Lords Sitting of 3 June 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 Wakefield.

In-hospital Infections
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many patients in the last year have picked up infections in hospital which cause them either to remain longer in hospital or to return to hospital, and what is the cost.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, data in the form referred to in the Question posed by the noble Baroness are not available. It is inherently difficult to collect data in this form because of the many factors that can affect the outcome of a person's stay in hospital. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness and the House that the Government take very seriously the subject of infections picked up in hospitals. The Department of Health has issued guidance to the NHS about in-hospital infections, monitors hospital practice and is developing systems to improve the quality of data in this field. The Government particularly welcome the contribution of the recent report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on resistance to antibiotics and other microbial agents. We are studying the recommendations carefully and expect to make a response to Parliament during this Session.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, but does she accept it is disappointing that the Government do not have any detailed information on this very important issue? Further, is the noble Baroness aware that there is considerable anecdotal evidence about people going into hospital, picking up infections and having to return to hospital or receive treatment subsequently at home? Does the Minister accept that that adds enormously to the cost? Will she ensure that much greater effort is made to collect this information and, following the report of your Lordships' House, consider the dangers of the overprescribing of antibiotics as a counter-measure against problems many of which arise from lack of proper training in elementary hygiene?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much reinforce the final point made by the noble Baroness. It is estimated that about one patient in 10 in hospital acquires an infection subsequent to his or her admission. I entirely accept her point that this is a serious problem. However, the Question put by the noble Baroness is concerned with the extent of readmissions caused primarily by that factor.
334
That is more difficult to ascertain. However, we are working with the Public Health Laboratory Service to establish a new system for surveillance of hospital-acquired infection which we hope will produce results quickly. The Department of Health has recently commissioned new clinical guidelines from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to report on standards of infection control in hospitals. We expect that to be available in July.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is better to spend money on patients than on the collection of too much information and administration?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I always emphasise the importance of spending NHS resources primarily on patient care but, as I hope was clear from my original Answer, the Government take this issue of patient care very seriously. Therefore, we believe that money spent on collecting the appropriate data helps us to look after people better.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what proportion of the one in 10 cases referred to earlier arises from surgeons and anaesthetists passing on infections from which they suffer?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot provide that statistic. I suspect that, like the previous question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that breakdown of the figures is not available at national level, although such information is probably held by individual hospital trusts. The noble Lord is right to suggest that sometimes new forms of surgical intervention cause infections in respect of which people might not otherwise have been at risk. On the other hand, that must be balanced against the very good results which on the whole come from new forms of surgical intervention.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend is taking note of the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on the development of resistance to antibiotics chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. I was privileged to serve on that committee. Is my noble friend aware that the committee made a number of recommendations with regard to the control of hospital infections? It is true that a reduction in the total level of infections will reduce the rate of development of resistant infections. In particular, is my noble friend aware of the statement in paragraph 11.26 that investment in good infection control
"will pay for itself quite quickly"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend's very important contribution to the work of that committee and repeat the comments of the Secretary of State for Health, in welcoming the report, that the Government see it as a valuable, constructive and timely contribution to the current national and international debate. As to the specific

335
question of infection control, I repeat what I said in response to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Of course, primary infection control is very much dependent upon primary methods of hygiene which probably have not changed over many years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over the years there has been complacency among hospital managers about infection control, which is not always very expensive? Given the pressure on hospital beds and the number of agency nurses, there is growing concern about such matters as the failure of staff to wash their hands and infections passed by doctors' ties, pencils, stethoscopes and basic things like that, in going from patient to patient?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I hope I made clear in answer to previous questions, basic rules of everyday hygiene must be considered and applied even more carefully in a hospital setting. There can be very disastrous effects if these problems arise in places where people are already vulnerable, perhaps because of their own originating illness. All hospitals have specialist infection control teams whose specific function is to advise on the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of infection both in the more complicated ways that may arise from invasive surgery and in the everyday ways that the noble Baroness mentioned.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there must be some concern about a situation which affects 10 per cent. of patients? I think she implied that the statistics are collected at hospital level but not at national level. If I have that wrong, I apologise. But if that is the case, would not the collection of those statistics be valuable to assist in analysing why it is worse in some places than others?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my original response was obviously not clear. The Public Health Laboratory Service is trying to develop a national surveillance approach along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness. I am sure that that would be helpful. In my original response, I was trying to say that the detailed point rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the figures relating to the relationship between in-hospital infection and delayed discharge were much more difficult to collect.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, we have four Questions to answer in 30 minutes. We have had eight minutes on the first. I think that we should move on.

Heathrow: Minimum Fuel Requirements
2.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that planes landing at Heathrow comply with the Civil Aviation Authority's minimum fuel requirements.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the CAA recently reissued its aeronautical information circular giving advice on fuel levels to aircraft which are inbound to UK airports. Such advice is updated regularly as a matter of routine. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with planes arriving at Heathrow Airport with inadequate fuel levels.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that over the past six months five aircraft about to land at Heathrow sent out mayday or distress calls, saying that they had run out of fuel and asking to have priority landing? That is a major safety issue. What action can the Government or the CAA take about aircraft which continue to flout the basic rule of having enough fuel to go on to another airport?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the low-fuel incidents at Heathrow Airport to which my noble friend referred include a combination of pilot-notified concern as well as mayday calls. They are investigated as they occur. With regard to concern about aircraft which offend persistently, the statistics show that incidents of aircraft arriving at their destinations with fuel levels approaching the minimum reserve are rare. There are no persistent offenders. If it appeared that aircraft operated by a UK airline were arriving with insufficient fuel, the CAA would require the airline to improve its fuel management policy. In the case of foreign operators, we would expect their national aviation authorities to take similar action.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that too many aircraft are landing at Heathrow in any event, and that a percentage of them should be required to land elsewhere?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend taxes my natural commitment to Manchester International Airport as being my regional airport. We of course take seriously the question of safety. I must stress that any incident causing concern or indicating potential concern is rare. There were just three events out of some 220,000 landings at Heathrow last year.
Baroness Gardner of Parks: My Lords, how many of the incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred have been instances where the aircraft have been held in a waiting pattern at Heathrow? Is it a common problem that aircraft arriving are asked to fly around until there is an opportunity to land?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the standards require that the amount of fuel carried allows not just for stand-by and circling, but enables such aircraft to go to an alternative airport should that prove necessary. Of the five incidents referred to, two—one in March 1996 and one in December 1997—were following long hold. In the case of the incident on 15th December 1997, priority approach was given, the aircraft landed, but the fuel reserve was still above the minimum level required.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, may I say—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am getting into bad habits, I am sorry. Those figures for mayday and other emergency calls are small, but one serious crash through lack of fuel could be a major disaster. Would my noble friend kindly look into the advice given in the circulars to see whether it is sufficiently strong? Further, does she feel that there should be tough monitoring, bearing in mind that we have had reports of serious problems when it comes to landing aircraft safely at Heathrow?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. This is a serious matter. Because of that, it is a matter of routine that the CAA reviews all aeronautical information circulars every five years. We take the issue seriously. I refer my noble friend to the figures: in Heathrow there were just three incidents out of some 220,000 landings.
As I said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, the incidents where concern was expressed by the pilot in the event did not lead to aircraft landing with below the minimum level of fuel available.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are significant gains for companies operating aircraft on or below minimum fuel levels?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am aware of that, and so is the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Any question of aircraft travelling with below the minimum standard would be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. If any serious offenders were identified, the ultimate sanction would be prosecution for breaches of air navigation orders.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, the Minister referred to priority landings. How many were maydays and how many had declared a PAN call?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, of the low fuel incidents, I recollect that two were PAN calls and three were maydays over the period of time. I shall check the figures. If I find that that is inaccurate, I shall notify my noble friend.

Severn Bridges: Tolls
2.51 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any recent assessment of the toll charges on the Severn bridges and their effect on inward investment into Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, while no such assessment has been made recently by the Government, the Severn bridges provide a major high quality link in the transport networks linking South Wales with the remainder of the United Kingdom and Europe. They are a major factor in encouraging new industries to locate in Wales and tolls and private finance were integral to the provision of the new Severn crossing.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that over generations Wales has been plagued by unemployment, and that there are still many black spots? Yet to enter Wales through its main access point, a lorry pays a toll charge of £12.10, a light van pays £8.10 and a car £4. Is there any wonder that a recent survey of economic development officers by the CBI and the AA demonstrates clearly that the tolls are an impediment to investment by existing companies and new companies considering relocating there? Is it not time for the Government to give some thought to how the problems can be tackled?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's concern about these matters. He stated the concern expressed in the Western Mail as regards the AA/CBI report to which he referred. I have seen that report. It dealt with the need for investment in transport infrastructure in the whole of the United Kingdom. That was one comment among many in one small section of the report. The evidence indicates that in 1996–97 Wales secured 22 per cent. of all new jobs promised for the UK by foreign direct investment. That is with a population of 5 per cent. of the UK. So there is not a great deal of evidence that tolling acts as a disincentive to investment, although in view of the unemployment concerns to which the noble Lord referred, it is a matter that the Government will keep under review.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the charge of £4 for a motor car to cross one of the busiest and most prosperous parts of Wales and England is cheap compared with the charges in Skye, one of the poorest parts of Scotland?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to report to the House that in response to a manifesto commitment to review the impact of tolls on low income island communities, frequent users of the Skye Bridge now pay £2.60 for a round trip. Therefore those concerns were addressed.

339
I know to my cost that issues of comparative prices on tolls are controversial, but I believe that the balance is right.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we wish that high level of investment under the Conservative Government to continue under the present Government? Anything that can be done to alleviate the toll situation over the Severn bridges would be most welcome.
Although there have been complaints over the years about the toll on the Severn Bridge (now the Severn bridges) is it not a fact that the previous Labour government did not abolish tolls? Is it, or is it not, the intention of the present Government to abolish tolls over the Severn bridges? They may not wish to do so because the cost would be prohibitive.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we do not propose to legislate to change the current toll structure under the Severn Bridges Act 1992. That is because we recognise, as I said earlier, that there is not a disincentive to investment in Wales by the tolling. Since the new crossing has opened, heavy goods traffic has increased by 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. compared with 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. growth in car traffic, which suggests that the economic traffic is still travelling there.
As regards records of comparative governments, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced last month plans for a new £15 million European rail freight terminal in Cardiff which will open in 1999. It will provide much needed infrastructure to encourage further development in the Principality, an aim which was notably absent from the programme of the previous government.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the tolls over the Severn are so much higher than those over, for example, the Forth and Clyde? Surely one would expect that the high usage should render the toll lower since the overheads can be regained over a larger number of vehicles.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the tolling regime on different crossings are related to the financial costs of the infrastructure and to the concession agreements granted in relation to them. The Severn River Crossing plc elected to charge tolls in one direction. That decision was reflected in the provisions of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 and its concession agreement.
As I said earlier, it is invidious to make comparisons between individual pieces of infrastructure, each of which has separate concession agreements relating to them.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that under a Labour Government only a minimum toll charge applied? Under the new regime, the charges have escalated significantly.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I refer to the Severn bridges regime. Does the Minister further appreciate that there is now a renewed threat of VAT charges on top of those tolls?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government are concerned about the threat from the European Commission of VAT being charged on tolls. In common with France, Greece, the Netherlands and Ireland, this country fails to charge VAT on tolls and does not believe that tolls should be subject to VAT. Hearings are scheduled later this year at the European Court of Justice, with a final decision by the Court towards the end of 1999. We shall certainly defend our position in relation to ECJ infraction proceedings.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as I am the chairman of Severn River Crossing plc—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hooson: Is the Minister aware that, despite the tolls, the increase in investment on both sides of the estuary has been very great during the past two or three years because the transport facility is so much better than it was before? Do the Government appreciate that when the two bridges are returned to them, free of all charges and in pristine condition within the time allowed by the Act of Parliament, they will be in a position to abolish all tolls, as will be the case with the Dartford bridge? However, do the Government intend to do so?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the concession will continue for a maximum of 30 years and the prediction is that it will end after 22 years in the year 2014, it would be a foolish Minister who committed a future government to detailed policy at this point.

European Union: Abolition of Duty-free Allowances
3 p.m.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the abolition of duty-free allowances within the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, intra-EU duty free sales will end after 30th June 1999, unless there is a proposal from the Commission to retain them and the unanimous agreement of all 15 member states. The Government have always said that they would not oppose a study into the impact of abolition if there were consensus for such a study. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as chairman of ECOFIN, facilitated a discussion on 19th May from which it emerged that a clear majority of member states were against re-opening the decision and that there was no consensus for an impact study.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Following on from the ECOFIN meeting,

341
does it not seem somewhat ludicrous that we are looking at abolishing a profitable industry employing about 120,000 people in the EU by way of a rather fudged system of compensation which may well cost taxpayers something like £6 billion over the next five years? Further, in addition to the well-voiced concerns of the aviation and ferry industries, is the Minister aware that the cruise industry is also extremely concerned about the matter? Indeed, that industry is one of the fastest growing areas of the holiday business in Europe and the uncertainty, coupled with the possibility of having to deal with a number of different tax regimes within the EU before harmonisation, may well place a vastly increased workload on those companies which could result in the deflection of some of this lucrative business away from EU ports.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a confused situation. The extension to the 30th June 1999 was a six-and-a-half-year extension to enable those affected to make alternative plans. Some of the estimates which have been made of job losses and of damage to the travel industry have been based on the assumption that there would be no replacement for duty-free sales. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that Commission officials are looking at the possibilities of duty-paid sales both at the ports and, indeed, on vessels.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, apart from job losses, would the Minister care to comment on the possibility of an increase in fares arising due to the lack of money going to the airport authorities from duty-free sales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if there is any loss of revenue, it is up to the ferry companies and the airlines to decide what action they should take as to whether or not they increase fares. I repeat: the estimates of job losses and fare increases in studies carried out for the operators differ greatly from those of the authoritative study carried out for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that many people are quite bewildered by the abandonment or the withdrawal of duty-free sales? Indeed, they have always been under the impression that taxation and the imposition of duty, or the non-imposition of duty, were matters for Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, does not my noble friend agree that they will be very annoyed—I feel sure they will be—because they are now having a privilege taken away from them by people outside this Parliament and outside the Government of this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as my noble friend must surely know, the original decision was taken by unanimous vote in 1991 when Mr. Norman Lamont was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, Parliament did have a say in the removal of this concession. It is not taxation policy by the Commission; it is the removal of a concession which, if it did not exist, I do not believe anyone would deliberately invent now.
Lord Rees: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that at the last ECOFIN meeting the Commission offered a paper on the implications of the abolition of duty-free sales? Further, if duty-free sales are indeed to be phased out in June of next year, can the noble Lord say when we are to have an indication of the new duty regime which is to be introduced?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have already said, the Commission is working on the implications of duty-paid arrangements to replace those for duty-free sales. However, some of them could not be stopped; for example, duty-free sales in international waters. However, the issue is how to avoid the confusion which might arise if vessels were charging different rates during different parts of the voyage.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Channel Tunnel rail link. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion to the Standing Orders indicates that discussion on a Statement, after the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen, should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. I should also like to point out that noble Lords who speak at length will do so at the expense of others.

Government of Wales Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 47 [Regulation of procedure]:
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may draw attention to three matters in Clause 47, the first two of which are purely drafting points. First, subsection (2) starts with the word "but". That is a fairly recent technique in drafting and is very much to be commended because it takes the place of the older subsection (1) notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), and so on. In other words, subsection (2) applies, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1). The "but" technique is very much an advantage. I note that the Minister has tabled an amendment to that effect regarding a later clause.

343
My second point relates to subsection (3) of the clause which says:
"The standing orders may make different provision for different circumstances".
That is computer nonsense from the draftsman's office which turns up whenever orders are in question. Of course, orders may make provision for different circumstances. That sort of provision is entirely unnecessary and I venture to suggest that it should be omitted in future.
The third matter concerns subsection (6) where at least two-thirds of the assembly members need to support a motion for change for it to be adopted. That kind of threshold was much debated when we discussed the referendum Bills. It bears out again the wisdom of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that all those kind of things ought to have been discussed before we ever established the referenda. It certainly seems reasonable to require a two-thirds majority for this change, or indeed any other change, because what is sought to be changed will often have been the result of accumulated wisdom and the reasons for having adopted it may well have been forgotten.
Chesterton described tradition in that sense as the democracy of the dead. I venture to think that this provision is valuable. We could well bear it in mind on other occasions when change—particularly violent constitutional change—from a state of affairs which has been long respected is sought.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would not have spoken on this matter but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, makes a telling point which I cannot resist following up; that is, that the assembly will need the assent of a controlled majority of two-thirds before it changes standing orders. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly pointed out, that is in great contrast to the Government's total inability to accept even the concept that there may be some qualified majority in the referendums we have had. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, does the Chamber a great service in bringing to our attention the need for vigilance as regards the majorities required for implementing great change.
The Bill before us was approved by the Welsh people on a narrow majority on a low poll. However, it was a huge poll in comparison with what happened subsequently in London. This Chamber and those in the other place will have to turn our attention to the whole question of majorities and turnouts in referendums. The noble and learned Lord has done us a service by pointing out that as regards the assembly we are discussing the Government accept the need for a qualified majority to change standing orders. I look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that more people voted in the Welsh referendum than in the Northern Ireland referendum recently?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord makes my point for me as regards the need for qualified majorities and turnouts.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, commended the Government in respect of subsection (2). I am glad to join in that commendation. In respect of his further point, it is worth pondering. He said that subsection (3) comprises a useless, computer generated nonsense. I take his point about the two-thirds majority. However, circumstances differ. At the moment I cannot remember how many persons voted in the election for the present Leader of the Opposition.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Equal treatment of English and Welsh languages]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("of the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 112A and 247B are drafting amendments designed to secure consistency of language throughout the Bill in the references to the assembly's standing orders. At one part they are described as,
"standing orders of the assembly",
and elsewhere simply as "standing orders". We seek consistency. I am sure the Committee will endorse and applaud that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [The Commissioners]:
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Presiding officer and deputy]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 28, line 5, at end insert—("( ) The presiding officer and deputy presiding officer shall have a duty to provide members of the Assembly with such information as they may from time to time require in accordance with standing orders.").
The noble Lord said: In the early hours of this morning we debated the whole issue of how assembly information is to be made available to all its members. The amendment seeks to lay a duty on the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer to provide information. I tabled the amendment because of the concern expressed in our earlier debates that there should not be a division between the newly created Cabinet, which we shall discuss later—the executive,

345
the government of Wales as set out in the Bill—and the other members of the assembly. My strongly held view may not be echoed by all Members of this Chamber or the other place, but I believe that we should not replicate the worst habits of Westminster in Cardiff Bay. We should adopt some of the better practices of this Chamber in terms of scrutiny in debate, but we should not adopt some of the practices of secrecy and lack of information and the frustration that is generated among Members not so much in this Chamber but certainly in another place who try to raise issues and obtain information but have difficulty in doing so.
The amendment to Clause 53 would lay a duty upon the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer to make relevant information available. Such a duty would be related to the standing orders. The standing orders would act as a guarantee that members would be able to participate actively in debate and in the flow of information. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Lord is quite right in his recollection of what occurred rather earlier this morning. This amendment is similar to the ones I moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, although it lays greater stress on the objective of providing information for members of the assembly. Even so, it is clear that a division of staff will inevitably be required. We made that point earlier today.
The amendment lays the duty of the provision of information on the presiding officer, whereas our amendments proposed that the division should occur along staffing lines and that it should be decided by the permanent secretary of staff. Some staff would owe their first loyalty to the executive whereas other staff would owe their first loyalty to the assembly and its members. But we come back to the basic point that some division of staff is necessary. I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment; namely, that there must be a duty defined in standing orders to ensure that assemblymen are provided with a proper flow of information.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Like the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, I am in agreement with the thrust of what has been said. We are not entirely clear as to what the drafting of this amendment is intended to achieve. I understand perfectly the point of substance behind the amendment. I take it to be the concern that all members of the assembly, not just members of the executive committee, should have proper support to enable them to do their work properly—and by definition, they need ready and efficient access to information. Noble Lords may have noted that the advisory group attaches a good deal of importance to that question in paragraphs 5.6 to 5.13 of its consultation paper. It refers in particular to effective central library facilities, information gained through use of information technology, and members' own support staff where appropriate.
There is a particular view in the consultation paper that
"there should be regular factual briefings by senior officials of the assembly conducted under agreed arrangements".
346
I believe that takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. If that suggestion comes forward as a recommendation, I do not believe that the Secretary of State will have any difficulty with it. We want an inclusive assembly, with everyone prepared to make a positive contribution—that is, on the basis of a full understanding and full information. Therefore, the provision of information and other means of support for members is being carefully considered now. I hope that the noble Lord finds that a sufficient response for his present purpose. As I said, the amendment is not perfect; however, the noble Lord's point is a very sound one.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out my imperfections but also my spiritual intentions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Assembly First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): In calling Amendment No. 114A, I should point out to the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 115.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 28, line 7, leave out from ("Assembly") to end of line and insert ("Premier or Y Pen Weinidog.").
The noble Lord said: The amendments in this series all hang together. They are designed to convert the executive into a Cabinet, with a premier at its head instead of a First Secretary; to change Secretaries into Ministers; and to convert the subject committees into Select Committees. On the face of it, those are all titular changes; however, I believe that they also carry further the change of style implicit in the change from local authority to Cabinet-style government. We pressed for that change, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, acknowledged more than once, in order to ensure decisive, effective and accountable government, which would not have emerged from an all-party subject committee system as originally proposed.
The Government have accepted the validity of that argument in Wales, as they appear to have done in Scotland from the start. I am sure they are right to have done so. I say that with some 15 years' experience behind me as a Minister in the Welsh Office. We are appreciative of the change that the Government have made.
Our first amendment, Amendment No. 114A, concerning the First Secretary, proposes that he be called "Premier" or, in Welsh, "Pen Weinidog". As Welsh speakers in the Chamber will readily acknowledge, that differentiates him or her from a Prif Weinidog, which is the title reserved for the Prime Minister. The title "Premier" is currently in use in the Canadian provincial legislatures and also in the Australian provincial legislatures. It therefore seems to us reasonable that it should be the title in use in the assembly. I hope that that proves generally acceptable to the Government, as I am sure it will to Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers alike.
The Government, having accepted the change of style to a Cabinet system, cannot well argue that should not be recognised in a change of title for the executive—except that the ultimate decision is for the assembly itself. Unlike the Scotland Bill, which transfers power to the executive, this Bill transfers power to the assembly. So I recognise the difficulty that the Government face. I believe that the Secretary of State ought to have said—
Lord Geraint: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. Would it not be better for the people of Wales to have a Prime Minister, a Prif Weinidog? Can he explain why he is not in favour of that proposal?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Simply because I do not want there to be any confusion. "Premier" is a totally different title from that of Prime Minister. The noble Lord will know that there could be some difficulty with the translation of both pieces of nomenclature. We translate "Prime Minister" as "Prif Weinidog". I suggest that we translate a "Premier" as a "Pen Weinidog". Therefore there is a difference in the terminology which I hope is found to be acceptable.
Lord Hooson: I wonder whether the noble Lord has contemplated the fact that the Premier of Wales might be known as "Pen-Wen"!
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I doubt it. It is certainly not an abbreviation that occurs to me. He might be know as a "Pen", which means "chief", and is a possible abbreviation. However, I doubt that he would be known by any other title.
I dare say that the Committee would like to consider these proposals, as would others outside this House. Certainly they are acceptable to me, and I hope acceptable to others too.
I believe that the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he will approve only standing orders which establish a Cabinet-style system, and that the assembly will not therefore have much choice in the matter—initially at any rate, until it is perhaps able to change standing orders with a two-thirds majority.
The change of titles that we propose might be helpful to the Secretary of State in establishing his Cabinet-style government. I do not intend to argue at any length as to why assembly Secretaries should be called Ministers, except to say simply that they replace Ministers in the United Kingdom Government. At present there are three Ministers in the Welsh Office: the Secretary of State and two Under-Secretaries of State. At least their functions are being transferred to the assembly, and I see no reason why at least their ministerial titles should not go along as well. They are currently called Secretaries of State of various kinds. But a ministerial title is commonly in use and commonly applies to different kinds of Ministers. Therefore I think that the ministerial title is more appropriate to cabinet government and the nomenclature proposed has a coherence and familiarity which should make it both understandable and acceptable to the majority of people.
348
There is no doubt that the changed, Cabinet-style government will affect the role of the subject committees. Our view is that they will be small enough to adopt the approach of a Select Committee rather than a Standing Committee, where set speeches are the order of the day. Most of us who have had experience of both kinds of committee would generally prefer the Select Committee as the more workmanlike and effective option. The main function of the assembly committees is to hold Ministers and others to account. Therefore, again, I think it will be agreed that the Select Committee mode of procedure is to be preferred.
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: I should point out that, as Amendment No. 115A is also being spoken to, if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 116.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for raising the interesting issue of nomenclature, on which I am sure we shall not agree among ourselves in this Committee. Our view from these Benches is that it should be for the assembly to decide in due course what to call their Ministers. The assembly, the Welsh press and the Welsh people may well come up with different names for the person who holds that position. We have an official in the Westminster Parliament who is known officially as the First Lord of the Treasury. He is customarily called the Prime Minister, the press call him the PM and the people call him by a variety of names, depending upon who is the holder of the office at any particular time.
This is not a matter which we believe should be incorporated in primary legislation, fixed and immutable, as is proposed by the amendment. We hope that the Government will give an assurance that, whatever there may be in the Bill, the people of Wales and the members of the assembly will be able to call the chief executive or prime minister whatever they think is fitting and suitable. We would prefer a single Welsh name which would become identified with the holder of that office, just as the Taoiseach has become identified with the holder of the office of Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland. When the word "Taoiseach" is used, there is no need to describe which country he comes from. We would hope that a term such as that would become common usage, part of the accepted vocabulary throughout the United Kingdom, so that no more need be said on that topic.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not intervened before on this Bill, but I am listening to this discussion with great interest because I think it also relates to the Scotland Bill, which we shall be discussing shortly and in which I shall take particular interest.
I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is a mistake. There are many things which the Welsh assembly should be left to decide for itself, as should the Scots parliament. But anything which might lead people into misunderstanding the relationship of the Welsh assembly or the Scots parliament with the Westminster

