times I thought that the noble Lord had misjudged his role—he seemed to be trying to shoot the birds as well as retrieve them. He seemed at times to believe that he had become a Minister in the administration, and was more enthusiastic than any Minister has been.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on the vigorous way in which he has personally defended the interests of Mr. Ron Davies, whom he obviously feels needs defending. His role has been that of the guard dog, yapping in defence of the Minister. As I said, I hope that the bones will be duly thrown. We have enjoyed our debates. They have been good and vigorous debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, knows, I greatly respect him for the contribution that he has made to Welsh politics.
I believe that we have improved the Bill. My noble friend was wrong in saying that I was responsible for the only amendment. There are other amendments.
I conclude by saying that I wish the present Secretary of State for Wales well. I admire the way in which he has carried the legislation to this point; it is a considerable achievement. Now, as a result of my amendment, which was passed, he will have to stand down as Secretary of State, but I wish him every possible success in his leadership of the executive of the new Welsh assembly and the further work that he will do there on behalf of the people of Wales.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Bill must not pass without a tribute from the Cross Benches to the occupants of the Front Benches on whom the heavy burden of the scrutiny and defence of the Bill has fallen. It naturally gives me particular pleasure, as a superannuated lawyer, that of the two Ministers, one was a former chairman of the Bar Council and the other is the Solicitor-General.
There have been many notable speeches from the Back Benches, especially those of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, speaking with all the authority of a highly respected Secretary of State. I hope it would not be invidious if I refer only to one speech. That was the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, at the Committee stage. For those of us who favoured devolution, the result of the referendum gave some cause for concern, all the greater when one looks at the map. It seemed to me very important when the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that he looked to the assembly as a forum in which real differences could be reconciled, a forum of reconciliation. If that can be done, as we all hope, it will owe not a little to the way in which the measure has been discussed in Parliament, in the other place, so far as I can judge, and certainly in your Lordships' House.

371
In the meantime, we on the Cross Benches are deeply grateful for those on the Front Benches.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is light amid the encircling gloom. We have almost finished this Bill, subject to some refinements which the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will readily and eagerly anticipate may be made in another place.
It has been a good-natured and good-hearted debate over a long period, with us often sitting quite late. When the Bill first came to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and myself we asked how we could improve it. We both sat and pondered for a while and thought we ought to introduce some superfluous verbiage, just to please the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I shall not reiterate the tributes which have been paid, except particularly to the officials in the Box who have produced a masterly service for everyone. They have given briefing to Peers on all sides of the House, prepared amendments and provided explanatory notes. NAAG has
372
done a good and significant job of work here, whether or not one agrees with its conclusions. I believe that John Elgar Jones deserves a word of praise, as does the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who has done a good public service to Wales and, it may be, quite a significant political service to his own party, though it has been unpopular at times.
It was extremely generous of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to say that this was significantly the work of Ron Davies. I know it will be very much appreciated. It is the construction and product of his moral, intellectual and political energy. I do not believe that 18 months ago most people would have thought that he would manage it. It is a significant political achievement and one on which I know people will want to congratulate him. But he will particularly recognise and appreciate the source from which that very generous tribute came.
I say no more. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eleven o'clock.