Government of Wales Bill

HL Deb 15 July 1998 vol 592 cc292-304

5.8 p.m.

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 5.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 24:

After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—