349
Parliament would be a great mistake. This question should be sorted out at Westminster before the Bill becomes law.
I like the idea promulgated in the amendment. I think that the word "premier" could become very acceptable in both countries. It would mean that there would be no confusion between Westminster and the subsidiary parliaments. At the same time, it sounds a bit less un-British than "First Secretary", which is a rather strange concept to introduce into our constitution. The name should come naturally but should make a differentiation between the subsidiary parliaments and the Westminster Parliament. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or at least look at it. It is very interesting and could make a big difference to the feel that there will be about these two parliaments among the peoples on behalf of whom they will operate.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I do not want to get into a linguistic argument in the Committee, but I think that I might. I understand the motivation behind these amendments, but I believe it will lead to a linguistic and political morass. Here I beg to differ—if that is permitted—with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. One tywysog in Wales is enough, and that person is a Member of this House, the Prince of Wales. Members of the Committee who are skilled in the Celtic languages will know that "taoiseach" is cognate with "tywysog", and that is the Prince, and therefore "tywysog" would not be an appropriate translation.
I have just taken a short leave of absence to check the Welsh Academy dictionary in the Library and I find that my former academic colleagues, Dr. Bruce Griffiths and Dr. Dafydd Glyn Jones, both translate "premier" as "prif weinidog". There is no mention of pen weinidog, pen bandit or any other pen in that dictionary. I am sorry, that is a bilingual joke. Pen bandit is the head bandit. I could go on. There is a public house not far from where I live occasionally in Caernarfon at Groeslon called Pen Nionyn, which could be roughly translated as "Onionhead". The possibilities are endless for the great Welsh public to construe a pen weinidog in all kinds of ways.
I should also like to speak against the notion, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we should have names only in the Welsh language. I keep stressing this point, and it is becoming an obsession, as it was very early this morning. This is a bilingual institution. Everyone in Wales should have two names. Why should we have one when we can have two? I believe it is important that there should be a direct translation of each title, for each job, for each position, for each role, as there should be a clear, concise and direct translation between Welsh and English and English and Welsh of every other term that will be used in the work of the assembly.
I notice that in their advice the national advisory group has proposed the name trefnydd for the business manager, and I regret that that is a complete confusion. A trefnydd is clearly an organiser.
That brings me to the use of the word "ysgrifennydd/secretary". Ysgrifennydd/secretary has a long tradition in Wales in both languages. It is a very
350
honourable and honorary role to play. It has certain connotations, of which the noble Baroness reminded us, with regimes in central and eastern Europe which are no longer with us. Therefore, following the collapse of so-called, actually existing, socialism, why should we not accept titles and reinvigorate them with democratic meaning? The "secretary" in Wales has been the secretary of the chapel and the secretary of the eisteddfod. I see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, the greatest secretary of a local eisteddfod who ever sat in this Chamber or anywhere else. What is wrong with that title? It reverberates with democracy, consensus and understanding. I know that the title "secretary" emerged from the initial idea of a committee, which would then have a committee secretary.
That brings me to my final point, which relates to the structure of the committees. These are not select committees, neither are they subject committees. They are a combination of both and something else; they are a pwyllgor, a special kind of committee which will combine the roles of scrutiny, of legislating in certain aspects, of ensuring accountability, which we shall come to later in the Bill, as part of the duty laid upon secretaries to be accountable to the first secretary and to the assembly. I rejoice in these titles of ysgrifennydd and secretary as they stand in the Bill and strongly urge the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to resist any other linguistic arguments which may appear, from whatever quarter of the Chamber, to prevent us celebrating our bilingualism in "secretary/ysgrifennydd".
Lord Beloff: Without going into the linguistic intricacies of a language that I do not know, I would point out that there is some danger in the use of the word "premier", in the sense that the analogies which have been called to our attention with Canadian provinces or Australian states refer to the chief executive in bodies which have a legislative capacity. Those are bodies which pass primary legislation. As I understand it, the Welsh assembly is not a body of that kind. If a chief executive were to be called "premier", it might cause confusion even beyond the confusion that already exists.
Lord Prys-Davies: I suggest that we should not pretend that we can change the character of an institution by changing nomenclature.
It seems rather ironic to me that, while the official Opposition have been keen to weaken, fetter or restrict the powers of the assembly, they are keen this afternoon to use terminology which seems to have a higher order of significance than what is used in the Bill. But why stop at "Minister"? Why not "Prime Minister"? Why not "Speaker"? Or indeed why not "Officer" or "Governor" to represent the ceremonial aspects of the Crown in Wales?
The National Assembly of Wales will be a completely new institution. It is described in the White Paper as being a "unique" institution; a "forum" for the Welsh nation. I suggest that we should have the self-confidence of hunan-barch, to use the terms which are new and

351
which are appropriate to the new institution. I hope that the Government will think long and hard before they accept these beguiling amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to rise, particularly since I have a marginal difference of opinion with my noble friend sitting in front of me. As a mere Englishman I find it passing strange that we should wish to adopt a French word for the English title of a Welsh office.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, on his perfect pronunciation of Y Pen Weinidog. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that the possibilities are endless. I thought that myself at one o'clock this morning! Certainly the debate was endless, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, points out.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, did not profess a knowledge of the Welsh language because I had always thought he came from a very old Welsh family—the ap Beloffs. Plainly I was wrong.
Various titles have been offered. When the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, offered "trefnydd", I thought that might be disagreeably translated as "dictator", but he would not have that. It is suggested that "First Minister" is too redolent of our dear former friends in the Kremlin. Floating into my mind—I felt I should not say it—was "Lord Protector". Now that I have said it, perhaps the Secretary of State will want to be Lord Protector.
One must pause to wonder about the importance of specific titles. In Clause 57 of the Bill we have said that there shall be a first secretary to chair the assembly and assembly secretaries. We set out in Clause 58 subject committees which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, points out, are not to be subject select committees. When it comes to an "assembly cabinet", we have left it to the assembly, by standing orders, to come to its own conclusion about nomenclature.
"Premier" is a foreign word. If I remember rightly, it came into popular being in this country after the last war when Mr. Churchill—later Sir Winston—commonly referred to himself as that and was popularly referred to as that. But there is not to be a premier or prime minister in the constitutional arrangements proposed for Wales. I believe the noble Baroness is right in saying that one wants to avoid titles which may bring about confusion.
We feel that the titles we have proposed in the Bill and the latitude that we rightly offered to the assembly by virtue of standing orders strike about the right balance. I endorse what my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said. If the assembly wishes to develop an "assembly cabinet" system, we hope that it will work. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, again very generously, said that we listened to the arguments, which we thought powerful, put forward by the noble Lord and his colleagues and allowed the assembly to go its own way.
If the assembly wants to alter the name of the cabinet or the system, it will be able to do so on the basis that a two-thirds majority of the members voting on the
352
motion to support the amendments will be required. We believe that we have the right balance—which will never be perfect—between stability of arrangements and a degree of decent flexibility to respond to new circumstances in a creature which, after all, has never existed, nor anything like it, in the constitutional arrangements of our country.
This amendment is grouped with a large number of other amendments, but the principle is the same and I do not propose to pre-reply to what may be said in every case. We want the arrangements to work. We have new titles for new arrangements. It would be misleading. It is true that one can do a panoramic sweep of provincial legislatures, state legislatures and national legislatures throughout the world and pluck titles from Canada, New Zealand, Scandinavia or from the Länder in Germany. I am not sure that that is anything other than an added exercise.
I respectfully suggest to the Committee that we have the balance about right. If that is so, it may be helpful to move on to matters of rather more substance and worth, recognising, as I do, that the possibilities, alas, are endless.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the great variety of comments that we had from different parts of the Chamber. One thing is clear. There are titles in the Bill. We cannot simply leave it to the assembly because those titles are already in the Bill. It may be that the assembly will wish to change them in due course and then it will express its views.
Our main aim in bringing forward these amendments was to follow through the Government's conversion to the Cabinet-style system. It seemed to us appropriate that, following that conversion, we should resort to Cabinet-style titling so that no one would be unfamiliar with the members of the cabinet executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made a point which occurred to me; that is, that the difference between the assembly and Canadian or Australian counterparts is that for the most part those are legislative assemblies whereas the Welsh assembly is simply a body with secondary legislative powers.
I was not intending to beguile the Committee in any way by introducing the amendments. With all due respect, our debate has been valuable in that it has cleared the air and shown that there is a degree of satisfaction with the current titles employed in the Bill. I was not aware of that until now. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 119 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 11 9A:
Page 28, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly First Secretary, and each of the Assembly Secretaries, is a Crown servant for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 119A is grouped with Amendment No. 254A. Amendment No. 119A adds a new subsection to Clause 54, making it plain that members of the executive committee should be regarded as Crown servants for the purpose of the Official Secrets Act 1989. If the Committee was prepared to accept that amendment, then in due time I would invite the Committee to conclude that Clause 81 should not stand part of the Bill.
In moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 254A, which includes within the definition of "government contractor", for the purposes of the 1989 Act, someone who provides goods and services to the assembly. There has been a good deal of debate, in another place and publicly, about how the Official Secrets Act ought to relate to the work of the assembly. We undertook to give further consideration to what were serious issues. Amendment No. 119A comes as the child of that further consideration.
We thought originally that all members of the assembly, as we see in what is presently Clause 81, ought to be covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989. The underlying reason for that was that there will be a transfer of ministerial functions from the Secretary of State to the assembly, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, rightly said. The Secretary of State is presently covered by the 1989 Act and we thought at that stage that so too should members of the assembly.
We have listened carefully to the arguments which were deployed at some persuasive length in another place. It was a valid point that if we adhered to our first position there might have been constraints on debate in the assembly in a way which was wrong. Some members of the assembly need to be covered by the Act, otherwise civil servants lawfully in possession of protected information would be able to make it available to assembly members only by imposing explicit conditions of confidentiality. That would not chime in with the relationship between civil servants and leading political figures.
Having thought about it, we consider the original proposal went too far; it was too draconian. The criticisms made by various public figures and in another place were properly based criticisms. This amendment is brought forward to strike a better balance between the proper maintenance of respectable confidentiality and free debate in the assembly.
We are assisted in this work by virtue of the shift that we have come to towards a Cabinet or quasi-Cabinet system, which I mentioned yesterday and which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, today. We are adjusting the applicability of the Official Secrets Act to those in the assembly who will exercise what I crudely call the Front Bench functions. If the Committee accepts this amendment it will improve the Bill.
The nature of the devolved functions and the categories of information protected by the Act of 1989—security, intelligence, defence, international relations, crime, special investigation powers—means in practice that very few official secrets issues are likely to arise in the working context of the assembly. We believe that leading members of the assembly should be covered by the Act to permit a proper flow of information between civil servants and those with executive responsibilities.
Amendment No. 254A is perhaps of lesser importance. The effect of the amendment would be simple. Under the 1989 Act government contractors are placed under obligations analogous with those of Crown servants; that is, that they must not make unauthorised disclosure of information in protected categories. The definition of "government contractor" is broadly someone who supplies goods and services for the purpose of a Minister. Amendment No. 254A places contractors who provide goods and services to the assembly in the same position as those providing goods and services to a Minister; that is, protected information may not be revealed. I hope that explanation commends itself to the Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We, as the official Opposition, welcome these amendments. It seemed to us almost unbelievable that every member of the assembly, even members of the opposition—and I trust there will be an opposition and that it will not actually be like a new-born Supreme Soviet where everybody will be consensually on the Government's side—would be bound by the Official Secrets Act. That would be a really amazing position. I can just imagine that suggestion being made to some Members in the other place—even some on the Government's own side. They would be horrified to find themselves, the moment they became Members of Parliament, bound by the Official Secrets Act. The poor old members of the Welsh assembly would have been in a worse position than some Members of your Lordships' House and Members of the other place who are government Ministers. There may be some who are still, collectively and for life, bound by the Official Secrets Act.
This is a sensible amendment but in some ways it links back to the series of amendments we have just had about names and, more importantly, to the amendments we discussed yesterday evening about the concordats and who the concordats were between. One of the two fundamental differences between the Welsh Bill and the Scotland Bill is that the power in this Bill is devolved to the assembly as a collective whereas the power in the Scotland Bill has been devolved to the executive of the Scottish Parliament. That is an enormous difference and serious consequences flow from that. I do not want to rehearse the argument about concordats but it is a similar, parallel argument to the one about the Official Secrets Act. The powers of the Secretary of State are devolved to the assembly and agreements which would normally be between governments or ministers have to be between the Government here, departments of state here at Westminster, and the assembly.

355
Equally, that led the Government to the view that all members of the assembly should sign up to the Official Secrets Act. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the arguments of my colleagues in another place that this was a ridiculous proposition that could not be defended in public. I therefore welcome the amendment.
I hope that the Government will start to think through some of the consequences of the principle which underlies this; namely, that the Secretary of State's powers have gone to the assembly. It would be a much clearer transfer of powers if they were to go to the executive of the assembly. Then things like concordats and names would be very much simpler. Having said that, one swallow in this case does make a little bit of a summer and I welcome the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: With very great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I was somewhat surprised that with this amendment he did not also deal with Clause 81. I am very satisfied with the explanation that Clause 81 goes far too far, but could I ask the noble Minister what is the position of a presiding officer in, for example, Clause 76?
Also, while I am on my feet, I should add to my question of last night on the Motion that Clause 36 stand part of the Bill as regards inquiries. There is the provision for a person to be required to take an oath under Clause 76 when required to attend proceedings of the assembly. However, Clause 36 deals with an inquiry, which I imagine could be held anywhere in Wales, as such inquiries can be held anywhere in Scotland. In England I think such inquiries are always held in this Palace of Westminster.
Going back to Amendments Nos. 119A and 254A, including, perhaps, Clause 81, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to pass on to his Scottish colleagues that there is at present no such provision about secrets in the Scottish Bill. I hope he agrees with me in that I think there should be.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with those latter points first. I told the noble Earl yesterday that his questions on Clause 76 would be researched and I undertook to write to him as soon as possible. I indicated that it would be unlikely that the detailed answers would be available for him today.
I take the noble Earl's point on the Scottish question and I am able to tell him that if amendments to the Scotland Bill on Report in the Commons are accepted, members of the Scottish executive will be covered by the Official Secrets Act. I think he has correctly identified a gap which it is the Government's present intention to fill.
I was very pleased with the generous response of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that we have listened carefully, as I am always advised to do by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and have demonstrated the flexibility which is the hallmark of the Government in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
4 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, mindful of your recent request, I shall keep this Statement short, as far as is possible for such a complicated subject of such importance to this House. To assist honourable Members, I shall make arrangements for a memorandum to be placed in the Library of the House.
"In March 1996 the development agreement to build the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was awarded to London and Continental Railways, known as LCR. LCR also took control of the Eurostar service. Its plan was to commence construction in late 1997. The agreement provided for a taxpayer contribution worth £1.8 billion. When I had the chance to examine the details of the deal put in place by the previous government, I was appalled. They took the cheapest bid based on over-optimistic forecasts of Eurostar revenue, without even commissioning their own independent forecasts, a failing we have now put right.
"The Government were seriously exposed because of the small financial commitment made by the private sector. Furthermore, as a consequence of the previous government's intention to conceal public subsidy of the Channel Tunnel, Eurostar was hampered by the requirement to pay Eurotunnel for train paths it was not using. Even this week I was asked to find £100 million to pay for specially designed sleeper trains which do not work, have never been used, and are now lying idle in a field.
"The kindest thing I can say about this whole agreement is that it was flawed from the start. In January of this year it almost collapsed. The company could not fulfil its contract. At that point I was faced with a clear choice. I could have abandoned the present contract with LCR and invited new tenders. But that would have meant two years or more of delay, with all the blight and uncertainty that would have caused. The equivalent of two-thirds of the grant would have been spent on Eurostar's debts and continuing losses with nothing to show for it. Alternatively, I could ask it to reconsider the financing of the project, and come forward with proposals to meet all its original obligations. That was the path I chose.

