§ (" . 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 CrickhowellMy 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 GresfordMy 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 MostynMy 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 ConwyMy 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.
308| 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. |
| 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 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 GresfordMy 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 GlaisdaleMy 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 CrickhowellMy 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-ThomasMy 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 CrickhowellMy 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-ThomasMy 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 ConwyMy 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 HoosonMy 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 MostynMy 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 GlaisdaleMy 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 MostynMy 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 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 moved Amendment No. 27:
§ Page 20, line 32, after ("State") insert ("for Wales").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ 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 moved Amendment No. 29:
§ After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—