357
"I explained that LCR had requested an additional £1.2 billion of taxpayers' money, on top of the £1.8 billion already committed. That was unacceptable. I gave LCR one month to come up with new proposals, and subsequently extended that period ultimately to this week. At the end of March LCR made an improved proposal, but still failed to meet the Government's requirements.
"I am very aware of the importance which honourable Members on both sides of this House attach to this project which had an approved passage through the House. I have always believed that Britain should have a high speed passenger and freight link to Europe, equal to those on the other side of the Channel. This is an important project, comparable to any which this Government are promoting. It is a key part of our integrated transport policy. It is a national asset which will bring benefits not just to the south-east, but to all parts of Britain. It is clear this country wants this railway built. All parties supported the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, which passed its Second and Third Readings unopposed.
"This project offers immense benefits: economic, transport, and environmental; improved speed, reliability and capacity for international and domestic services—for both passengers and freight; and it will also play a major part in regenerating north Kent and the East Thames corridor including Stratford and King's Cross.
"The Government want to see this project proceed. But, as I have made clear, not at any price. My firm view was that LCR could carry on if it was able to deliver the whole project from the Tunnel to St. Pancras according to the contract. I made clear that in addition the Government required: a further reduction in the proposed additional cost to the taxpayer; a robust financing plan, based on realistic forecasts for Eurostar; a balance of incentives which would ensure the construction of the whole of the rail link; and an increased risk transfer to the private sector.
"For the past four months we have been involved in intensive negotiations, and I can now inform the House of the outcome. The call on public finances represents good value for the taxpayer. There is a robust financing plan. It is based on a proper assessment of future Eurostar revenue. The incentives to complete the whole link are in place. The private sector will take a greater share of risk. In short there will be a high speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
"Today I signed with LCR and Railtrack a statement of principles which meet all these requirements and fulfil the contract agreed by the previous Secretary of State, the right honourable Member for Hampshire, North West. Under this public private partnership, LCR has been strengthened. There is a new management team in place, and LCR has agreed to raise more equity to support the project. Railtrack has agreed to take a key role in building the link. It will manage the
358
construction for the railway up to north Kent, and will commit to purchase it upon completion. It will have an option to build and buy the remainder of the link.
"LCR has secured a strong partner to operate Eurostar. It considered two very strong bids, one from Virgin, the other from a consortium comprising British Airways, National Express, and the national railways of France and Belgium. It has today agreed to award that contract to the consortium. LCR has the same obligations to build the entire 68 miles of railway from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras in London via Ebbsfleet and Stratford, entirely in accordance with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, endorsed by this House. It will be built to the same route and the same specification, to the same high standards, and with the same environmental and heritage safeguards, undertakings and assurances given during the passage of that legislation.
"Construction will begin towards the end of this year. The stretch from the Channel Tunnel to the turn-off to Waterloo in Kent is due to be completed by 2003. At this stage services from Waterloo will benefit from the new high speed line. Construction beyond this point is expected to commence in 2001 with the line through Ebbsfleet and Stratford to St. Pancras finished by 2007. This will include the proposed new Thameslink station at St. Pancras. There will be no change of route under this agreement. It will be exactly as in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act. The Eurostar consortium will operate the trains from Waterloo to Paris and Brussels, and in due course services from St. Pancras.
"I recognise that many honourable Members wish to see an early start to regional services. I can assure the House that LCR remains under an obligation to provide the infrastructure for regional Eurostar services. The trains for those services are currently lying idle. I have therefore asked the consortium to review urgently the feasibility of such services, and put proposals to me before the end of the year. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review in due course.
"In addition, the consortium has a vision of Heathrow as a gateway to Europe for services from across the country. The consortium proposes to establish from as early as 2001 a service from Heathrow Airport to Paris. Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport. It is already Britain's biggest bus station, connected to the largest underground network in the world. This new service should in time establish Heathrow as an integrated transport interchange of international importance, connecting long haul air services directly into the European high speed rail network.
"I have always made clear that the Government required a significant degree of risk transfer to the private sector and this deal achieves that. If construction costs overrun, Railtrack will carry the full cost. If Eurostar revenues are less than forecast, Railtrack and the consortium will share the burden along with the Government. I have made clear that there must be a strong incentive to complete the

359
whole link from the Tunnel to St. Pancras and this deal achieves that. The Act requires the whole link to be built. The contract obliges LCR to build the entire link.
"I have always made clear that the Government required a fair deal for the taxpayer, consistent with the Government's existing obligations under the contract and this deal most certainly achieves that. The basic grant will remain at £1.8 billion and there will be no requirement for additional Government support before the year 2010. Moreover, following intensive negotiations, the extent of the Government's additional contribution, will not be the £1.2 billion requested in January, not even the £700 million which may have been read in the press this week, but £140 million and with the probability that after the year 2020, our share in the benefits will more than compensate for this extra grant.
"All the parties have contributed to this improvement—LCR, Railtrack, the consortium and the Government. Recognising the unique features of this project, and our commitment to strengthen international rail transport links, we have agreed that the Government's credit will stand behind £3.7 billion of bonds issued by LCR privately in the City to fund the project. The debt will be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of the completed link. The risk of the Government incurring liability under the guarantees is therefore remote. The Government will support the financing package which will allow this project to proceed now, and at the minimum financing cost. The alternative would have been considerable delay and increased costs.
"But this Government do not intend to offer taxpayers' support without something in return. This Government believe that in a real public-private partnership, not only the costs are shared, but also the benefits. The Government are sharing the risk, so it is only right that the taxpayer should share in the benefits. I have therefore agreed with the parties that the Government will take a public stakeholder share in LCR yielding a 35 per cent. share of the company's pre-tax surplus after 2020. The Government will also have a 5 per cent. stake in the Eurostar management company. This will be a public-private partnership with strong public accountability. Moreover, if LCR decide to sell the business, the taxpayer will share at least 35 per cent. of the proceeds. As I said earlier, these extra benefits should not simply balance the additional £140 million of public subsidy. This deal should provide that taken over the long-term LCR pays a premium to the Government.
"Under the original plan the concession was for 999 years. Eurostar was privatised forever. The parties have now agreed to reduce the concession to only 90 years. In 2086 this railway and the Eurostar service will revert to public ownership, along with the Channel Tunnel itself. I look forward to appearing before the House on that occasion to announce that event.
360
"There is one more point. I have negotiated a share for the Government in any savings of construction cost. I have also negotiated a mechanism to prevent any of the parties involved enjoying excessive windfall gains at the taxpayers' expense. In this way we aim to avoid any repeat of the fiascos which have marked railway privatisation.
"There is still much work to be done. Regulatory bodies must be satisfied. There will be many more months of negotiation on the detail. This is an agreement snatched from the ashes of LCR's collapse. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link will be built all the way to St. Pancras. Construction will begin this year. We will join the fast track to Europe. This is a deal which is good for integrated transport, good for the environment and good for the taxpayer. And it is good enough for me to commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.14 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating this over-spun and well-leaked Statement made in another place by her right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is complex and the memorandum even more so.
As the Minister said, the project and the original CTRL Bill and its principles enjoyed cross-party support in both Houses. The project is indeed very important for the country and for the population of London where total unemployment still compares to that of Scotland and Wales combined. So Stage two is vital to London as well as to the rest of the country.
At what point does the Minister expect Waterloo International station to become saturated? Does she expect that to happen before or after the completion of Stage two? What guarantees can she give that Stage two will actually be built whatever the CTRL Act says? The Statement appears to criticise the previous government's assessment of the LCR bid. On what basis have the passenger projections now been calculated and will the Minister make that information public in due course?
Does the Minister agree that government exposure will not be the £140 million alluded to in the Statement; not £700 million, and not £1,200 million, but that the grand total of grant and guarantees will be £5.4 billion? How does that equate with the statement that this private sector will take a greater share of the risk? How is this commitment to be treated? If it is described as PFI, is it to be classified as public expenditure and will it appear in the Red Book?
Will not the "strong public accountability" in the Statement also incur increased responsibility, management and ultimately interference with the project? Can the Minister assure the House that neither LCR nor Railtrack will have any pretext to come back to the Government to ask for more public money in the future and if they do, will it be refused?
The Minister was kind enough to refer to the success of Heathrow, so well run by the privatised BAA. She referred to Britain's biggest bus station at Heathrow, serviced by Britain's privatised bus industry. Finally,

361
can the Minister say how much of Eurostar's new management company will be controlled by the state-owned French and Belgian railways?
In conclusion, we support the completion of the CTRL, but we shall have to look much more closely at the financial arrangements in order to determine their nature.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by congratulating not so much the Minister as the Labour Administration on their exceptionally successful media management in the run-up to this announcement. We were led to believe that something not very satisfactory was going to happen, but we are now told that something rather satisfactory is going to happen. It is probably a case of 10 out of 10 for that.
I am delighted to support the good news which is contained in the Statement. I am glad that the noble Baroness was able to repeat the Statement in this House so soon after it was made in another place. We share the Government's assessment of the importance of this project, not just for people who live in the South-East; not just for the ability to get passengers across to the Continent, but also because of its importance to freight and to the regeneration of the East Thames corridor. The scheme is important, therefore, on both environmental and economic grounds and well beyond the confines of the South-East itself. I hope that the assurances in the Statement that progress will be made in extending Eurostar's services beyond the South-East are well founded, and that the Minister can say a little more about that.
I am glad that the conditions of the original deal and Act with regard to completion of the entire project have been retained. I am particularly glad to welcome the fact that the Government have obtained, as it were, a stake in the company in return for the investment that is being made in the asset which is being created. This seems an extremely sensible example of public/private co-operation and very much in line with our own thinking on these matters.
Naturally, however, I have some questions. I think I am right in saying that the timing of the second stage into St. Pancras in effect amounts to a delay of some four years on the original estimate. That means that there will be quite a long period when Eurostar is competing for track space on the congested lines from north and east Kent into London. Can the Minister tell us anything about the operating schedules and whether they will be affected? I refer both to commuter traffic—those lines are already crowded at rush hour—and to the operation of Eurostar during that period of congestion. On that subject, have the recommended engineering reports on the feasibility of moving the terminal from Kings Cross to St. Pancras been undertaken?
I have another question on timing. I refer to the timing of the payments of the government contribution to the project. It is not clear to me from the Statement how the payment of the major contribution of £1.8 billion will be staged. I should be grateful for some details on that.
362
Finally, there is another problem to which reference has already been made. I refer to the balance of cost and benefit to the taxpayer of a share in the eventual success of LCR as opposed to the risk of backing a £3.7 billion bond issue. Can the Minister assure us that there is not now over-confidence in the eventual success of this project? I hope that that is not the case.
Having said all that, our first reaction is one of satisfaction that from the ashes of failure the Government have managed to construct something which looks as though it will be successful.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for ending on such a constructive note and for her welcome of a deal which has been produced after enormous effort by many people and which reflects a partnership in which the House and the country can have confidence.
I must advise the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that he is absolutely right that there was criticism implicit in the Statement of the scrutiny by the last government of the contract into which they entered. I suggest that that criticism was well based, given the collapse that we have seen and what has had to be rescued over the past few months.
It is rather churlish to criticise this as an over-spun and over-leaked announcement. What I was listening to and reading this morning was not the Statement that I made to the House this afternoon. One does not have complete control over the press getting things wrong, but it is a little unfair to be blamed for the fact that they speculate.
I shall try to answer most of the specific points put to me and I undertake to write on any that I have missed. I was asked about what guarantees there are about the second phase of construction. That interrelates with the question of the timing of the payment of public subsidy, which was raised by the noble Baroness. The two are interrelated because it is in the incentives as regards the timing of the payments of public subsidy that we believe lies the strength of the incentive for the completion of the whole project through to St. Pancras. Approximately one-third of the public subsidy will he payable on completion of the first phase to Fawkham Junction. None of that money will be payable until two-thirds of that construction work is completed. That means that two-thirds of the public subsidy of £1.8 billion will not be payable until we have two-thirds of the construction of the next phase to St. Pancras. The House will understand that those are strong financial incentives. There are also strong financial incentives for Railtrack in having a complete link as soon as possible in terms of its return on its capital.
The noble Earl asked me about capacity at Waterloo. My understanding is that we are confident that there will be sufficient capacity at Waterloo for the foreseeable future. We do not believe that, even on the most optimistic forecasts, there will be any capacity constraints before the development into St. Pancras is completed.

363
In an analogous question, the noble Baroness asked about the pressure that will be put on commuter lines into Waterloo. Once the Fawkham Junction section is complete, there will obviously be additional traffic on some of the lines into Waterloo, but I understand that Railtrack has undertaken to ensure that there are some improvements on that stretch of the line in the interim period before the complete link into St. Pancras is finished.
I was also asked about the forecasts of Eurostar business and passenger traffic, which are obviously key to this issue. As I said, those forecasts have been prepared for the Government by independent consultants in contradistinction to the previous government's acceptance of the over-optimistic projections provided by Eurostar. The Government's central case, on which the funding is based, forecasts for every year to 2010 10 per cent. less traffic than was implicit in LCR's forecast. Even on those lower passenger forecasts, this deal still stacks up financially. The House can be reassured that there is not the over-optimism that got us into this position in the first place.
The noble Earl suggested that the project would receive large amounts in public subsidy over and above the £1.8 billion and the possibility of an extra £140 million in subsidy which I have already explained with regard to Eurostar. In fact, the guarantees have been classified independently by the Office for National Statistics and vetted by the European equivalent agency. The Office for National Statistics has deemed that the possibility of the Government's guarantees as regards the bonds being called in is so remote that they do not score as public expenditure.
In view of the unique importance of this project, we have managed to provide a financing system which means that the project can be built at the least cost to the taxpayer rather than involving the taxpayer, as we were being asked to do originally, in £1.2 billion of extra expenditure simply to enable LCR to raise its money on the open market. I would have thought that the creation of a safe but innovative method to ensure that the link was built at the cheapest possible cost and the least demand on taxpayers' money would be something on which the Deputy Prime Minister and the negotiating team should be congratulated.
I described the consortium that would run Eurostar. A stake will be held by both the Belgian and French national railways. Those details are still being negotiated. I cannot say exactly what stake they will each hold, but I have made clear that the British Government will also have a stake and therefore public participation will be ensured. I hope that I have covered most of the points that have been raised, but I shall read Hansard and undertake to write to noble Lords if I have not covered particular points.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement but hope that she will forgive my disappointment about some of its
364
contents. The Bill received Royal Assent 18 months ago. The intervening period has not been totally wasted inasmuch as the detailed plans have been completed. A start on construction could have been made 10 weeks ago but the money was not there. We are now faced with a completion date of 2007—four years later than contemplated and would have been achievable. The first phase is to stop at Ebbsfleet. Who other than those of us involved in this matter knows where Ebbsfleet is? The answer is that it is to be found in the top right-hand corner of Kent near the Thames. It is a wasteland and no one will wish to go there.
The proposed first phase appears to achieve a saving of a quarter of an hour in the Eurostar journey time from Paris and Brussels but virtually nothing else. The original concept had many more objectives: a saving of half-an-hour for Eurostar and, more importantly, the opening up of decent rail services for the people of Kent, using the new line, which would more than halve the journey time for commuters and others wishing to travel to London and beyond. It would also get Eurostar off the old, decrepit and clogged south-east network. A further benefit would be the provision of a gateway at Stratford East for the whole of the United Kingdom north of the Thames to gain rail access to Europe, whether it be people or goods.
I believe that there is little benefit in phase one on its own and a great deal of unpleasantness for those who live near the spur line from Southfleet to Waterloo—the people of Swanley, Bexley, Bromley and Beckenham—who were told by the Select Committee of this House that while there could be a brief period when the spur line might be overused because of the greater construction difficulties north of the Thames they would not have to put up with it for too long. They have been badly let down.
One suspects the dead hand of the Treasury in this unhappy compromise despite the kind observations in the Statement. Recently, there have been welcome signs that the Treasury has discovered the difference between capital and current expenditure. A huge infrastructure project such as this will never get done without heavy state help. PFI can go only so far. However, it is at last going to happen. Can the noble Baroness give the House some encouragement that her department will exert greater pressure to make a start on construction and urge a great deal more rapid completion?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Ampthill, raises a number of extremely well informed points, as the House would expect given his chairmanship of the committee which considered the Channel Tunnel Bill. Both I and the whole House share his concern that the project has been delayed. However, there was no point in trying to proceed with a project that was basically unsound and did not have a strong, solid foundation to ensure completion. That was very much the consideration which we faced in January in deciding whether we could make the deal work—it took four months of very intense negotiation, and further negotiation will be required to get the details right—or we should run the risk of having to start from scratch, adding at least two years' further uncertainty and blight,

365
with no guarantee as to the outcome, by re-tendering the whole project. We have taken another path that we believe has been successful.
The noble Lord has referred to the dead hand of the Treasury. I describe it as the imaginative and innovative support of the Government in financing a deal that makes this project work. I recognise the noble Lord's concern that there will be different completion dates for different phases, although given the nature of a project of this length it was always going to be built bit by bit. I point out to the noble Lord—it is one of the dangers of believing what is said on the radio and leaked in the papers—that the first phase to which Railtrack is committed in procuring the building and buying of the track at the end of it will not go as far as Ebbsfleet. It will go to Fawkham Junction and the spur into Waterloo. I understand that there will be concerns at both Ebbsfleet and further into London because of the very real additional benefits to which the noble Lord has referred: the regeneration possibilities at Stratford, at Ebbsfleet and in the whole Thames corridor. We shall have to wait a little longer for those benefits, but we have a robust framework in terms of both the management and financing of the project, which means that the complete link will be built.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the completion of this project, but can the Minister inform the House what plans are now being made to increase the capacity of King's Cross Underground Station? Once the project is completed there will be a vast influx of people who wish to use the Underground network from King's Cross. At the moment King's Cross is almost running at capacity and without further major works to accommodate the extra passengers there is a possibility that it will become dangerously overloaded. Are there plans to undertake large-scale development at King's Cross? Further, can the Minister inform the House about any engineering studies that have been undertaken at St. Pancras? Those who sat on the Select Committee dealing with the King's Cross inquiry a few years ago were told quite categorically that it was very unlikely that St. Pancras would be able to accommodate an international terminal without major works. What studies have been undertaken of the financial problems that will arise from that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that the implications for both St. Pancras and King's Cross must be carefully evaluated in terms of the links with the Underground and other transport systems. That integration between forms of transport is also one of the reasons why the potential links around Heathrow are particularly attractive as they would provide a variety of interchanges available to travellers and a number of ways in which they could gain access to the high speed link.
Another issue is Thameslink 2000 and the possibilities that that offers for commuter traffic at King's Cross and St. Pancras. Construction of the Thameslink 2000 station is included in the second phase
366
of construction. Both LCR and Railtrack will be discussing the full implications of that project with the department. I am sure that there will be further discussions with London Underground about the implications for Underground services at King's Cross.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the Minister has very properly spoken of sacrifice in this major financial project. Will she confirm that part of the private sector contribution will be in terms of fixed finance? What is the assumed rate of inflation that will be absorbed in the arrangement?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in all honesty, I do not think that I can answer that at this moment. I undertake to write to the noble Lord and give him that information.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the creative and hard negotiations that he has been through. In my simple calculation, he started off with £700 million of possible cancellation charges, about which we did not know from the previous government until a few months ago when we raised the matter in the House. He has got that down to £140 million to keep it going. He deserves every congratulation. I have two questions for my noble friend. First I should declare that I am chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Obviously rail freight welcomes the link, not just for rail freight in particular but because more capacity will be opened up between London and the Channel Tunnel, and that is essential. I leave that to one side.
My main concern, like that of so many other noble Lords, is that the link should be completed to King's Cross. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure the House that if it is possible to construct the link from the junction next to Ebbsfleet as far as Stratford that would not be bad. It is a stage and a half. Stratford is at least on the London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway, and so forth. It may take until 2007 to reach St. Pancras with all the opportunities for regional services that that will bring.
In many debates in this House we have raised the question of frontier controls on these trains. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to look, with her colleagues in Customs and Immigration, to see whether there could be a more simplified procedure which does not involve segregated platforms at Stratford and St. Pancras for international and domestic trains. That is something that seems to be unnecessary in the rest of Europe. Finally, is my noble friend satisfied that there will not be undue market dominance on the London to Paris axis in the air, by coach and on the railway by BA and National Express? What action will she be taking to ensure that that does not occur?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. On his last point, I believe I made it clear in the Statement that there are regulatory issues in this country and at a European level which will be subject to scrutiny. That is part of the detailed work that will have to go on during the next

367
weeks and months. Although he did not raise rail freight as a major point, it is important to stress that the link and the services will have direct and indirect benefits for rail freight, which are important at an international level. He mentioned security for passengers and security checks. That has always been an issue so far as concerns regional services and interchanges. I shall bear in mind his comments in what I am sure will be ongoing discussions on that subject.
My noble friend talked about the extension of the project at least to Stratford. I should make it clear once again that the contract remains unchanged and as it was under the Act; that is, a through route into St. Pancras. Lastly, he was right to make the point about the cancellation costs, which were not well understood at the time of the original agreement. He and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington drew attention to them in this House recently. My noble friend Lord Berkeley said that we could have been left with a bill of £700 million with nothing to show for it and that we would then be back to stage one in the negotiations. The only thing that he was wrong about is that the bill could have been nearer to £1 billion.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that today, as chairman of SERPLAN, I published the strategic plan for the south-east, affecting 18 million people. I was at the press conference this morning. I found that the acting chairman of LPAC, Councillor Kallar, was extremely worried about the possibility of delays in development in the East End corridor and the connection with Stratford. That affects not just the people of London and the unemployed people of London to whom the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred; it affects everyone in the south-east. I suppose that housing in the south-east is probably the hottest potato that the Government have to handle. It is important for everyone concerned that the Government give local authorities throughout the south-east, particularly in the East End of London, confidence that there will be a connection to Stratford. I accept of course the Minister's remarks today, but I feel that her department should ensure that, with all the publishing that will go on in relation to the sustainable strategy for the south-east, that that point be endorsed and underlined.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments. I recognise his long-standing concern over planning in the south-east. I acknowledge that there will be disappointment at the extended length of time for completion of the links into Stratford and St. Pancras. However, I believe that it is in the interests of all those people in London and the south-east who are looking for the regeneration benefits that will come from the Channel Tunnel rail link that we have in place a robust and secure managerial and financing arrangement that will in time produce the whole link, rather than an agreement which on paper,
368
would produce it sooner but which was, in fact, so unrobust that it was in danger of total collapse in January of this year.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that it is necessary for the well-being of north-west England that the west coast main line should be physically directly linked to the Channel Tunnel link. Will the Minister explain what, if anything, today's announcement does to bring that objective forward?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, the obligation in the development agreement for the provision of the infrastructure for direct regional services is the same as it has always been. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the importance attached by Members of this House and another place to putting regional services in place. That is why he has asked the consortium, which was chosen only today to operate Eurostar, to report to him by the end of the year on the viability of regional services.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I commend the innovative way in which the financing of £3.5 billion of bonds issued by LCR has been handled, but could I ask for a clarification from my noble friend? What happens to the risk on those bonds if LCR goes out of business or is bought up? Do the Government face any extra risk on that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am always nervous when I reply to economists' questions, whether they are from behind me or in front of me. I think I made it clear that if LCR were to be bought the taxpayer would have 35 per cent. of the proceeds. I made it clear also that the assessment of the Office of National Statistics is that the risk of the bonds being called in is so low that they do not count as public expenditure. Even on the lowest, most pessimistic forecasts—not the median forecast upon which the Government are operating—for Eurostar passenger traffic, there is still enough income to repay the bonds. With regard to the bond for the completion by Railtrack, the cost of that bond is covered because there is an undertaking by Railtrack to purchase the completed section as soon as it is built.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on securing a better deal than that trailed in the press in recent days, although, as pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—a point not totally dispelled by the noble Baroness's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Desai—there are still risks to the taxpayer should anything go wrong.
Perhaps I may put a question to the noble Baroness which is germane to the Statement, although it may not appear so at first sight. I ask out of pure curiosity and certainly not to capitalise upon the awful tragedy which took place near Celle today. Which is statistically safer per mile travelled within western Europe—plane travel or train travel?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can find that information for the noble Lord. There is always a

369
difficulty in comparisons between accident and fatality rates of different modes of travel when one compares aircraft with rail or car travel by per mile or kilometre travelled rather than per hour travelled. Off the top of my head, I should not like to give those statistics.
I think that the whole House would like to record the concern I am sure we all feel about the tragic accident in Germany today.

Government of Wales Bill
4.52 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 119B:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—

FUNCTIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF ASSEMBLY SECRETARIES
(" .—(1) The executive functions of the Assembly shall be carried out by the Assembly Secretaries and by officials acting on their behalf.
(2) In the discharge of all such functions and otherwise, Assembly Secretaries shall be accountable to the Assembly for their actions and those of officials acting on their behalf.
(3) The Assembly may by resolution of no confidence at any time require any Assembly Secretary or Secretaries to resign.
(4) The standing orders of the Assembly shall provide for any motion of no confidence to take precedence over all other business and shall specify a reasonable minimum period of debate on such a motion.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause is inspired by the somewhat bare bones character of the preceding Clause 54. The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the functioning and accountability of the assembly secretaries.
Subsection (2) makes clear that they are accountable to the assembly. Subsection (3) gives the assembly power to pass a resolution of no confidence, and requires an assembly secretary's resignation. Subsection (4) of the new clause requires that such a Motion of no confidence be given precedence over all other business. This proposed procedure is not dissimilar to what happens in another place. Ministers, not infrequently in my experience, face critical Motions reducing their salaries by an insignificant amount, although devastating so far as concerns their reputations as ministers if the Motions are passed.
There is no doubt about the assembly's power over the executive. The first secretary has the power to dismiss as well as appoint assembly secretaries under Clause 54. The new clause gives the assembly a clear opportunity to vent its criticism of an assembly secretary who has transgressed. It overrides any protection that may be given to such a secretary by the first secretary who appointed him, or by the executive. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have already indicated to the Committee that we wish the assembly to begin with a Cabinet system, but do not consider it appropriate for that system to be entrenched forever and a day, as the new clause provides. I do not think that I can add
370
further to what I said earlier; namely, that we expect to see most of the executive functions carried out on the assembly's behalf by the secretaries. But we do not think that one needs something set in stone.
There is a novel point which has not previously been discussed by the Committee. That is the question of votes of confidence. I have to say at once that on this we agree with the noble Lord who proposed the new clause: it is a matter of some importance. That is why the advisory group has been considering it. It is making detailed recommendations to the Secretary of State about the provisions which should be made in standing orders rather than on the face of the Bill to allow Motions of no confidence to be put down and debated. We shall be looking to those recommendations to provide advice on the issue raised by subsection (4). I believe that the noble Lord identifies an important point: the Motion of no confidence taking precedence over other business, and, I dare say, to be debated in plenary session. But we believe that these are proper matters for standing orders. The timing of debates would also need to be reflected in standing orders.
We anticipate that the recommendations will take careful account of the fact that unlike the House of Commons the assembly is elected for a fixed four-year period without the possibility of recourse to the electorate if the vote of no confidence in the first secretary, or any other secretary, were to be passed. I imagine again that the advisory group would be giving advice to the Secretary of State, should there be a successful vote of no confidence in the first secretary, as to when there should be a new assembly election for a replacement first secretary.
I can assure the Committee that the points made by the noble Lord, in particular the new point about votes of no confidence, are much in our mind. We expect the recommendations of the group to be available in the summer. Provision will be made in standing orders to deal with the questions which have been identified by the noble Lord.
I viewed his questions as inquiring and probing and have replied in that way.
Lord Rees: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask one question. The most difficult question is to be addressed in due course. I refer to a vote of confidence in what for shorthand I call the administration of the assembly—the majority party's ruling group, however it is described. What would happen—as is, I think, a convention in this House or another place—if there were a measure to reduce the salary of one of those ministers in the assembly; in other words, if there were a vote of no confidence in a particular member of the administration? I do not expect an immediate answer. However, when the noble Lord deals with the wider question of a vote of confidence in the whole administration, perhaps he will address his mind to that question too.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We await the recommendations of the advisory group. I believe that the noble Lord's question is well founded. I anticipate this possible outcome: that the vote for reduction of

371
salary in the conventional way, if directed against the first secretary or any subordinate secretary, would be treated as a vote of no confidence. It would then be for standing orders to prescribe exactly what should happen in terms of precedence of business, re-election, reselection and so forth. That is, I believe, the answer that I can presently give to the noble Lord.
5 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. My first reaction is that we are leaving a great deal to standing orders. I am sure that he and the Committee are becoming increasingly aware of that. I make that as a general point rather than as a specific point related to the amendment.
I am pleased that the Minister appreciates the point that we have made in the new clause about the possibility of the assembly being critical of an assembly secretary and having at least the opportunity to declare its criticism by a motion of no confidence. It is a valuable suggestion because it has a resemblance to proceedings in the other place which are of value.
I conclude by pointing out that as the Bill stands the first secretary has the power to appoint and dismiss. However, it is conceivable that circumstances could arise where an assembly secretary is rightly under severe criticism but is protected by the first secretary or by the executive as a whole. In those circumstances, it is clear that we would wish the assembly to have the opportunity to be critical and to vent its criticism openly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Lord sits down, that would be the kind of circumstance envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Rees. If there were a censure motion against the secretary in terms of a reduction in salary which was not then acted upon by the first secretary, it seems to me that standing orders could reasonably allow for a second stage; in other words, an impugnment of the first secretary on the basis that he had not followed the assembly's guidance expressed on the conduct of one of his colleagues. It seems to me that there is not an insuperable difficulty there.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I do not believe that there is a difficulty. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that I am simply anxious to explore the point and to have it on the record for others to consider in due course. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Committees]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Executive committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 139 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Subject committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 140 to 148 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 30, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly First Secretary shall give one of the subject committees responsibility for common land in Wales with a remit to issue guidance, which may be revised from time to time, to local authorities, landowners and glaziers on the proper management of the land, with particular reference to enhancing its agricultural potential and natural beauty (including flora and fauna).").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 148A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 271A. The management of rural land in England and Wales has for some time been a matter of great controversy. Admittedly, it is a difficult problem since various interests are involved. I refer to the owners of the land who have mineral and shooting rights which they wish to protect; graziers who have grazing rights which they, too, wish to protect; and members of the general public who believe that open access for all or any activity is legitimate since the land is "common".
The Registration of Commons Act 1965 registered the ownership and the grazing rights, but it failed to address the management of the land. The Conservative manifesto of 1987 promised legislation on management based on the findings of the Common Land Forum. That forum recommended a management system for rural common land based on a committee for each parcel of land consisting of representatives of all interested parties. The legislation never appeared.
Common land is extensive throughout mid and north Wales. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimates that some 36 per cent. of rough grazing in Wales is on common land. It also estimates that about one-third of common land lies within SSSIs and large areas lie within the national parks and ESAs. In the late 1980s, 57 per cent. of all commons in Wales had only one right or no rights registered, leaving them to be subject to deregistration. Furthermore, the owners of common land have no economic interest in their proper management.
As I have no personal interest in common land, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I relate the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who cannot be with us at the moment because he has a meeting in another part of the building. The noble Lord lives on the edge of Gilwern Common in Radnorshire, an area of some 800 acres. He is also a grazier, although he does not exercise those limited rights. The land is owned by the Glanusk Estate, which is a trust of the Legge-Bourke family run, as he has found out, from the office of Knight, Frank & Rutley in Hungerford.
I do not wish to imply any criticism of the trust, its owners or the agents because they are managing the lands subject to the provisions of the law as it now stands. Since the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has lived there for the last 18 years there has been no management of the land at all. Motorbikes and 4x4s seem to be able to roam around on the land at will. Fly-tipping is general, as is overgrazing. Land which used to support curlews and lapwings is now bereft of either. Even though Radnor is an ESA, no mechanism is available to require the owners to manage their land properly.
The amendment has two purposes: first, to ensure that one of the subject committees of the National Assembly of Wales addresses the whole matter with a remit to give guidance of an authoritative nature to local authorities, landowners and graziers on how common land should be properly managed. Secondly, in doing so, to ensure that previous neglect of wildlife on Welsh common land is rectified and made up. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I echo the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and support the views of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The matter is serious and deserves attention. The noble Viscount reminded the Committee that the 1965 Act did not meet the obvious need, the crying need, for the proper management of common land. It is a great pity that that promise was not fulfilled because common lands and many other public open spaces have suffered seriously over the past decade.
The result of that failure has been similar in the extensive areas of common land in Wales and in many similar areas in England. The noble Viscount referred to the experience of my noble friend Lord Williams as regards the illegal use of motor vehicles. Last summer, during my brief retirement between leaving the House of Commons and joining this House, I spent a good deal of time observing the illicit use of motorcycles on public open spaces. I saw vehicles which were unlicensed, unregistered and ridden by riders who had probably not passed their test or in some cases were not old enough to take it. I watched them ride over newly-planted saplings, shrubs and flowers, inflicting thousands of pounds worth of damage.
I became accustomed to waiting for police helicopters, which paid a number of visits, to depart and to see five minutes later half a dozen young motorcyclists appear. They were all committing an average of at least five offences because, to get on to the public space or common land, they quite often use public roads. Then there are those affluent people in society who buy 4x4 vehicles and do untold and perhaps greater damage by the use of those larger machines.
It really is quite outrageous that there should be such appalling damage. We have to understand that this is not limited to those commons which abut conurbations and populated areas; indeed, the reach of destruction is spreading far more widely and remorselessly. Action really does need to be taken. I am, therefore, delighted to be able to support the noble Viscount in this amendment. I hope that the Government will ensure that it has a fair wind and that the Welsh assembly understands that, if it takes the necessary action with the degree of urgency which is certainly deserved, that action and its example will be rapidly followed in England. We must have regard for the retention of the ecological interest and for the safeguard of the national advantage. We must ensure that the attractive areas of our country are not subject to the ruinous experience of the past decade.
Lord Rees: In rising to speak to this amendment I should, first, declare a slight interest in common land not, I should say, in mid or north Wales but in south
374
Wales where we have the same problems. Of course I recognise some of the problems which have been identified so eloquently by the noble Lord who has just spoken and, indeed, by the noble Viscount. However, we must stand back a little from the question and ask ourselves whether the various issues which have been raised are covered by the functions set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
We may have to face the fact that, because they are so complex, such issues are really more a matter for central government rather than the Welsh assembly. I am not advancing any particular view, but that fact must be considered with some care. I do not believe that it would be right for us to identify problems close to our heart in the Principality and throw them to the new assembly or to any Select Committee without stopping to think about how they fit into the broad framework which we are considering as a constitutional question.
Therefore, I sympathise with the points raised, especially as regards motor cyclists and others who, with no permission, no rights and perhaps no licences, are despoiling the countryside. I am entirely in sympathy with the views expressed in that respect. However, there are also wider issues. It is not right to assume that the owners of common land, limited though their ownership may be by comparison with normal agricultural land, do not have some care and responsibility in this regard. Indeed, if such matters are not considered with considerable care in advance from all points of view, they might be saddled with public and economic responsibilities which I do not believe should be the case.
While I sympathise with the concerns that led my noble friend Lord St. Davids and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to table the amendment—and we are very sad that the latter could not be present today to tell us about his personal experience in such matters—I hope, having made the general point, that we can leave the matter to be considered in a slightly wider context at a later stage.
The Earl of Courtown: I rise to express my support for my noble friend Lord St. Davids. My noble friend Lord Rees is quite correct to say that this is a highly complex area. As far as concerns common land, there is, as my noble friend said, great misunderstanding on the part of the public as regards access to such land. I have one point to make regarding the agents for the area of land to which reference has been made where the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, lives. Yes, indeed, Knight, Frank and Rutley do manage the land. The agent in question is both a professional and a personal friend of mine and does in fact live very close to the area. I am intensely interested to hear what the Minister has to say as regards giving assurances to my noble friend and the noble Lord on this matter.
Lord Hooson: Many years ago I was appointed as an assistant commissioner of commons to consider the enclosure of land in an urban common where different considerations applied. Such matters are very complex. People think of "common land" as meaning common access. But that is not so: common land means that there

375
are common rights of grazing or other common rights, which I need not outline at present. They may be supplemented by public rights of way established by prescription.
One of the concerns that has been expressed today is if in fact motor cyclists, and so on, have uninterrupted access for the period of years which is required to establish a prescriptive right, prescriptive rights of access could be established for motor vehicles. Therefore, management in this respect is most important. It is an extremely complex matter. I am sure that the Welsh assembly would want one of its committees to look into the matter at some time, but it could be dealt with only on a national basis with representations being made by the Welsh assembly.
The matter is far too complex for us to think that guidance can be given, for example, to local authorities when the latter may have no control at all. I understand that the piece of land referred to in Gilwern is privately owned. There must be rights of common in that respect—that is, rights of grazing in common. Indeed, there may be other rights in common; but, as far as we know, there may be no rights of public access. However, from the description that has been given, it is possible that public rights of access have been established by prescription, but I very much doubt that the assembly could give overall guidance on the matter. I believe that it is a matter which should perhaps be transferred gradually and over a period of time from, as it were, parliamentary consideration to assembly consideration. But I do not believe that the time is now ripe for such action.
Lord Prys-Davies: I believe that the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to the Committee is very sound. I have had some dealings with common land in Wales. The phrase "open space" has been used this afternoon when it is an open space, but when it is not in law an open space. Clause 34 says:
"The Assembly may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting Wales".
But, as has been said, we are discussing a highly complex matter. It has occurred to me that this is an issue which might possibly interest a law commission as regards considering how the law in this particular area can be improved.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The advice given by the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Rees, as well as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies is right; we are indeed discussing a complex matter. It is possible that the first secretary may wish to give responsibility for matters relating to common land to one of the subject committees. It would be a moot question as to whether it should be the agriculture committee, over which there could be some argument, or whether it should be a subject committee which deals with the environment, planning and related matters.
I do not believe it appropriate for such a provision to be on the face of the Bill. However, I have two points to make. First, the Government are extremely
376
sympathetic to the thrust of the argument put forward by the noble Viscount. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was courteous enough to give me prior notice of what was likely to be said this afternoon. So we do view the matter with some seriousness.
By a felicitous coincidence, a comprehensive research project has been commissioned by DETR. The Welsh Office was represented on the steering group which looked into all aspects of common land. It published this very month a good practice guide on the management of common land. As I said, that is, I hope, a happy coincidence, although the noble Earl may be about to tell me that the document is completely valueless. However, I should like to reassure Members of the Committee that we treat such matters with seriousness. We expect the assembly to be interested in such matters, but we do not believe it should be prescribed on the face of the Bill.
The Earl of Courtown: Can the Minister say whether the report gives an indication of the amount of common land that exists in Wales?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not know the answer to that. I focused particularly on the good practice guide on the management of common land because it seemed to me that answered the point made by the noble Viscount; namely, that there should be guidance for local authorities on this matter.
Viscount St. Davids: I thank the noble Lord for his encouraging reply. I had hoped he might go a little further as no doubt he would not have missed the irony of my asking him to fulfil an election manifesto of the previous administration made 11 years ago. But we should let that pass. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 149 to 154 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 30, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Each subject committee shall be responsible for monitoring the performance of the non-departmental public bodies within the fields covered by that subject committee.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment draws attention to the need for a creative relationship between the subject committees and the non-departmental public bodies operating in fields covered by the subject committees. I again declare an interest as the chair of a non-departmental public body. It is the smallest, most perfectly formed and most bilingual non-departmental public body! During the years in which I have had the honour to hold that post I have valued the link between the Welsh Language Board and the relevant government department at the Welsh Office and its cultural and education department with which we deal.
It is important that much of the loose talk that went on in the country prior to the referendum should now be laid to rest. I have been a victim in the street and occasionally in a public house—although never, to my knowledge, in the Gresford rugby club, which is so

377
frequented by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, according to his speeches—of what might be called "quango bashing". There was a kind of fever abroad prompted by Mr. Rhodri Morgan, MP, another potential candidate for the national assembly. That fever consisted of attacking all non-departmental public bodies, their members and their staff for being Conservatives. That was patently untrue in many cases. It was implied that with the establishment of the great national assembly, quangos would be swept away. It was implied that non-departmental public bodies would no longer he necessary and that their functions would somehow be taken over by the 2,000-odd officials and the 60 elected members of the assembly. That always appeared to me to be a piece of false optimism or a piece of propaganda because traditionally there have been functions which non-departmental public bodies have carried out at arm's length on behalf of government. That is why they were created and that is why they are described as non-departmental government bodies.
My amendment seeks to explore the relationship between remaining NDPBs, which may or may not be re-organised by the assembly, and the assembly itself. We have already debated some of the schedules to the Bill and I shall not discuss them now. There is reference to bodies which may lose or gain functions and bodies which may lose functions or gain functions with consent. Later we shall discuss other bodies which may be called to account by the assembly, although they are not directly under its jurisdiction, as it were. How will the Welsh Office and the Government look more dispassionately at the role of non-departmental public bodies than was the case during the referendum campaign and consider how they may relate to the assembly? What kind of creative relationships may be established?
I am not making out a case for myself here. I have been accused of putting job applications on the face of the Bill, as it were. However, there are cases where members of public bodies may remain in post while being members of the assembly. That could create a creative relationship between those bodies. In other cases it may be considered preferable that such bodies—for example, the development agency, which we shall discuss later—should remain very much at arm's length from the assembly and there should not be a mix of the membership. It cannot be beyond the wit of our great democratic nation to look for ways of managing public bodies and making them accountable which does not follow necessarily the inherited model. In other words, there is a case for mixing the membership of various bodies without damaging the integrity of those bodies or the need for artistic freedom of judgment in such areas as the arts and culture.
I hope the Minister can indicate that he foresees the assembly having a creative relationship with NDPBs in Wales and that there will be effective monitoring of that. One of the most successful developments in the whole area of public administration and the management of public services has been the establishment of targets, strategies, schemes, business plans and other such things and the monitoring of performance vis-à-vis such targets
378
and strategies. I hope that the assembly will pursue rigorously the need to monitor all our public bodies in Wales but will do so in a spirit of creative development rather than the negative quango bashing which occurred during the referendum campaign. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is an interesting amendment which enables us to reflect on the relationship between quango members and the new assembly. The following phrase comes to mind; namely, "There is nothing like a quango basher come to repentance". Last year we were told there would be a great bonfire of quangos. It is a good job it was not a cold winter because I do not think any Members of the Committee would have been warmed by the bonfire of quangos. Indeed, far from having a bonfire of quangos the party opposite has established a considerable number of additional quangos. Some quango members have been replaced. I say, charitably, that some members of my party who were on quangos have been replaced by more independent minded people. Uncharitably, I might say that members of my party have been replaced on a number of quangos by members of the Government's party. It is interesting to note that there has not been much of a bonfire. Indeed our monetary policy is now governed by the biggest quango of all; namely, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. That is a non-departmental public body if anything is, and one that wields huge power over the economic life of our country. But that is another issue. I am not sure that the Welsh Language Board, of which the noble Lord. Lord Elis-Thomas, is the distinguished chairman, wields anything like the power of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Nevertheless, the Welsh Language Board plays an important role. It has certainly played an important role in this Committee so far as we have heard much about it.
The noble Lord posed some interesting questions about the relationship between the non-departmental public bodies in Wales and the assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has already made it clear that he is a candidate for the assembly. Yesterday he appeared to attempt a little electioneering, although I do not suppose there are many voters from his constituency in this Chamber. Today he appears to be trying to ensure that he can keep his chairmanship of a quango and be elected to the Welsh assembly. I see no problem in that. When I joined this Chamber I was for a little while the chairman of a quango, the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I was perfectly able to be a Member of this Chamber and to chair the quango. All I had to do was obey some rules laid down, known as the Addison Rules, which meant that I could not answer for my quango; the Minister had to do that. Fortunately, we never got into enough trouble for the Minister to have to come to the Dispatch Box and answer for us. Equally, I took the view that I could not in all justice speak on the issues over which my quango held some sway. Therefore I did not take part in any of the fisheries debates in this House. I thought that that was possibly taking the Addison Rules a little too far, but it seemed the right and proper thing to do considering that I was the government-appointed chairman of the body.

379
I shall not even attempt to suggest that there might be a Welsh language equivalent of Addison. The noble Lord may wish to advise me on that point. I am sure that the Addison Rules could easily be applied to members of the Welsh assembly who sit on quangos. That would be a perfectly reasonable way for the assembly to proceed. I hope the Minister might be able to give some indication of the Government's thinking on that matter. It would seem to me unfortunate if walls had to be drawn between members of non-departmental public bodies and members of the Welsh assembly. I simply do not see the need for that.
The point of the noble Lord's amendment, in relation to which he raised the discussion on quango membership and the assembly, is that the non-departmental public bodies which operate within the fields covered by the assembly should have their performance monitored by the assembly. I cannot see that there is anything in the Bill to prevent the assembly discussing the issues for which the bodies are responsible. Indeed, I think that they would clearly be well within their rights to do so. I think they would also be within their rights to discuss issues surrounding quangos whose responsibilities were not directly under the Welsh assembly umbrella. One clause makes it clear that the assembly can debate almost any matter, whether it is within its bailiwick or not. It therefore seems obvious that, so far as the responsibilities of any non-departmental public body are concerned, the Welsh assembly will be able to discuss the issues.
The next step is: can the assembly monitor those matters? Can it ask the chairman and others to come before it? Certainly this House can do that. In my capacity as chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority I appeared before the European Committee dealing with fisheries in this House. So it is perfectly possible. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the noble Lord that the Welsh assembly will be able to do that. Without in any way disparaging the work of the assembly, it will not in fact have a terrific amount to do when one considers the burdens placed on it in comparison with Members of the other place or Members of this House. It would seem perfectly sensible that tasks such as that mentioned in the noble Lord's amendment could reasonably be added to the assembly's workload. Many of the public bodies will deal with matters of great importance to people in Wales and Welsh life. It is right and proper that there should be some monitoring arrangements between the assembly and those bodies. If it helps the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on its way, I give it a fair wind. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the points we have made about the bodies.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: It seems to me that it is an essential duty of the assembly to monitor the work of non-departmental public bodies—with a view, I hope, to abolishing a number of them. One of the purposes of setting up the assembly was to deal with the question of quangos. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, adverted to the fact that the workload of the assembly, though it will be
380
considerable, will not be overbearing. We are a country of fewer than 3 million people. We shall have 60 elected or indirectly elected representatives. We shall have a large Civil Service in Cardiff—probably 2,000 people. Why should not much of the work presently conducted by quangos be conducted by the assembly?
I am a great believer in delegating executive power to people and, if they do not discharge that power correctly, getting rid of them. The assembly can do that. It can surely summon before it chairmen, managers and so on of non-departmental public bodies and question them. Surely that will be one of its functions. I understand, as the Minister will be able to confirm, that there is a power in the Bill for the assembly, with proper due consideration to the functions carried out by those bodies, to decide that some of them are not necessary. Certainly, some will be necessary. However, I am saying that one of the duties of the assembly will be to examine this whole question. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, should be too sanguine about the future of some of the quangos.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, he probably has in mind Clause 29 of the Bill indicating the powers to which he refers.
There are two distinct questions here. One is: can there be overlapping membership of the assembly and the non-departmental public bodies? We propose to consult on that matter in the context of the use of the Order in Council power under Clause 12 of the Bill. It is important to bear in mind that not all non-departmental bodies are the same. At the one end of the spectrum, for example, is a body that is extremely well run in public scrutiny, admirably opened up by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas; namely, the Welsh Language Board. But at the other end of the spectrum one has a wholly dissimilar body, the National Library, which is again admirably run but operates in quite a different context. So the question of overlapping membership is important.
It is also important to bear in mind a concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, on earlier occasions—namely, what measures should be considered in relation to abatement of salaries—so that one could not simply have an acquisition of salaries by being a member of the assembly and many other quangos or NDPBs. That matter certainly needs to be considered.
The advisory commission has given a good deal of thought to this matter. Noble Lords will see some useful suggestions for consultation at paragraphs 6.8 to 6.11. It suggests not the outcome proposed in this amendment, but a division of responsibilities between the assembly secretary and the subject committee to ensure proper accountability. That matter is out to consultation by NAAG. Noble Lords may think it better to await its views. The outcome will be recommendations which I dare say will be reflected in the assembly's standing orders.
Whatever the standing orders provisions are in detail, they will of course be designed to achieve democratic accountability, which has been lacking in some

381
aspects—not all—of some, but not all, of the quangos. It is important to bear in mind that there is a diversity of them in Wales.
It therefore seems to me that we share a common purpose; namely, openness, accountability and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated, good-quality representation on the quangos. That is very important. It seems to me that the assembly would have the power to question and monitor, and that it ought to do so in a co-operative and discrete way. That is essentially a matter for NAAG's eventual recommendations and for the assembly's conclusion on the standing order powers.
I frequently say that matters are for standing orders. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that this is leaving rather a lot to standing orders. But the enormous bulk of arrangements in another place depends entirely upon the standing orders, which have developed organically over the years to meet changing circumstances and changing requirements. Your Lordships' practice is not dissimilar—though, being infinitely more civilised, we do not need anyone to order us. But we have our ways, which are not set down in statute, and are much the better for that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has introduced an interesting discussion on subject committees. Although Clause 58 sets up the subject committees, it does not attempt to set our their responsibilities; nor does it set out their relationship with the cabinet system that is now to be put in place. As we understand it, the executive committee of the assembly secretaries—that is, the cabinet—will be the body that will be responsible for formulating policy, taking decisions and, through the civil servants in their various areas, carrying out those decisions. It seems to me that the role of the subject committees is an advisory one. The committees do not appear to share the executive responsibility of the cabinet that is to be formed in the Welsh assembly. It is interesting that the working group suggested that assembly secretaries should not be members of the subject committees at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas has highlighted the fact that one function to be performed by the subject committees is to monitor the way in which the non-departmental public bodies carry out their role. But that is only one of many roles. They will presumably be concerned to meet together to discuss the various proposals that are put to them by the executive. They will be there to advise and have input into policy but will not be responsible for it or for its being carried out. As I understand it, that is the essential distinction to be drawn between the cabinet system that the Government are adopting now in response to representations, pressure and general feeling from all sides of this Chamber and from another place. The cabinet system alters completely the role of the subject committees. Initially the committees were seen as being rather like council committees, carrying out executive tasks. That
382
will no longer be the position. The noble Lord has introduced an interesting topic, to which we shall no doubt return.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for taking on my argument. This is an important issue. The Minister referred to the advisory group report. That group seems to be going for a separation of powers, with an executive structure, which might reduce the subject committees to mini-assemblies in which there is a government in opposition, as it were, rather than more participative, and democratic bodies.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am always grateful for the support of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We need to explore this issue. The national advisory group's initial recommendations have been referred to. I am a little concerned. I feel that important public bodies such as NDPBs should respond not just to the secretaries and officials but also to the subject committee as a whole. They are public bodies created by, and accountable to, the whole of the assembly as a body corporate. I do not want the notion of the body corporate to be lost. It is cynulleidfaol. It is the whole congregation, as it were, the cynull gathered together. That is what the cynulliad is. Therefore it is a congregation in that sense, and I do not want to see that lost. I do not want to see the Scottish model of ministers and Crown in parliament imposed upon a democratic people such as the Welsh. We need to create models of public administration that are more in line with our tradition. I hope that we can continue this debate and flag the matter for the assembly itself.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can perhaps help the noble Lord. Clause 75 states:
"The Assembly may require any person to whom subsection (2) applies—

(a) to attend proceedings of the Assembly for the purpose of giving evidence, or

(b) to produce … documents".

The bodies to which subsection (2) applies are listed in Schedules 3 and 4. Unless Wales has a plethora of quangos of which I know not, the list seems to me to cover every possible non-departmental body which exists, both inside Wales alone and in the wider UK, including Wales—including the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which I mentioned earlier. Perhaps, whatever happens and whatever way the assembly decides to organise itself, the power exists in Clause 75.
Lord Prys-Davies: Before the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, responds to that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as I see it, the critical issue raised by Amendment No. 154A is whether the subject committee itself will be responsible for monitoring the performance of the non-departmental public bodies. When the White Paper was published, it was a general

383
understanding that these subject committees would themselves exercise executive authority. That idea seems to have gone. We are therefore entitled to ask what will be the role of a subject committee and to what extent it will enable the members of the assembly to participate fully in the work of the assembly. If that is the point which is being made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I have great sympathy with it.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Mackay. The question is precisely as both noble Lords have said. The fact of accountability in one form or another is not disputed by the clause to which the noble Lord referred. It is the form of accountability and how that is to happen and the nature of the relationship that concerns us. I believe I have said enough to indicate that it is my intention to withdraw the amendment, but we may well wish to return to the matter at a later stage, perhaps in a more comprehensive form, and look at the role of subject committees in the light of whatever further advice emerges from the national advisory group. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Subordinate legislation scrutiny committee]:
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155A.
Page 30. line 43, leave out from second ("made") to ("and") in line 46 and insert ("in exercise of a function in relation to the exercise of which by the Assembly any relevant Parliamentary procedural provision has effect.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 59, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may ask some questions about this clause, which I confess I find extremely difficult to understand. First, as Members of the Committee put up earlier with a technical drafting point, perhaps I may make another. In subsection (3), paragraph (a) ends with the word "and", and paragraph (b) follows straight on. That is perfectly easy to follow. One realises immediately that they are conjunctive. Similarly, in subsection (4), one realises immediately that the two paragraphs are disjunctive. However, when one looks at subsection (6), we have to read six lines before we find that they are conjunctive when the word "and" appears.
That is not the only example in this Bill, but it is a clear one because it compares with the two other subsections. It would be much easier to understand—
384
say in the case of subsection (6)—if paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) ended with the word "and".
I know that a long-established drafting method is used in that clause and in this Bill. Indeed, it follows the general, though not universal, literary conventions. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is in his place and will correct me if I am wrong about that. Certainly in a statute it would be much easier to understand if each sub-paragraph either ended conjunctively or disjunctively. That is purely a drafting point.
I find it difficult to understand exactly what subsections (3), (4) and (6) are intended to do and how they work. Subsection (3)(a) deals with power to consider—a duty to consider—assembly general subordinate legislation. That is defined in subsection (6) as,
"required to be made by statutory instrument … made or proposed to be made by the Assembly … not made or proposed to be made jointly with a Minister",
and in paragraph (d), "not local in nature". Perhaps I can pause there and ask what that is intended to cover. Presumably the Welsh assembly is not to be charged with the consideration of private Acts of a local nature which come to Westminster so far as they arise in Wales. Or is it? If not, what do the words, "not local in nature" mean?
That relates to assembly general subordinate legislation. But what is "relevant Welsh subordinate legislation"? It is defined in subsection (7), in which paragraph (a) is common to subsection (6); in other words, assembly general subordinate legislation. Paragraph (b) is a specific exception which relates only to Forestry Commission orders. What is the relationship?
When I raised the question of subordinate legislation the Minister helpfully and courteously said that he would write to me to explain and would also consider what is absolutely necessary; that is, that the matter should be properly defined in Clause 20. I understood that all secondary legislation which extends to Wales—in so far as it does extend to Wales—would be within the cognisance of the assembly and would be considered by it. I asked whether there was any other species of subordinate legislation which was not at the moment the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The Minister said that he would consider that too and write to me about it.
I thank the noble Lord once again for his usual courtesy and helpfulness. But it may be advisable for him to place a copy of his letter in the Library; it is probably a matter of general concern. Those are the questions I wish to ask. I really wish to have the whole section explained to me. If the Minister says that I must be patient and await his letter, I shall try to be patient.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can intervene for a moment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raises some important issues. If the noble and learned Lord has trouble reading statutes because he cannot decide whether they are conjunctive or

385
disjunctive, he can imagine what difficulty the rest of us have who are not lawyers. He makes a good point which never occurred to me.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister is not only a lawyer, but has the supreme accolade of his colleagues in having been elected to be chairman of the Bar Council. I have no doubt therefore that he understands it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure, but the noble and learned Lord may be telling me that I am the meat between the sandwich or something like that. However, he makes a good point.
The more important point to which the noble and learned Lord drew my attention relates to subsection (6)(c). Apparently, subordinate legislation may be made jointly with a Minister of the Crown and in those circumstances the Welsh assembly will not deal with it, if I read it correctly. My understanding was that the legislative role of the Welsh assembly was limited, but that it was to deal with secondary legislation. I am a little surprised to have my attention drawn to circumstances in which secondary legislation for Wales will be dealt with jointly with a Minister here, but will not need to go before the assembly.
Perhaps the Minister can give me an example. I sometimes find it easier to understand a concrete example than theory in these matters. In the example that I am sure the Minister will give me, will the Secretary of State for Wales be involved? It is a difficult concept, as the poor old Secretary of State for Wales does not have much in the way of ministerial responsibility left over after power is devolved.
I am in some difficulty when I read the clause. We will come to secondary legislation in a moment, but the whole question of secondary legislation is extremely difficult. I see the noble Earl, Lord Russell, poised in his seat and I know that he is a great hawk when it comes to watching secondary legislation. I worry that in cases falling within paragraph (c) the Welsh assembly may be blocked out and Ministers may find it convenient in the future to find ways to block it out. Perhaps the Minister can explain exactly what is covered in that regard.
6 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should be grateful if my noble friend would clarify the point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I understood from the memorandum which the Leader of the Commons sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that some of the orders that will be made jointly will have to be submitted to the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee of the Welsh assembly and also to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments here at Westminster. My worry about that is what the position will be if the terms of reference of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee of the Welsh assembly are not analogous to the terms of the
386
reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I look forward to my noble friend's response to the points that have been raised.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As will presently become apparent, knowledge of the law is not a necessary prerequisite for being elected chairman of the Bar.
Quite detailed questions have been raised, some of which I can readily answer; others need a little more research. I doubt that the answer that I shall give will be sufficiently comprehensive to do justice to the questions which have been put. I will take up the courteous offer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to write immediately to him. I will make it a rule that all letters which are sent on similar topics are put in the Library for the reason that he mentioned.
As to the question of disjunctives and conjunctives, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this has been the usual pattern of parliamentary draftsmanship in the past. It is something I shall listen to. It is not enormously difficult to follow because of the position of the "and" or the "or"; it is the substantive wording itself which is more difficult. However, I take the noble and learned Lord's point.
The noble and learned Lord asked for an example of a piece of legislation which was not local in nature. Local in nature apparently is an accepted definition and would include, for instance, a traffic regulation order relating to a particular road.
Devolving from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked what was the distinction essentially between general subordinate legislation and joint legislation, and he asked me to give examples. The examples which have immediately sprung to hand and mind are that there might well be agricultural legislation in conjunction with MAFF or transport orders jointly with DETR. The essential difference—and I recognise that this is a simplistic answer which needs development in the way that the noble and learned Lord asked—is that general subordinate legislation is to come under the assembly's scrutiny committee. If there is joint legislation—two examples of which I have given—that will be scrutinised by the joint scrutiny committee in Parliament. That is a fairly limited answer to subtle questions. If it requires expansion, as I think it will, I undertake to give it within seven days of today.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I would not wish to hold the noble Lord, who has responsibilities not only for this Bill but for a number of matters which are now current, to a seven-day agreement. I shall be quite content to have an answer before Report stage.
As to paragraph (d), the noble Lord's answer indicated that it was not intended to cover what would be the subject matter of a private Bill of a local nature. I wonder whether it should not be? Why should a local Bill promoted by, say, Swansea have to come to London rather than be considered locally by a body which is much more cognisant of the local situation?

387
As for the rest, the noble Lord said he would consider it with the draftsman and I am obliged for that. I am still very puzzled about this clause and I am grateful for the further consideration.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Will the Minister, when he deposits the letter in the Library, kindly address one to me? I live rather a long way away sometimes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I try to be reasonably selective in sending out letters to noble Lords who have perhaps spoken on a distinct topic in a limited debate or who have expressed general interest on Second Reading. I try to circulate letters as widely as possible. I shall make sure that the noble Lord has a copy of this letter. It would be appropriate if I ensure that the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Prys-Davies, also receive a copy as they have raised the same detailed questions. I automatically send them to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord sits down finally, I am grateful to him for the answers that he gave. I understand that in the time available his answers were pretty broad brush about agriculture and transport. We discussed agriculture late last night and it will be discussed again in a little while. Because of the European input, secondary legislation statutory instruments on issues with a European connection will inevitably have to be the same in England and Wales—and probably in Scotland as well, but that is a different matter—and if the Welsh assembly is to be a devolved body responsible for agriculture, it seems odd that it will not be allowed to discuss or even nod through those statutory instruments. The procedure will be entirely based here.
If the noble Lord can be helpful in any letter about this I would be grateful. I may have to study this and return to it. At the risk of sounding as if I have clothed myself in the devolutionary mantle, it seems that we are giving to agriculture on the one hand and clawing back bits of it with the other. I do not think I am wrong about this and I may have to look at it again. I would be grateful if the Minister could also look at it to see whether there is any problem with powers over agriculture and other devolved issues.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a perfectly fair question. I will respond as fully as I can in the same letter.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 156:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—

SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION
(" . The Assembly shall establish a committee with responsibility relating to the scrutiny of European Community legislation and communications from the European Commission in accordance with standing orders.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I am tempted to say that we are all devolutionists now. In that case, he is very welcome to join the club. His noble friend has been there for a long time.
Amendment No. 156 relates to something that we debated last night around midnight. I see that the Chief Whip has joined us and I would obviously not wish to repeat anything that we said last night. It was a useful debate. As often happens in these matters, important issues are discussed at unfortunate hours. I hope that that will not happen in the assembly. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the assembly establishes a committee to scrutinise European Community legislation and communications from the European Commission. It is based on the positive work of both Houses of Parliament in their own European Select Committees and scrutiny committees.
I have been privileged to be a member of Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee, under the strong chairpersonship of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, which considers all aspects of Community legislation in the area of the environment, public health and consumer protection. The European Communities Committee of this House has a very good reputation throughout the European Union. I am always pleasantly surprised to see the extent to which our reports are read throughout the European Union. Indeed, they are almost obligatoire in the Commission in terms of our analysis of the implementation of Community policy.
I hope that the national assembly in Cardiff can make a similar contribution within its area of devolved powers and that it will become a serious European partner in the scrutiny of legislation, in the understanding of communications from the Commission and in the expressing of views. That links up to something at which perhaps we did not look in enough detail last night. I refer to the position of the assembly in relation to the successor body of the Wales European Centre in Brussels and in relation to having close links with MEPs within the European Parliament and with the Committee of the Regions. All those networks to which the assembly will relate should come together in the activities of the scrutiny committee of European Community legislation.
I suspect that the Minister will tell me that it is not necessary to have this provision on the face of the Bill. I think it would be helpful to have it on the face of the Bill in order to indicate clearly that the scrutiny of European legislation is regarded as one of the major functions of this new body. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, perhaps I may say that I think he has a point. That seems to be my role this afternoon—coming in after the noble Lord and saying that I think that some of his arguments have validity.
As the noble Lord said, this debate is not unrelated to the one we had late last night, in which specifically I was looking at agriculture and fisheries because of

389
their importance in Wales and because of the fact that they are two of the most common policies on the European scene. Here we are dealing with the relationship between the Welsh assembly and the material that flows out of the European Community—very considerable amounts of material these days!
I presume—and I am going to go on this assumption—that the noble Lord's new clause relates to those parts of European legislation which would come inside the competence of the Welsh assembly. That therefore raises matters of considerable importance for the assembly. The difficulty I see is that devolved Welsh affairs will no longer be the concern of this Parliament. That is the whole point of devolution. So, for example, if some documents come and they are examined by the European Communities committees of your Lordships' House, what role will your Lordships' committees be able to play in scrutinising European legislation concerning Wales? Will your Lordships' committees have to pass by the Welsh parts, or will your Lordships be able to look into matters and to call witnesses on the Welsh parts of any legislation or on the Welsh impact of any legislation?
I am sure that happens at the moment. It certainly did when I served on one of the sub-committees of the European Communities Committee. Would it still be within the powers of this House to discuss devolved Welsh issues in the context of European issues? Similarly, if Members of another place were looking at a piece of draft legislation coming from Europe, would they be allowed to explore the consequences for Wales? If they were not, clearly no elected person from Wales would be scrutinising it unless the assembly did. If they were allowed to scrutinise it, that would be fine; but equally I do not see why the assembly members should somehow be blocked out. I hope that they will have an important part to play.
I suspect that the Minister will say that standing orders will allow the assembly to set up such a committee if it so wishes. I am sure it will. The trouble with being a Minister for some time is that you begin to know what the answers are before you have been asked the question. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, makes an important point. We would be signalling to the assembly that these matters are hugely important and that far too many of the parliaments of Europe do not pay nearly enough attention to the proposals coming from Brussels.
It is often said that of all the parliamentary bodies in Europe, your Lordships' House does more on the scrutiny of European matters. That is to the credit of your Lordships' House but it is not to the credit of the other bodies. I therefore think that the Welsh assembly should have an important role in scrutinising legislation coming from Brussels in order to see how it affects the Welsh position and then to make its observations known. I am not sure to whom it would make its observations known. That opens up the whole debate of last night. I presume that the assembly makes its observations known to the UK Government; or does it make them known to Brussels; or does it make them known to both? It certainly will have to make them
390
known to the UK Government because they are the only people who will actually be able to do anything in the Council of Ministers about these matters.
This is an important issue. Even if the Minister tells us that the amendment is not necessary and that he is sure that the assembly will set up such a committee, I hope he will give an indication that in the Government's view such a committee ought to be set up, even if such a provision is not on the face of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has introduced the amendment. Five years ago I had the privilege of listening to Jordoi Pujol of Catalonia discussing the relations between Catalonia and the EU. The relations of the EU with the separate nationalities that make up the states of Europe is an extremely interesting field of development which I hope will continue in Wales.
There is just one word in the amendment which gives me cause for concern—that is the word "shall"—for reasons outlined by the Minister on Amendment No. 154A. This is essentially a matter of the assembly's own procedure and regulation of its own business. Any representative assembly should be in charge of settling its own proceedings. It is not good to have those proceedings settled by rules imposed by another place. Nor indeed is it good to have them laid down in statute in tablets of stone.
Some of us may remember, for example, the clause in the Defamation Bill in the previous Parliament which caused considerable confusion by attempting to regulate procedure by statute. It really is not wise. Even in dealing with the pre-Union parliament of Ireland, which was a parliament regarded on this side of the water as somewhat subordinate, attempts were not made by Westminster to regulate the proceedings of that parliament by statute.
The assembly may well wish to set up such a committee. It may wish, in the light of the limited number of people to staff committees, to address the same objective by another route. It would be a failure in respect for the Welsh assembly for us to lay down in statute in this House how the assembly shall conduct its own proceedings. So if the noble Lord wishes to return to this matter at another stage, I hope he may employ the word "may" instead of the word "shall".
Lord Beloff: It gives me enormous pleasure to be able to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I do so from a state of ignorance since for many years, for reasons which will be obvious to your Lordships' House, I have been kept off all the scrutiny committees of the House. So I am not fully acquainted with the current state of the documents that come. But my understanding is that the bulk of European legislation, if I may call it that, is of a general character. It says that all sheep shall have five legs, or whatever it may be. Normally, as I understand it, there is no distinction made between one country and another so one would not expect even a reference to the United Kingdom to figure in a regulation or a directive from

391
the Commission, still less a reference to a part of it; namely, Wales. At present the documents themselves obviously come to the United Kingdom Government. We do not yet have devolution in either England or Scotland.
How are those documents to come before the Welsh assembly? Will it be the responsibility of the relevant ministry in Whitehall to make sure that a copy is sent by pigeon post or other form of communication, directly to the Welsh assembly and for it to be put before the committee? As I understand it, the documents do not lend themselves to consideration by subordinate bodies. It would be perfectly proper and natural, for the reasons that have been given, for the Welsh assembly to want to look at documents which concern Wales, but they will not be about Wales. For that reason, there seems to be a problem. However, that certainly does not prevent me from supporting the amendment because if Wales is to have an assembly it should confront the trouble from Europe along with the rest of us.
Lord Kenyon: I, too, welcome this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I remind the Committee of the existence of the Committee of the Regions. That body deals with regional matters. I was a member of that committee for four years when it was set up under the Maastricht Treaty. As a member of a local authority only in Wales, I found that there was very little consultation. There was a little bit of informal consultation between the Association of Welsh Councils and the Council of Welsh Districts.
But when local government in Wales was reorganised the unitary authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association decided that they did not wish to consult with the members of the Committee of the Regions, so each member of that committee was out on his own. I am delighted to see that under this Bill the membership of the Committee of the Regions will be selected by the assembly. I sincerely hope that it will discuss the opinions that come from the Committee of the Regions. I can assure the Committee that an awful lot of bumpf comes from that organisation and, I presume, also from the Economic and Social Committee to which appointments will also be made. There will be the opportunity to discuss these matters in much greater detail than we have had until now.
Lord Prys-Davies: Before my noble friend replies to the debate, I would like to take further the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is important that there is a duty on the lead department in London to provide the Welsh executive with prompt information as regards such Community obligations which the United Kingdom is contemplating making or approving and which have a direct or indirect effect on the devolved functions of the Welsh assembly. It is important also that it consults the executive on such obligations and provides it with the opportunity to take part in the negotiations. Otherwise, when the order or directive arrives it is then
392
late in the day for the Welsh assembly to influence the contents of a directive. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord has raised an important issue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is indeed an important issue. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, there is no doubt at all that the assembly, in the way that it chooses, will be obliged to give careful scrutiny to draft legislation and proposals for policy development. But that is the important proviso: the way in which it decides.
I take up a particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I say quite firmly that the Government would anticipate, with every confidence, that careful scrutiny would be given. It might be that the assembly would want to establish a committee with specific responsibility for European matters. Perfectly sensibly, it might take an alternative view that each of the subject areas, for which assembly secretaries will be responsible, would wish subject committees to look at the legislation and policy developments in that particular area. That is an issue for the assembly to decide as matters develop.
I am grateful if the purpose of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is to flag up a point because it is well received. There is nothing at all to stop scrutiny on a UK-wide basis by parliamentary committees at Westminster. The assembly is to enable a separate process of Welsh scrutiny to take place as a supplementary and distinct process. It will be for the Foreign Office, as at present—which receives the appropriate documentation to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred—to distribute it to those who have an appropriate interest. We anticipate that there will be no difficulty at all about that happening to the Welsh assembly in the future. It will not necessarily be every piece of European policy development in every context or every piece of draft European legislation that is of interest to the assembly or appropriate for scrutiny.
But that is the point of devolution. People are given the powers and opportunities to carry out the scrutiny processes in two ways. The first is what kind of mechanism is used and, secondly, what sort of policy and draft European legislation do they wish to scrutinise. I am most grateful to the noble Lord who indicated that perhaps in the past there has been insufficient opportunity for scrutiny and that this is the opportunity for the Welsh assembly in the future to play its full part.
It seems to me that there are no real difficulties here. Parliament at Westminster can continue the scrutiny as it thinks appropriate and the Welsh assembly, in whatever mechanism it chooses, can also carry out the scrutiny. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question. It is useful to have it ventilated but we do not believe that this over-rigid prescription is suitable for the way ahead.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I have been accused of many things. Now I am an over-rigid prescriber. I am very pleased at the cross-party support which this amendment has received. In particular I would like to thank the noble

393
Lord, Lord Kenyon, for giving us the benefit of his experience on the Committee of the Regions. That reminds us that that committee itself by treaty is a consultee within the procedures of the European Union. Therefore, if for any reason documentation is lost between the FCO and the assembly, I am certain that the electronic copy of the Committee of the Regions can appear instantaneously in Cardiff Bay. All kinds of networks operate.
As we have done this evening, it is important to flag up the assembly to take up seriously European responsibilities. I was pleased also to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, although I believe that it tended to peter out towards the end of his speech, if I followed him correctly. However, I do not criticise him for that.
I do not understand the distinction between European matters which are about Wales and those which concern Wales. Clearly, all European Union matters, particularly in the field so beloved by the noble Lord opposite and myself—namely, agriculture, fisheries and the environment—are of deep concern to Wales as an environmental landmass with agricultural problems. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and particularly for mentioning a mutual friend of many of us in this House, Jordoi Pujol. I may return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Members of scrutiny committee etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 157 to 159 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): We now come to Amendment No. 160. I call the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 31, line 20, at beginning insert ("But").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should quit while I am ahead! This amendment seeks to insert the word "But"—
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Is it a conjunctive or a disjunctive "But"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that I shall be entitled to an epitaph on my tombstone saying that I was a man who introduced an amendment containing only the word "But".
This is a drafting amendment to clarify a possible ambiguity. As I say those words, I feel a chill upon my heart because I know that one Member of this Committee will say that, far from providing clarification, the amendment introduces such constitutional problems as to render the whole of the Bill unworkable. The possible ambiguity is as to the relationship between subsections (5) and (6) of Clause
394
60. The amendment is intended to make it clear that subsection (6) provides an exception to the general principle in subsection (5), which is that the scrutiny committee may not delegate its function of making reports to the assembly on draft assembly orders. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I can think of no one more appropriate to introduce an amendment containing only the word "But" or to have that mentioned on his tombstone than the noble Lord who lived and practised for so long in Swansea where that word has a particular meaning. Indeed, quite a large number of people may gather around the tombstone and think that he was their "but".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 60, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may make two points on this Clause. The first relates to subsection (7) which defines,
"the largest party in the Assembly"
as,
"the party (if any) which is represented by more Assembly members than any other single party".
What else could it be? This is what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, once described as Gertrude Stein drafting: the largest party is the largest party is the largest party. If there is to be such a definition, should it not at least contemplate the fact that there might be two large parties, equally numbered? Should not that be cleared up?
My other point is general to this Bill. It relates to subsection (5) which deals with delegation. In fact, a whole clause of the Bill, Clause 63, deals with delegation and other references to it are scattered throughout the Bill. Certain matters may be delegated while certain matters may not be; certain bodies may delegate while certain bodies may not. I surmise that what is in the draftsman's mind is the legal rule of general application, and extending to statutes, that a delegate may not sub-delegate without being given the responsibility and power to do so.
Many of the provisions in this Bill as to delegation do not fit into that pattern. They seem frequently to be quite unnecessary. My question is: for the purpose of this Bill, is the assembly itself regarded as the delegate? It is true that it deals with delegated legislation and perhaps we shall be told in due course that it deals primarily (although I think not exclusively) with delegated legislation. However, I do not think that that is sufficient to make the assembly a delegate. If it is not, it has the full power of delegation.
As to the other instances, I think that they need to be considered in the light of the rule which I have suggested. If I have suggested wrongly, the Minister will correct me. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could deal with those two matters.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: On the noble and learned Lord's last point, it seems to me that Clause 60(7) points

395
to the possibility of a practical outcome which the noble and learned Lord himself recognised; namely, that there may be no single party with more assembly members than any other single party. One might have two parties each with 30 members; three parties each with 20 members; or four parties each with 15 members. It is perfectly plain that the largest party is that party, if any, which has a majority over any other single party.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. How does that fit in with subsection (4), which states that
"a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it"?
If a number of parties have equal support, how does subsection (7) answer the question raised by subsection (4)?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Because there is no question in subsection (4). That subsection states that
"a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it".
If there is no such largest party in the assembly, as defined in subsection (7)—
Lord Hooson: He can be in the chair.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, as the noble Lord. Lord Hooson, says, he can be in the chair. Although I hesitate to say this when dealing with any Bill, this is perfectly simple and plain.
Again, it seems to me that subsection (5) is perfectly plain. It contains the injunction that the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee is not lawfully enabled to delegate that function under Clause 59(3). For my own part, subject to any further persuasion and any correspondence in which the noble and learned Lord and I may engage, I cannot see the difficulty.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister needs no help from me, but is it not clear that subsection (7) covers with clarity the situation where the Bill might have provided that the largest party is the party which has a majority over all other parties? The subsection makes it perfectly clear that the definition of "the largest party" is the party with a majority over any single party.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I simply do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, manages to think that the largest party means the party with a majority over all the rest. The largest party is the largest party. That is all there is to it.
Lord Mishcon: I hear the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may intervene as a referee. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has the argument. I understand what is meant by "the largest party", but thanks to the noble and learned Lord asking questions about it, I think that the point of subsection (4) is to
396
prevent the party which provides the executive from occupying the chair of the committee. I imagine that that is the intention.
However, what happens if the largest party is not a member of the executive because a number of other parties have got together in a coalition? It seems to me that the party in opposition—if I may so describe it—will not be allowed to occupy the chair of the committee whereas I believe that the clause is designed to try to ensure that the largest party does not run the executive and chair committees. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that I have created a scenario in which the largest party may not be running the executive and will not be allowed to chair the committees either. I suspect that that is not what the noble Lord intends should happen. One wonders whether it is an unintended consequence to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has drawn the attention of the Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No. Clause 60(3) plainly provides that the assembly first secretary and an assembly secretary are both disqualified from being members of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, posits the question whether one wants a member of the executive on the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee. The answer is plainly not. These individuals are disqualified by virtue of subsection (3). One then considers subsection (4) which provides:
"The Assembly shall elect one of the members of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee",
the first secretary and assembly secretary already having been excluded by subsection (3),
"to chair the committee but a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it".
That leads us happily to subsection (7) where the largest party is defined. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, interjected sotto voce, if there is no "largest party" there will be no consequent disqualification. All is plain, all is pure, all is light.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that all is plain, pure and light. I was not bothered about whether the assembly first secretary or an assembly secretary would be the chairman of the committee but whether a member of his or her party would be able to be chairman in those circumstances. If it was not the majority party and therefore not excluded from the chair those individuals could be in the governing party or the party whose members formed the executive and they could chair it. I believe that a distinction should be drawn, which is very clear in my mind. If I do not express it very well I apologise. I can see a circumstance in which a party which is the majority party is locked out of being part of the executive and is then locked out from having any of its members as chairmen of these committees. Equally, a party that is in the executive—perhaps the party holding all of the executive seats—may have members sitting as chairmen because they are not from the largest party. Perhaps the noble Lord

397
should look at this matter. I do not believe that in certain scenarios this provision would fulfil the Government's sensible and enlightened intention under this clause.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is confusing "executive". I take it that by that he means the first secretary or an assembly secretary whom he describes, according to his second thoughts, as "of the executive party". Let us assume that the largest single party is the Labour Party. There may well be some Labour Party members who will be the first secretary or an assembly secretary. By virtue of holding office as first secretary or assembly secretary, not by virtue of being the majority party, they will automatically be disqualified from membership of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee, because that is plain from Clause 60(3). The scenario put forward by the noble Lord does not derive anything by way of prohibition or injunction that is in Clause 60. I shall consider this matter again but I am pretty certain that the noble Lord has got it wrong. Perhaps I have got it wrong, in which case I shall write to the noble Lord and to others and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is one question that the noble Lord has not dealt with which arises on Clause 63. This is fundamental to all the provisions about delegation. Is the Welsh assembly a delegate? If it is a delegate it cannot sub-delegate without authority; if it is not a delegate it can do so. In the background that I suggested there is the puzzling situation that it deals primarily, although I gather not exclusively, with delegated legislation. That is the background. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would consider it further.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 61 [Audit Committee]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 160A:
Page 31. line 31, at end insert ("or Pwyllgor Archwilio").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 160A seeks to insert the words "or Pwyllgor Archwilio". That is the Welsh translation for Audit Committee. As the Bill presently stands this committee is the only body or person that has the misfortune of not having its name in both languages. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment which will provide consistency in this respect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 163 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 163A
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
(" . The Assembly shall designate one of its committees to be responsible for the environmental auditing of the Assembly's work.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will be rejected by the Minister and the Liberal Democrat Benches because it includes the word "shall". As the Committee
398
will have discovered by now, that word is intended in these amendments to flag up issues of concern to the assembly and its structure. The proposal is quite simple and I do not need to spend much time upon it. The issue of sustainable development will be debated again in the context of this Bill. I do not believe that it is possible to have sustainable development without a mechanism to deliver it. There is a mechanism in another place in the Westminster Parliament; namely, the Environmental Audit Committee. That includes among its members one of my party colleagues Mr. Cynog Dafis, the Member for Ceredigion, and a potential colleague in the national assembly, Mr. Gareth Thomas, the Member for Clwyd West, who I understand hopes to be elected on behalf of the other party of Wales—the bigger party, to revert to the earlier debate—to the assembly. The work of that committee is to consider the extent to which policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Ministers and report to the House. I believe that that would be an ideal committee to be established in Cardiff. It could be the main mechanism for delivering the sustainable development objectives to be placed upon the assembly as a duty. We shall debate this later. I beg to move.
Lord Rees: I do not know whether it is entirely appropriate for me to make the following point. I thought that we rushed through this rather too quickly. I was about to get to my feet when Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 were called. Those are the responsibility of my noble friends Lord Roberts and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The point that we have just debated arises also under subsection (4) of this clause. It may well be that a minority party forms the administration. It would not normally be the case but it would be possible for a Minister or one of the executive to be appointed chairman of the audit committee and not be disqualified from being so appointed because he would not be the first secretary or an assembly secretary and he would not be a member of the majority party. I do not know whether my fears are fanciful but perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee that no executive person, who obviously is not a member of the majority party, can be appointed chairman of the audit committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that the noble Lord is reverting to Clause 31.
Lord Rees: No.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That deals with membership of the audit committee, which was the point that the noble Lord was making.
Lord Rees: Could the Minister reassure me that there is no possibility that a person with executive responsibility in the assembly could be a chairman of the audit committee?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: According to Clause 31(4) neither the assembly first secretary nor an

399
assembly secretary may be a member of the audit committee. The first secretary and the assembly secretaries together comprise what has been called the executive. Therefore if neither the first secretary nor an assembly secretary—that is, the executive—may be a member of the audit committee, it seems to me that neither could be chairman of the audit committee.
Lord Rees: I apologise for taking up time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not at all.
Lord Hooson: Does not the present phrasing of the Bill represent the reality of the political situation in Wales? The clause is designed to ensure that the dominant party in Wales—the Labour Party—does not have the chairmanship of this committee. That is the proposal. The Minister might look at the drafting to see whether it can be changed to meet the theoretical situation—in his view, I am sure—that might occur in the future.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall consider that suggestion. Perhaps I may now turn my attention to replying to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I take his point entirely that this is an extremely important aspect. I was going to mention to the Committee, but he has done that already, that another place has set up a similar body. I am sure that it will do useful work. The noble Lord said two things: first, this will flag up the importance of the issue—I entirely agree—and, secondly, it seems to be an ideal mechanism—I entirely agree—but the ultimate decision should be for the assembly.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister, and because we both sustain each other in these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Regional committees]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 32, line 3, leave out from ("establish") to end of line 11 and insert ("five regional select committees to hold the executive committee accountable for the exercise of its functions in that region.
(2) Each regional select committee shall be responsible for an electoral region in effect at the last ordinary election.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. No one doubts the importance of Clause 62, which provides for the establishment of regional committees in Wales. There are distinctive regions within Wales, with their own special interests. It is important to the success of the national assembly that people feel at regional level that their interests are being considered and safeguarded. Some may regard the clause as perpetuating divisions, but I do not share that view. Neither do I think that the Secretary of State shares that view, because some Members of the
400
Committee will remember that the Secretary of State, in commenting in the Welsh Grand Committee on the referendum, on 18th November last year, said:
"The referendum results showed a marked difference in the views between North Wales and South Wales and between East Wales and West Wales. I am conscious that we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together. We must address the genuine concerns, and I acknowledge the fact that we must listen and continue to listen".
One of the ways in which the Bill proposes to deal with that problem is by setting up these regional advisory committees under Clause 62. Unfortunately, the clause refers only to North Wales. That is not even geographically defined. The "other regions" are without number or geographical definition. We know that the committees proposed, when established, will advise the assembly and will consist of elected assembly members for each area. The first problem is to define the regions geographically. The advisory group set up by the Secretary of State which examined the issue, but came to no firm conclusion, recognised that this is an issue on which there will be many different viewpoints and that none of the possible options would be perfect.
The advisory group mentioned two such options, the first being the four regions proposed by the Welsh Office for the recast Welsh Development Agency and the second being a seven-region model based on rurality and socio-economic indicators. I am told by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, that there is also in circulation yet another new model which divides Wales into two.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The sheep and goats.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The first four-region option described by the advisory group in its consultative document entitled A National Assembly for Wales as option A is not far removed from the five-region proposal based on the assembly's own electoral region pattern, which in turn is based on the five European parliamentary constituencies.
I would be the first to admit that, although those electoral regions, as they are referred to in the Bill, are not ideal in physical geographical terms, they are acceptable because an attempt has been made to secure constituencies of roughly comparable size in population terms—around the 400,000 mark. It is population and people who matter most in electoral representation. That has meant creating a mid-Wales electoral region which reaches from Llanelli to Llanrwst—an absurdity by most people's standards, but not immutably so. I think adjustments should be possible over time. The electoral regions as defined in the Bill which are to be used for the purpose of electing assembly members on a proportional basis would seem to be a good starting point.
I would argue that there is much to be said for establishing the five regional committees under Clause 62, based on the electoral regions used in the assembly elections and comprising the assembly members elected for those regions. Why adopt a different regional arrangement from the one used for elections to the assembly? If there are infelicities they can surely be put right in time by the Boundary Commission.

401
It has been suggested that the assembly's regional committees should be coterminous with other bodies' regional groupings—the WDA or the local authorities. But there is no suggestion in this clause that the membership of those committees should be extended beyond assembly members to other persons belonging to different bodies.
If our proposal is adopted, each committee would have a sizeable membership, I calculate of about 12. I have no quarrel with the advisory group's analysis of the role of regional committees in:
"ensuring that the Assembly has close links with the regions, liaising with regional economic fora, unitary authorities, town and community councils and other local groups",
and drawing the assembly's attention to issues of concern to the regions. Some will feel, in the regions in particular, that this is inadequate. The electors of the regions may not be satisfied that their needs will be attended to. We therefore propose that each regional committee shall have the power to censure the executive committee, and that the executive committee should resign unless the assembly passes a vote of confidence in it within 28 days.
Members of the Committee may well think that that is taking matters somewhat far and that the more moderate line taken by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in his amendment is preferable. But Cardiff can be very remote to some of the Welsh regions, and the right to censure and to call for the executive's resignation would give the regional committees teeth which they currently lack. They would have a powerful means of drawing attention to their complaint and their censure could clearly not be ignored. The executive, too, would be put on its mettle to ensure fairness of treatment between the regions, and the fear that the assembly will be dominated by South Wales interests to the detriment of the remainder may be overcome.
I hope that I have set out a fairly reasonable case for the amendment. There is much concern in different parts of Wales, and a fear that they may be ignored. I do not think we are as yet in a position to command a national spirit behind the assembly. After all, politics is about interests, and the regions in Wales have different interests which they want safeguarded.
I shall listen with interest to the debate on the amendment, and to the Government's views. Whatever they are, I hope that the regional subdivision of Wales will not be yet another matter left to the determination of the assembly. Frankly, it is a problem best resolved here. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): I have to advise the Committee that should this amendment be agreed to, I am unable to call Amendments Nos. 165 to 167 due to pre-emption.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I hope that the Minister will agree with my noble friend that I am moderate. Amendments Nos. 165 to 167 are grouped with the amendment. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 165 and
402
166 is to ensure that the assembly will take account of the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas.
In case the Government have not yet got the message, there is a real crisis in Welsh agriculture at present, and being a pessimistic farmer I see too clearly the similarity between today's problems and those that occurred after the repeal of the Corn Laws. I believe that there is every chance of Welsh agriculture suffering a 50 to 60 year depression unless we, the Government, in conjunction with farmers, accept the problem and try to solve it, which I am sure is possible.
My fear, however, which the amendment addresses, is that our urban societies, which outnumber the rural ones, will not understand, or if they do will not heed, the rural communities' problems. It is a point I sought to make last night at some unearthly hour. However, the Minister rebuked me for being so suspicious and untrusting. I am sure that these problems will be aired in the regional committees. However, my fear is that the assembly will take this line of argument. I am sure all noble Lords have said at times to their wives, "What do you want to do today?" and before she has time to reply, they say, "This is what we shall do". That is the problem about which I am worried.
Relevant to the problem that I seek to resolve in the amendment is the issue of geography. I hope that I shall receive full support from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. If we are to have the quality of person serving on the assembly, it is important that it is made possible and easy for such people to attend the assembly at Cardiff when they live in North Wales, and Anglesey in particular. At present the reliability of service, rolling stock and regularity of trains is bad to very bad. Do the Government have any plans to improve that? Without an improvement, they will not attract the right quality of person from North Wales to sit on the assembly, in particular as I hope that that person has another worthwhile job. I think of a potential Labour candidate who has just turned down the offer to become a candidate for the assembly for those reasons.
I suspect that the Minister will reply that the problem is not the Government's and is in the hands of the train operators. But no train operator can afford to improve the service for one assembly member. It is a real problem. I hope that the noble Minister will not reply, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when we discussed this matter previously, by saying, "The noble Lord knows better than anyone how to get from Holyhead to Cardiff'. I did not know then, and I still do not know.
Amendment No. 167 ensures that regional committees are established for Mid Wales and West Wales as well as North Wales to ensure that the problems that I have enumerated on Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are addressed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I regret to say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, although I congratulate him on bringing this important issue before us for discussion. I do not think that this is the place to decide where the regional committees are

403
to be established, and the boundaries. It is a difficult issue. I have promised my noble friends a free vote on it because I am not sure that we all agree about the boundaries of North Wales, Mid Wales or West Wales. One can divide Wales by many barriers: mountains, language, river valleys, economic interests, and so on. I believe that the assembly will have to discuss such matters at considerable length before reaching a final conclusion as to where regional committees should be established. In particular, it will need to define the advice required from the regional committees. How is that advice to be put together, and in what form is it to be delivered to the subject committees, the cabinet, or civil servants? What is the nature of the advice to be given?
The clause contains the wise provision for a specific committee for North Wales, however one defines North Wales. I am sure that that provision is included because there is, and always has been, considerable disquiet that North Wales would be dominated by the south. Ironically, in the south there has always been considerable concern that it would be dominated by the north. It is one of the ironies of Wales that so many of the people who hold the levers of power and influence in our capital city come from North and West Wales because they have the facility of being bilingual. That is a matter of considerable importance in the administration of business and government, in the media, and so on.
One has only to consider the problems which are thrown up by trying to define the various regions of Wales in order to say immediately that this House, despite its expertise and knowledge, is not the place for us to reach a final conclusion. Nor is the other place because the way in which such issues can be discussed is not suitable for the type of debates which take place. I would leave the clause as it stands and put the responsibility on the assembly as its first task to decide what is the function of the regional committees, what advice they are supposed to give and to whom and where the boundaries should run.
Lord Elis-Thomas: It is about time that we were honest about the issue of regionalism in Wales. We all know why the provision was included in the Bill. It appeared in the White Paper for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend indicated; because the so-called North/South divide was an issue in the previous referendum. An attempt was made by the governing party—and all credit to it—in its referendum campaign to ensure that that did not happen.
After consideration, my view is that we make too much in our political structure, and we are making too much in this Bill, of the whole issue of regionalism in Wales. That is not to deny the importance of regional identity, regional differentiation, regional representation and so forth. In my view, we are about to construct a new form of national unity and diversity and we must therefore see the regions not as challenging or competing bases of political representation but as serious partners.
404
I warn the Government and the proposers of the amendments that they are pandering to the worst form of regionalism. There is a danger, in particular if one constructs a regional basis for a political constituency according to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord opposite, that we may create two tiers of members in the assembly. There will be the first-past-the-post members who are elected according to the ancient political placing of a cross on a piece of paper. There will be the members elected by regional franchise on the basis of the d'Hondt system and all those wonderful formulae which we discussed on the first day of the Committee. But those members will be equal. The danger is that if one creates a regional committee structure which is coterminous with the franchise for the regional elections, one is instituting a two-tier assembly with a national and a regional level. One is also instituting a two-tier membership; the regional members and the constituency members.
I believe that we must have a more radical approach to these matters. Although I do not agree with either of the proposals put forward in the report of the National Advisory Group, I am attracted by the Western model because it is applicable in terms of regional development. I am attracted also by the WDA regions—the TECH regional model—which brings me to the whole point of my speech. This is not a matter for this House—and here I disagree with myself in previous speeches. This is definitely a matter for the assembly by consultation and process. I would not put it as the first duty of the assembly; I would put it as an emerging duty. However, I would warn the assembly members not to pay too much attention to the issue of regional division. Politicians in Wales, including those in my own party, have played about with the issue of the regional division of Wales. My own party is guilty of that. We are creating a new national unity in which the diversity of the wonderful Marches, the border land and the west is just as important as the artificial creations called north, mid, south-west and east Wales. I am opposing the amendments and supporting the clause, but I issue dire warnings to the regionalists because in my book the regionalists are even worse than the nationalists.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. As he completed his speech I could not help wondering how many times he has disagreed with himself. From my knowledge of him over many years, I suspect quite a number. I agreed with a great deal of what he said in the earlier part of his address, but he did not do justice to his cause in the latter part of his speech.
It is very important that the assembly is generally accepted. The Labour Party will almost certainly have a large majority in the assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, may shake his head and disagree with himself about this, too, but the reality is that only six parliamentary seats in Wales are held other than by the Labour Party. Let us look at the reality of what will happen.

405
From the Government's point of view, it is important that the assembly is generally accepted. Therefore, it is important that proper account is taken of regional susceptibilities. I represented an area in Montgomeryshire which deeply resented being included with Brecon and Radnor in an artificial creation called Powys which covers a quarter of the land surface of Wales. It is contrary to their history. The Tudors had it right because they paid regard to communications and to where the rivers flowed. Where the rivers flowed so market towns and the means of communication were developed. In an area which can be described as the Marches area, which included the old Montgomeryshire, there were many contacts across to Shropshire as well as west to Cardiganshire, to Merioneth and so on.
The regional susceptibility which exists must be carefully dealt with. If the assembly were to develop into a body dominated by what might be described as the old Labour attitudes in some of the area of South Wales it would ruin it for the Government and everyone. If there is anything which would upset the Labour control of Wales it would be making a mess of the assembly. Therefore, the Government must tread carefully on this issue.
I agree that we in this House should not try to define the regions. Most people in Montgomeryshire, for example, would prefer to be with North Wales if it were divided into a North Wales region and others. As I and people in the Welsh Office know, a number of representations have been made from Breconshire. It does not like to be part of Powys either and believes itself to be part of South Wales. The same probably applies to Radnorshire. But it should be left to the assembly to decide wisely in what way it will have regional committees. There is strength in the argument for a mid-Wales region because it has many similar problems. The Rural Development Board as it developed included Merioneth, Montgomery and so on and in many ways it was an actual region. The assembly might seek to go along those lines and define North Wales more narrowly.
It is important that within the assembly there is a sense that the affairs of a given area will be properly safeguarded. The dominant force will be from the industrial areas and there will generally be felt to be a need for strong protective regional committees able to influence the assembly generally. All in all, we must leave the matter to the good judgment and leadership of the assembly. I know that the present Secretary of State—I feel his presence—is most anxious to lead the assembly. He is very well aware of such problems. I am sure that he is totally dedicated to the idea of making the assembly a success and that he appreciates the importance of a sensitive solution to what may be described basically as the "regional problem".
Lord Davies of Coity: Although I have not lived in Wales for some years, I do not see any evidence that regionalism does not still exist. Clause 62 has the position just about right in terms of allowing the assembly to define precisely what the regions will be. We still hear terms—and they are expressed in the
406
proposed amendments—about North Wales, Mid Wales, South Wales and West Wales. Of course, regionalism exists in reality.
I certainly support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that the assembly is designed to create a unity in Wales. But that unity must evolve and has to do so with confidence, strength and belief. It cannot do it overnight. There is an undoubted requirement for these regional advisory committees to represent respective and specific interests in the areas of Mid Wales, West Wales, North Wales and South Wales—indeed, wherever it happens to be—so that the assembly can take the decisions which will ensure that all the people of Wales are able to have confidence in the work of the assembly. All those interests must be represented.
I suggest to the Committee that Clause 62, as presently framed, should be supported. We should allow the assembly to define the lines of regionalism in Wales for, perhaps, the interim period. They may not need to exist forever and a day, but, when the assembly starts its work, such definition certainly needs to be there. Indeed, only the assembly can define those regions after a great deal of thought and consultation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to Members of the Committee for not being present at the beginning of this discussion; indeed, I had not intended to intervene in it. As an Englishman, I find myself in the peculiar position, once again, of being on my feet, but in this instance perhaps with a word of warning. This is a debate about devolution. It is about devolution to a country with a long and proud history, which existed as a proper country a long time ago.
Devolution is an infectious disease if it is taken to its illogical extreme. There is a danger with devolution if we start to divide Wales into separate regions. A colleague of mine, who is not present in the Chamber this evening, described the country of Wales as a number of separate kingdoms and he is someone with a deep knowledge of Welsh history. The danger is that the devolution bug will be catching. If a part of Wales at some subsequent time feels that it is disadvantaged, it may begin to exert pressure on the national assembly for devolution from it.
I believe that it would be wholly regrettable if that were to happen. Although that example may seem a little like science fiction or, indeed, a little far fetched, some of the regional pressures and regional organisations that we see in Europe seem to press in that sort of a direction. Therefore, the concept of a regional sub-structure below Wales is not inconceivable. If it is conceivable, I believe that it is something about which we should be most concerned. There is great merit in the structure that is being proposed; but if we put in place the possibility of a sub-structure, I am not sure that we will not in fact undermine the foundations upon which this particular Bill is laid.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said in his opening remarks, these amendments deal with different aspects of regional committees. I take most seriously the points made by

407
the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, especially his justified concern about current rural problems, which I fully recognise, as well as the question of difficult transport links from some parts of North Wales to an assembly building in Cardiff. Undoubtedly those transport problems are notorious. I am afraid that I speak with recent familiarity having journeyed to Aberystwyth for an honorary degree ceremony only last week. It does indeed take rather a long time to do so, particularly when, as in my case, there is always a man with a Morris Minor and a caravan immediately ahead on the road.
One way to deal with the matter is to be as flexible as the Secretary of State has indicated on various occasions; in other words, one does not have to have all the assembly business conducted in Cardiff on every occasion. That is an important point. Indeed, subject to the assembly's views, there is no reason at all why some committees should not sit outside Cardiff. Without wanting to be intrusive into the assembly's position, I believe that there is much virtue in that suggestion. It is perfectly simple these days to conduct business on video links. Much of the business of the Welsh Office is carried out in that way as indeed is that of the University of Wales. Sometimes it is just not possible or indeed necessary to have people gathered together in the same inconvenient location.
It is intended that this should be a modern building with use of IT and video links. In particular, the Secretary of State has made it perfectly plain that he wants an inclusive assembly so that those with disabilities or those who have to look after young children will not be disadvantaged as regards standing for the assembly. Therefore, we should not always have imprinted upon our minds the thought that Westminster is the only available model; indeed, it is not.
Amendments Nos. 164 to 169 fall into a slightly different category than that of Amendment No. 170. The first amendments look to three things. First, they define the boundaries of the regional committees as those of the five European constituency areas. Then they require the assembly to have regard to a regional committee's advice when making decisions affecting a region. Thirdly, there is the empowerment to censure with the consequence that the executive committee must resign unless the full assembly passes a motion of confidence.
The Government have problems with the first two propositions and we do not think that the third is necessary. We have not yet reached any decision on what the boundaries might be, but the one thing that we are clear about is what they should not be; namely, coterminous with the boundaries of the electoral regions.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Why?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord has helpfully asked why. Indeed, I was just about to give the answer. Those boundaries are predominantly determined by electoral arithmetic. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the five regions must, as far as possible, have about the same number of electors. That
408
may well be perfectly appropriate for the regional component of the assembly electorate, but they do not purport to be identifiable communities of interest—indeed, I do not believe that anyone with any knowledge of Wales believes that they are.
The noble Lord gave the example of the distance, which is more than geographic, between Llanelli and Llanrwst. They are a world apart in many ways. I suggest to Members of the Committee that it would be very odd if the assembly wanted a regional committee which was giving advice on matters affecting the Vale of Glamorgan but excluding Bridgend. One only has to look at the details involved to realise that there are difficulties about what Amendments Nos. 164 and 168 would require.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, the advisory group is consulting and has produced two maps each of which has some merit. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee supported one version, but the other also has its advocates. We should, perhaps, wait and see what the advisory committee recommends. As the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hooson, pointed out, there is great virtue in letting the assembly decide what it best knows about.
I turn to Amendment No. 169. Members of the Committee opposite having pressed on the Government the merits of individual ministerial responsibility and the cabinet system, now propose that if the members of a regional committee are displeased by the performance of a member of an executive committee, they will be able to table a motion of no confidence and have it debated. That is not required because provisions on motions of censure are already available. We discussed those earlier. This measure is otiose. Any member of a regional committee by definition will be a member of the assembly. Any member of the assembly by definition—subject to standing orders about whether a quorum is needed to sustain the hearing of a censure motion—is entitled to table such a motion. I repeat that the measure is unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 require the assembly to have regard to regional committees' advice. I understand the sentiments behind the amendments, but if the assembly does not have regard to regional committees' advice there is no point in having regional committees at all. I suggest that the scheme of the Bill makes the matter perfectly plain.
Amendment No. 170 requires that the regional committees should have regard to the effect which their proposals might have on local communities in rural areas. I do not think I can stress my next point strongly enough. I have sympathy with the deep concern that the noble Lord has expressed on this matter on a number of occasions, not only in the context of this Bill. One of the maps proposed by the advisory group would produce a regional committee which would have no rural committees to consider.
I do not resist the amendment on that ground, but I point out that any regional committee of any worth is bound to take account of the impact of any of its proposals on its local communities. After all, some rural communities have been badly hit, but one has only to

409
travel half an hour from Cardiff to Merthyr, for instance, to appreciate that there is substantially more social deprivation and hardship on some of the estates in Merthyr than in some rural communities in the rest of Wales. I believe that is a perfectly objective observation. We are trying to produce an assembly which is capable of work. If it is to be capable of work, it must be trusted to reach its own conclusions about these matters. I believe that the present structure of the Bill is better than the alternatives that have been proposed.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The general feeling expressed by a number of Members of the Committee is that this is a matter best left to the assembly. Of course one respects that view, but we are dealing with a difficult problem as the Government are aware. The advisory group has told us that this is a difficult issue to resolve. It is a matter on which there are many different points of view. None of the possible options is perfect. I believe we would do the assembly, the Secretary of State and everyone a good service if we could complete Clause 62, as it were, and provide the divisions that are anticipated in that clause.
As regards the need for a committee system, there are two poles of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is totally devoted to the concept of national unity and a national approach. He wishes us to underplay the regional issue. I thought that the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Davies of Coity, were nearer the mark, especially when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that unity would not be achieved overnight. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, talked of the need to respond to the regional aspirations that exist in different parts of Wales. The Government are absolutely right to think that there is a real need for these committees to express the views of different parts of Wales. I am assured by the Minister that it lies within the power of members of the assembly to initiate motions of censure which, by their very nature, will have to be attended to. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that we would create two tiers of members, as it were, through the electoral regions. However, the two tier membership already exists by the very nature of the composition of the assembly—the 40 constituency members and the 20 who will be elected by PR from the electoral regions.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I hope that the noble Lord is considering carefully what he is saying. He quite rightly said that I am inordinately devoted to national unity. I am also inordinately devoted to ensuring that the working practices of the assembly will ensure that all members are seen as equal. It is not a two tier membership; it is merely election for an area by a different form of franchise as part of a PR system.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I think the noble Lord will have to recognise that the areas to which members are elected differ. There is a considerable difference between the parliamentary constituency, and the electoral region. There will not be the close attachment between the electoral regional member and his area that exists between the constituency member and his area as he is clearly identified with the constituency he serves.
410
I am grateful for this debate. I also paid attention to what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said. It is indeed possible that if one encourages regionalism too much, it may seek its own form of devolution. We certainly do not want to handicap the assembly in Wales by regional pressures of that kind. We may well return to this subject of regional committees because in spite of the view expressed that it is a matter best left to the assembly, I am sure in my mind that if we as a Parliament were able to provide a solution to this problem, we would do ourselves, the assembly, the people of Wales and the Government a service.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have felt all along an interloper in these debates. I was encouraged by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas who said that I was fortuitously qualified. I have listened to this debate with great admiration and benefit. It is obviously closely balanced. As the matter is to be further considered, I make a suggestion that may constitute a way of reconciling the various differences, and that is to do what we have done as regards the standing orders. In other words, the regions, like the standing orders, would be extraneously laid down, but with power to the assembly to alter them at its discretion when it comes to consider them more closely. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the Minister might, if the matter is left at large, consider that possibility.
Lord Davies of Coity: I am slightly concerned in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, regarding the question of establishing advisory committees in regions, which might produce a regionalism which furthers devolution in the regions. My understanding is that this clause would ensure that a regional advisory structure exists to prevent aggravation and ensure that people in the regions have a voice and that their interests are represented. The structure itself will not provide a forum for a greater degree of devolution. What will provide that greater degree of devolution, if the matter arises, is not having representation by an advisory region.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am sure that noble Lords are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for his suggestion. I hope the Government will consider the matter. I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee Stage begin again not before 8.43 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

A.66: Upgrading
7.42 p.m.
Lord Hothfield Lord Hothfield rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider as a priority in the trunk road programme the completion of the conversion to a dual carriageway of the A.66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question seeks to find out whether the outcome of the Government's current Roads Review will fully reflect the importance of the A.66 trans-Pennine route and its existing unsatisfactory condition. At present, the only part of that route which is included in the programme is the Temple Sowerby bypass, which is marked with a nasty little star, meaning, "schemes likely to be put on hold".
The A.66 is well known to long distance travellers as a key cross-country road, linking north-west and north-east England. It also offers the most direct route from western Scotland and Northern Ireland to eastern England and mainland Europe via the North Sea ports. The road attracts traffic flows averaging 12,000 vehicles a day throughout the year, rising to 17,000 in the summer holiday season. There is a highly dangerous mix of traffic on the road, from farm tractors on the one hand to trans-continental heavy commercial vehicles on the other. The 34 per cent. proportion of heavy commercial vehicles is greater than on the M.62, and two and a half times that on the A.69.
The 80 km long section of the road between the M.6 at Penrith in Cumbria and the A.1 at Scotch Corner in North Yorkshire has over the past 30 years been partially upgraded to dual carriageway standard through a number of isolated schemes. At present, approximately half of the road has been upgraded, but in such a way that there are currently 11 changes of standard between dual and single carriageway. The undulating and twisting alignment and sub-standard junctions of the single carriageway are little changed from the days before motor vehicles started to use the road. The mixture of dual and single carriageway leads to racing, bunching, rash overtaking, confusion and, inevitably, accidents.
The Roads Review consultation document has set out five assessment criteria—integration; accessibility; safety; economy; and environmental impact. The trans-Pennine A.66 more than adequately fulfils these criteria, as I shall attempt to show.
I think everyone would agree that in the foreseeable future, roads will continue to have a role to play in an integrated transport strategy—none more so than rural roads such as the A.66, moving freight on routes where there is no practical alternative. However, the A.66 also contributes to an integrated strategy in serving a number of sea and air ports. Sea ports are situated at the terminal points of the road at both east and west coasts. Teesport and Workington both have general cargo and bulk handling facilities, with Teesport having the additional capacity to serve the chemical industry. Teesside airport is also developing its freight handling potential.
The trans-Pennine section of the road has increased international importance, forming a crucial link in the route between west coast ports for Ireland (surely set to become busier) and the major east coast ports, Channel ports, and the Channel Tunnel.
The A.66 clearly has a major role in promoting accessibility. It gives access for the peripheral areas of north-west England, Scotland and Ireland to east coast ports and hence European markets. At a more regional level, at its west end, it serves as the principal access for a population of 130,000 in west Cumbria, an unemployment blackspot, where over 5,000 are currently seeking employment. In the east, industrialists on Teesside regard the route as an essential part of their hinterland. The route provides readily available access across the Pennines, particularly now that winter reliability has been improved with the completion of dualling through the upland area.
On safety grounds, we have a very strong case too. The road's accident record shows a stark contrast between single and dual carriageway. During the nine-year period 1989 to 1997, 63 people were killed; 59 of those were killed on single carriageway, and remember the lengths of single and dual carriageway are roughly equal. Altogether, out of 1,204 casualties, 944 were on single carriageway. The effect of dualling was dramatically demonstrated after completion of the 6 km Stainmore to Banksgate improvement in 1994. During the three years prior to construction, there had been 85 casualties, including seven fatalities. During the three years since completion, four people have incurred minor injuries on the new dual carriageways.
On economic grounds, the A.66 contributes at every level. The composition of its traffic reflects that this road is foremost a trade route, carrying up to 4,000 heavy goods vehicles each day. The Department of Transport's own Trans-Pennine Study (Strategy Report 1992), highlighted large flows of very long distance, strategic traffic of which a high proportion was commercial. The average trip length, 254 kilometres, was far greater than any other of the eight trans-Pennine trunk roads studied. It was nearly double the next longest, 137 kilometres, on the M.62. This average trip length is undoubtedly boosted by international trips such as those undertaken by lorries crossing the "landbridge" between such ports as Stranraer and Hull.
However, the road contributes equally to the regional economy. In 1996, the northern region of the CBI said in its report Improving Regional Competitiveness that the A.66 gave northern business the greatest cause for concern. It stated:
"in its present form the road is unsuitable to the important strategic role it has to play in serving the industrial areas and ports of the North East and Cumbria".
A further illustration of economic benefit comes from the Road Haulage Association, which has calculated that its members can save some 25 kilometres per journey by using the A.66 in preference to the M.62.
The final criterion of the Roads Review, environmental impact, is another strong one for the A.66. For the majority of the route, upgrading can be achieved by on-line widening. That keeps to a minimum the use of agricultural land. Throughout the route there is very little roadside development to require diversions from existing alignment.
Comments by local branches of the Council for the Protection of Rural England indicate the acceptance by environmental interest groups of improvements to the A.66. In North Yorkshire, the county branch offered spontaneous support for dualling on safety grounds. In commenting on proposals for Temple Sowerby, the Friends of the Lake District have accepted the need for a bypass. On a different tack, my sister-in-law, a noted roads protester, has given this scheme her blessing. The Minister should be encouraged by that. I certainly am.
That covers the extremely strong case based on the criteria. I should now like to spend a moment on the Temple Sowerby bypass. Temple Sowerby and Kirkby Thore are the only two villages through which the A.66 runs. The Temple Sowerby bypass was first planned in the 1960s, and has been championed by the local doctor, Gavin Young. It has progressed to the stage of having a preferred route announced, which has been selected to avoid an SSSI. The existing road runs alongside the notable village green and bisects a community which has been described as the Queen of Westmorland villages. The Church, the school, a pub and most houses are on one side; the village shop, garage, hotel, doctors' surgery and other houses are on the other side. The village has experienced more than its share of accidents, including in recent years a collision between two heavy goods vehicles, in which one driver was killed. On another occasion a young boy resident was knocked from his bicycle by an articulated lorry and so severely injured that he will require lifelong medical care. By a quirk of fate, that boy was Dr. Gavin Young's son. Can your Lordships imagine what a fillip it would be for this family if the Minister were able to give some indication that this scheme, which has been on the drawing board for thirty years, is actually to be built?
There is immense support for A.66 improvements, both locally and from further afield. Both Tony Blair and William Hague are supporters. The European Transport Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, visited the road and spoke of it as,
"a dangerous and blocked artery".
I was pleased to see that in his recent Question in this house on road building, my noble friend Lord Vinson singled out the A.66.
I thank the other speakers tonight and the Minister for listening. If nothing is done, deaths will continue. This road has over double the fatality rate for rural trunk roads nationally. We are only half-way through 1998, but already a further eight people have been killed in five separate crashes, all on single carriageway.
In conclusion, I shall quote from the Department of Transport's Trans-Pennine Study Strategy Report, to which I referred earlier.
414
"There is a good case for improvements to the A.66, which could be justified in their own right. A dual carriageway widening throughout, between the A.1 at Scotch Corner and the M.6 at Penrith would accommodate future traffic demands, reduce journey times, and improve the reliability of road travel in poor weather conditions. It would enhance the important strategic connection of Cumbria and North Lancashire with the North East of England. While the route passes through an area of outstanding natural beauty, the environmental impact of improvements could be minimised by on line widening".
Will the Minister now accept that there is a strong case, based on the criteria, that the completion of dualling of this route, and in particular of the Temple Sowerby bypass, should be programmed as a priority? Previous governments have nibbled at it. What is now required is a full mouthful.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield. If I may say so without embarrassing him, I think he put the case better than I have heard it put by anyone in the last 40 years—and I have heard it put many times.
I intervene because I was born, and lived my early life, in the village of Warcop, which is a quarter of a mile from this road. That village was the only omission from the speech of the noble Lord. There is in the village of Warcop a very large Army training camp. The troop accommodation and headquarters are on one side of the A.66 and the training facilities are on the hills on the other side. This is bound to be a considerable complication to the traffic on that part of the A.66.
When I was a boy, I spent many hours sitting by this road taking motor car numbers. Why I took them I cannot imagine—there were very few cars in those days—but I filled many exercise books with them. Nowadays it is almost impossible to walk across the road. One takes one's life in one's hands if one tries to do so.
One of the most ancient horse fairs in the country was held on this road. I remember well that the gypsies used to gallop their horses up and down the road all day long. Nowadays one cannot walk across the road because of the traffic.
This is one of the ancient routes in Britain from the north-east to the north-west. It has been a route for 2,000 years, the road having been built upon a Roman road. The medieval kings passed along the road many times—Edward I more often than anyone else, I believe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, said, the road links up the great industrial complex of Tyne, Wear and Tees in the east with West Cumberland in the west. As the noble Lord also said, it is also a bridge road between ports such as Stranraer in the west and Teesport in the east. There are two routes across the Pennines from the north-east to the north-west. The A.66 is one and the A.69 the other. I travel on the A.69 every week. Neither road has double carriageway for the whole length; both have many miles of single carriageway. It is dreadful to travel along those roads and be stuck behind a cluster of heavy goods vehicles. Twelve thousand vehicles a day use these roads—4,000 of them heavy goods vehicles—17,000 in the summer months.

415
If these two roads were in the south-east of England, they would have been made double carriageway long ago. They are up there below the Scottish Border and I do not believe that London cares much about them. Temple Sowerby is a case in point, about which I feel so angry. It is one of the most beautiful villages I know. It has many delightful houses built of red sandstone. The villagers have to go backwards and forwards across the A.66, dodging the heavy goods vehicles, to go about ordinary village business, to the church, the pub, the doctor's surgery. This is scandal which cannot be allowed to continue.
I saw the Minister come into the Chamber with the brief under her arm and I felt a great dread that it would be the same old brief that we have heard over and over again under Labour and Tory Governments. I hope that it is not. The noble Baroness is one of our most sympathetic Ministers; she listens carefully and always tries to help. I urge her to follow the advice given to Macbeth:
"Be bloody, bold and resolute".
Throw the brief away. Tell us that you are going to build a bypass at Temple Sowerby and a double carriageway. If you do that, you will make a name for yourself for ever more. Please do not read out the old stuff that we have heard so often. I have great pleasure in supporting the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, that this road should have double carriageway for its whole length and that Temple Sowerby should have its bypass.
7.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I am pleased to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, on raising this important matter. Unfortunately, he has already said all that could and should be said, with admirable brevity and clarity. I detected one omission, but the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, spotted it and mentioned the village of Warcop, so most of the ground has been cut from under me. I shall try not to be tediously repetitious, but there are one or two points to make which will add a little colour to the subject under discussion.
Perhaps a Bishop of Carlisle ought to declare an interest in the A.66. It is, after all, the ancient route to the metropolitan see city of York. One of my predecessors, Bishop Percy, who was appointed in 1828 and stayed there until 1859, was a notable horseman. He used to declare his favourite pursuit as being to drive himself to London in a carriage and four to attend your Lordships' House. His route would certainly have lain across what we now call the A.66 to what was then probably called the Great North Road.
Those noble Lords who know Cumbria, and indeed north Lancashire, will know that the routes from west to east, north of the M.62, are at best inadequate and at worst very dangerous, given the volume of traffic. I shall be returning to Cumbria tomorrow morning and in the late afternoon I shall be going to the village of Beckermet at the gates of Calder Hall—better known as Sellafield—several miles from the western end of the A.66. From that village it takes around one hour and
416
10 minutes to reach the M.6, much of it along the less safe parts of the A.66. It is another 40 miles from there to Scotch Corner on a road that is a good deal more dangerous than the first part of the A.66.
That is important not just for commercial purposes, as the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, underlined, but it is important also to ordinary travellers—if I may call them that. Successive attempts to establish a viable airport at Carlisle failed and the nearest airport of any kind is that at Teesside. If one wants to return from London reasonably late in the evening after attending your Lordships' House, the only way to do so is to go on the east coast main line to Darlington and then there is a long drive across the A.66. In a very real sense therefore it is a lifeline not just to the communities on or near the A.66 but to a great deal of central Cumbria.
Too many of our small and remote communities in and around the Lakes are already suffering from the economic pressures experienced by small and medium-sized farmers. That increases the desirability for an upsurge in the tourism industry. There is already a holiday village oasis just off the A.66 to the east of Penrith, which now has a regular residential population of 3,000 people a day. A major new tourist centre is being built just to the west of the M.6 by the turn to Ullswater in order to draw tourists into the eastern part of the Lake District. That again will add to the volume of traffic on this road.
The fact that it is a lifeline to industry has already been mentioned. We are talking about high quality stainless steel railway lines manufactured in Workington and exported all around the world and chemicals from Allbright and Wilson at Whitehaven that need the Teesport facilities because they are a substantial part of our urban fringe in Cumbria—more than one-third of the population in the county lives on the west coast.
I want to underline the fact also that it is a lifeline in an important literal and slightly macabre sense. The noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, reminded the House of the number of fatalities that occur on a single carriageway part of the A.66. I can perhaps add a little detail to the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, of Warcop. There will be a steady stream of military convoys up the A.1 and across the A.66 all through the summer—regular and Territorial Army and Army cadets. As we speak, though the gypsies will not be racing their horses on the A.66, there will be an extraordinary Steptoe-like convoy moving across that road in both directions for the Appleby Fair which is taking place this week and next. As noble Lords can imagine, on the "un-dualledpart of the A.66 it is a horrendous and dangerous prospect.
In the Old Testament the prophets expressed the Lord's concern for generations yet unborn. My immediate, more basic human concern is for those not yet dead on the A.66.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am extremely glad to be able to congratulate, as others have, my noble friend Lord Hothfield on introducing this debate. I endorse all that he said so admirably and eloquently.

417
For 35 years I was, and continue to be, a regular user of the A.66 between my home, which is south of Scotch Corner, and my old constituency in the historic county of Westmorland and the stretch of the A.66 from Stainmore Summit to a mile or so outside of Penrith—also my old constituency. This evening I should like to add a few comments to what my noble friend Lord Hothfield and others have said.
First, having been a regular user of this road for many years, I have seen some of the most horrible accidents on the road and observed countless near misses. I cannot over-stress to the Minister the danger of this road and its casualty rate. It is something which ought to make us all feel ashamed. The road really must take priority.
Something which occurs to me is that a road with intermittent stretches of dual carriageway, as the A.66 has now, is inherently extremely dangerous, especially when there are so many slow-moving vehicles on it. It provides for commercial vehicles all the year round, and in the summer season slow-moving cars tow caravans, and there are straw lorries when the straw is taken from the eastern counties over to the western counties. Again, there are also the military vehicles to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
On many occasions I have seen and been in slow-moving traffic on that road. One then comes to a short stretch of dual carriageway when everyone makes a rush to overtake the slow-moving lead vehicles. On the short stretch near Greta Bridge, on many occasions I have seen slow-moving traffic, impossible to overtake, approach that short stretch of dual carriageway. Everyone makes a dash to overtake and some find that they cannot make it before the end. I have seen them doing lunatic things in order to overtake before the further stretch of single carriageway arises opposite Barnard Castle. Those stretches of intermittent dual carriageway are inherently extremely dangerous.
My next point is that, in making plans over the next few years for the A.66, I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to be bullied by the Treasury into some of their typically blinkered and brainless candle-end compromises, spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. For example, in the late 1960s a stretch of the road to the west of Appleby, at Crackenthorpe, was bypassed. There was a great ballyhoo about bypassing Crackenthorpe, which had a rather nasty narrow and twisty bit. What happened was that, owing to the ludicrous cheeseparing, that bypass was constructed in such a way that nearly all the stretch of road had double white lines. It seems to me to be absolutely absurd to spend all that money building a new road and then to build it so that people are not able to overtake.
In a specific sense I want to draw attention to the need for a bypass at Temple Sowerby. I believe my noble friend Lord Hothfield said that it has been ongoing for 30 years. I can first remember making public pronouncements about the need for a bypass at Temple Sowerby 35 years ago. At that time the whole thing was bedevilled because people could not decide on which side of the village the bypass should be built.
418
That undoubtedly delayed the project. That has now been agreed, but still nothing is being done and it is essential that something is done.
Finally, I shall make a few general remarks. All governments have been guilty of ignoring the need for proper east-west communications north of the Yorkshire and Lancashire industrial belt. West Cumberland particularly is crying out for better communications. Barrow—that poor city which has been maimed by the end of the cold war and the collapse of the demand for nuclear submarines and weapons of war—is scandalously ignored by the lack of improvements to the A.590 road. At one point that road goes through a farmyard. The construction of the High and Low Newton bypass is essential.
Likewise, the most direct road link from the north-east of England to Lancashire and the Midlands, and Barrow in particular, is to take the A.66 as far as Brough and then to move over to the M.6 motorway at Tebay via Kirkby Stephen. There is an urgent need for a bypass because lorries clog up that beautiful old market town in the most appalling way. The Kirkby Stephen bypass has been put off, although it was quite recently very much at the head of the priorities of road building in Cumbria. This is all linked in with the need to improve the A.66.
This has been a most useful opportunity to draw attention to one of the most urgent strategic projects necessary in the north of England at this time.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, so far no noble Lord has mentioned the fact that we have the great good fortune of having the Minister for roads to answer our debate. It is seldom that we have such a privilege and we are all doing our best to make what we say suitable for her ears. I think she will throw away her brief, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, told her to.
I too wish to say how admirable was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield. It was beautifully constructed and contained all the arguments, as the right reverend Prelate said, so it is very difficult to think of anything else to say. So far everyone has managed to add to what the noble Lord said and the case for the dualling of the carriageway of the A.66 is absolutely beyond argument. I hope that that will penetrate the mind of the noble Baroness the Minister for roads.
I also wish to talk about Warcop. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, mentioned Warcop as he is its most distinguished ornament. Warcop is an absolute paradigm of what not to do. I am talking about the road, not the village. The village is entirely charming but the road is quite disgusting. Can one possibly imagine a sillier thing than to build a magnificent new bypass at Brough and a magnificent bypass at Appleby and to ignore the few miles in between? That is not just criminal folly; it ought to be visited with disdain and disgust. It has killed so many people.
Can you imagine the ordinary traffic, which, as we have heard, is so vital, so variable, from these huge lorries down to farm carts? We have been told that this season, the Appleby Fair season, gypsies are travelling

419
along this monstrous road. How can you expect heavy goods vehicles to slow down into the dip that takes them into Warcop and up again the other side before reaching Appleby? They do not slow down and the result is these horrific accidents.
The mish-mash of this kind of road is quite lethal, as has been said by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Something must be done to remedy these disasters from the past. The two miles or so between the Brough bypass and the Appleby bypass should not have been left. They must have been designed by two people with totally different thoughts, one building the Appleby bypass and the other building the Brough bypass, and nobody thought of linking the two—at very minimal cost. That is the kind of thing that has gone on all along this vital road, causing great loss of life. That must be impressed upon the Minister as one of the reasons why we are insisting on the remedying of this dire situation.
I remember very well the campaign of a doctor from Temple Sowerby and the tragedy which followed soon after his campaign had been shelved. His own son suffered a horrible accident as a result of a collision when he was on a bicycle and met a heavy lorry. That has engraved itself on my mind. I am sure that all other people who know the area will believe that this was a terrible sacrifice that had to be made through the impotence or lack of push on the part of the Minister for Transport. We hope for better from our Front Bench spokesman today than the miserable answers that we have received on numerous occasions in the past.
Local people know well how to avoid this important highway. They know the back ways to avoid the murderous traffic. I am quite sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, when he is coming our way, avoids the main road by going the back way, which he can do for many a mile. I am sure that is to his great relief. In a similar way those who live near Brough can go by back ways, not just to Appleby but to Penrith. Indeed, there is a very good back way all the way to Carlisle.
If the local residents are forced to take this action to avoid the calamities of the highway, surely that speaks for something to be done without further delay.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I know I speak for all the other participants in the debate thus far—and, indeed, for all Cumbrians—in thanking my noble friend Lord Hothfield for tabling the Question we are now debating. I, like every other speaker, am a Cumbrian. I would point out to the noble Baroness that we have not got all the Cumbrians in your Lordships' House speaking today. There are more that we can reel out on another occasion, and a number of them will be behind her.
I know this road very well because it has played a part in my life from my birth. We lived at one end near Penrith and my grandmother lived at the other end not far from Barnard Castle. I have known it for the past 46 years. During that time I have crashed a car on it,
420
just outside Warcop Army camp, very much along the lines as described by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I was caught in a snowdrift on the top of Bowes Moor and spent a night stranded in the Bowes Moor Hotel, not far from the spot where Erik Bloodaxe, King of York, was assassinated in the first half of the 10th century. My aunt and uncle have a house in Temple Sowerby.
When I had the privilege of being a Member of the European Parliament for Cumbria and Lancashire, North, I raised in the European Parliament the question of this road. What I said then, and what I still believe now, is that it should be part of the trans-European road network. It is, as has been described by a number of noble Lords in the debate, an important link across country, linking Scotland, Ireland and parts of West Cumbria to the east coast of Britain. I should particularly like to underscore the points made by my noble friend Lord Jopling about the inadequacy of the links between the main roads in Cumbria and the west and the Furness areas.
In the context of the trans-European road network, I believe that the road is complementary to and not an alternative to the A.69, which was given a TERN allocation because it was pointed out that the flows of traffic at its east end between Hexham and Newcastle were greater than those on the A.66. That is hardly surprising because people around Hexham commute into Newcastle, which can hardly be described as part of a wider European-wide traffic flow.
The point was put succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and it cannot be emphasised too much, that this road is part of our nation's essential transport infrastructure.
As has already been mentioned, it has a number of unusual characteristics, the first of which perhaps is the fact that it has a high proportion of heavy vehicles. Around 34 per cent of all the vehicles travelling along it are heavy vehicles. That is higher than for the M.62. Perhaps equally interesting, given its length, is the fact that the traffic flow along the length of the road is relatively constant. It is true that it is marginally higher in the middle section, between Brough and Bowes. At Brough there are links south through Kirkby Stephen and down to the M.6 and Kendall; and from Bowes, where there are links north to Barnard Castle and Bishop Auckland.
I shall just go through the names of the places on that road. They are important places that resonate in the north of England but are not known widely. They are not centres of population. They are Penrith, Temple Sowerby, Kirkby Thore, Appleby, Warcop, Brough, Stainmore, Bowes Moor, Greta Bridge and Scotch Corner. These communities will not generate much traffic going on and off this important national road.
I fear, because it is inevitably the way, that the noble Baroness will feel that she cannot follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. There was a time, I dare say, when no member of the party opposite would have dared not to follow the advice of the noble Lord. I hope it is a case of plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose, but one never knows. But what the Minister can

421
do, I believe, bearing in mind there is a risk that if she gives us what we all want the trunk road review will be pre-empted, is to give us an indication of when she will be able to tell us that the Government intend to dual the road for the rest of its outstanding single carriageway sections.
I dare say that the noble Baroness may be tempted to say that it will be expensive and that resources are tight. I merely remind your Lordships that in the Statement this afternoon another £140 million of public money was found for changes to the proposals for the Channel Tunnel link. It was said earlier in the debate that the Government seem to be much keener on spending money nearer London than they do in the north of England.
The noble Baroness may be tempted to say to me and to my noble friends Lord Hothfield and Lord Jopling, but not, needless to say, to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, or the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, "Well, when you were in government you did not build these roads". I think that the right reverend Prelate would agree with me that a sinner saved causes much more rejoicing than the just man going into the Kingdom of Heaven. And, of course, she did not always agree with everything that the previous administration did. So I do not think that is a good argument to advance against us.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, before the noble Lord was born I made a speech in the other House, when Dr. Beeching was closing the railways, advocating the dualling of the A.66. I have advocated this all the time I have been here. That is a very long time.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is a great friend to North Westmorland, and all of us who know him and know the area know that.
What the noble Baroness cannot deny is that when we were in government we started the job. I am sure the whole House will agree that we should not leave the job half completed. The noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, pointed out the five tests that are being used to determine priorities for the trunk road review. I do not want to reiterate them. As I have already mentioned, it is an unusual stretch of road because it is essentially a single homogenous length of road. If it is right to dual it in part, it is right to dual the whole thing, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
What we currently have is a long length of road, sections of which are dualled and sections of which are singled in an apparently arbitrary manner. If one is travelling along the section Winderwath, Temple Sowerby, Kirkby Thore, Crackenthorpe, or Sandford, Warcop or Flitholme, or again in that section in Richmondshire, one is statistically at least three times more likely to be killed in a car crash than one is on some of the other sections, such as the Appleby bypass, or the area around Brough and up on to Stainmore, or outside Penrith up to the Countess's Pillar. It cannot be right that it should be government policy to acquiesce in this curious capricious form of risk that drivers and users of this road are going through day on day.
422
I agree with Mrs. Ann Glendining. She said:
"It is essential that the lobbying campaign continues in order to impress on the decision-makers in Government the benefits to be gained and the strength of support for improvement".
I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with Mrs. Glendining, who is the Labour chairman of the Cumbria County Council Economy and Environment Committee.
As far as improvements to the road are concerned, the job has been started. Let us finish it off properly and let us stop beating about the bush.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the temptations that have been offered to me in tonight's debate have been myriad and varied. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, as other speakers have done, perhaps most of all for giving me the opportunity to speak on a subject of which I have some knowledge and have some personal responsibility in departmental terms. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was kind enough to say that the House was lucky to have me here as I am Minister with responsibility for roads. I feel quite lucky to be answering at the Dispatch Box on a subject for which I have some responsibility, which is not always my experience in this House.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I do not know the road well from having driven along it. I do not think I have ever been along it in my life. But I have to say that I feel as if I know it quite well not only from this evening's debate and from the contributions made by noble Lords who are the cognoscenti as far as the road is concerned but also from the experience I have had in looking at the schemes on the A.66 that are included in the roads programme which we are currently reviewing; in particular, the Temple Sowerby bypass and Winderwath improvement. The review has been an open exercise. It has involved regional consultation. I have offered meetings to every single MP in England on a regional basis to present to them the results from the Government Office and the Highways Agency as regards the roads review consultation as well as on the integrated transport policy consultation. I also heard the views of local Members of Parliament. I have also been in correspondence with Dr. Young and heard of his own personal tragedy, as well as of the long-standing campaign which he has been involved in for the bypass.
So I do feel as though I know well the scheme and the problems of this particular route. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and others who made the point about piecemeal improvements that it is important that we try to look strategically at routes and that in future we do not make some of the mistakes of the past by doing things in a piecemeal fashion. That has implications and often consequences that are not foreseen.
Having said that, I shall now revert to the well-trained Minister mode that my noble friend believes that I should abjure. I cannot give an undertaking for the wholesale dualling of the route. Even in the most grandiose road-building programmes of the previous government, that has not been put forward before as a

423
wholesale scheme. I cannot anticipate the results of the roads review. We are looking very carefully at each of the 147 schemes that are in the roads review at the moment. The integrated transport White Paper will be published later this month. After that I hope that we can give some answers and conclusions on the schemes within the roads review.
It would be wrong for me to anticipate individual scheme decisions in tonight's debate. I recognise that problems can be caused—and that has been illustrated tonight—by a change in quality and standard between single and dual carriageways on a particular stretch of road. There is also the provision of short stretches of dualling on a single stretch of carriageway. That can be extremely effective. It used to be called "anti-frustration dualling" because of the accident rate on long stretches of single carriageway where there were no opportunities whatsoever for overtaking. The accident rate was extremely bad. We have seen, particularly from experience on the A.1, that that kind of dualling can be effective. We also looked at situations where villages and communities need, for their safety and their environment, a bypass when they are bisected by a trunk road route. So I do not believe that we should say that the only answer is dualling every single stretch of single carriageway on every trunk road in the country. That is not possible, and not only on economic grounds.
Tonight it has sounded as though it would be a very easy task to be a roads Minister if only one had the money to give everyone what they wanted. It would not be an easy task because there are other considerations. We cannot simply build our way out of our problems. We know of the problems of increasing traffic, congestion and pollution. They cannot be kept pace with simply by the provision of extra road space.
In addition, we have to look at schemes in the round. The noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, said that I should be reassured because his sister-in-law, who normally protested about roads, had not protested about this one. I would not wish to sound cynical, but having had a year and a bit as roads Minister, I have discovered that there are a number of people who find it possible to be against the roads programme in general and to make an exception for the individual scheme about which they have knowledge and to which they are deeply committed. I would not say to the right reverend Prelate that it is rather like St. Augustine and chastity. Such people tend to feel that the roads programme should have no further investment after their bypass has been produced.
There are balances even in the scheme about which noble Lords have shown so much concern tonight. The correspondence that I have received has not been wholly in favour of dualling the whole route. Environmental concerns have been raised.
I now return to the safety issues, which are the closest to my heart as I am Minister for road safety as well as Minister for roads. That means that I see letters from bereaved families and from Members of Parliament concerned at the accident rate on a particular stretch of road. I receive letters from coroners pointing out the danger of individual stretches of road. I have no doubt
424
about the importance of making sure that safety is a high and valued criterion for investment in the trunk road network in the future. I hope that we shall be able to refocus our investment programme in that way.
But the answers to safety problems are not only in terms of large-scale improvements or bypasses. The A.66 is an area of great concern. It has been pointed out by many noble Lords that the accident figures for that road are very worrying. Although the rate of accidents on the single carriageway is only slightly higher than the national average, the severity of those accidents is much higher than on comparable roads. There have been 70 fatal accidents since 1993, the most recent being on Monday of this week on a single carriageway in Cumbria. So I am very conscious of the need to make improvements.
The Highways Agency has already undertaken a number of improvements at accident blackspots; for example, by providing new signs and lines and using red-surfacing. They are techniques that have been shown to be extremely effective. It is important that we make sure that we bring in all possible measures. They are not necessarily very expensive or very high-tech. This month the agency is introducing signs advising motorists on the safety record of the A.66 on a trial basis and the results will be monitored.
At the Warcop and Sandford junctions arrangements have been made for a series of small safety schemes, including the provision of new studs and marker posts. This work is to be carried out shortly. I can also tell the House that later this month the Highways Agency will be announcing the preferred routes for two short stretches of proposed dualling from Greta Bridge to Dyson Lane and from Scotch Corner to Melsonbury crossroads. We are at the point of putting forward preferred routes and there are statutory processes that have to be gone through. These areas have been highlighted as causing particular problems. I hope that we can make some progress.
By providing sections of dual carriageway at locations where there are particular accident problems and by clear signing and lining on the remaining sections of single carriageway, we can improve the overall safety of the route. That is what we are aiming to do.
As I have said, the roads review is considering two proposals for major infrastructure work on sections of the A.66, the Temple Sowerby dual carriageway bypass and the Stainburn and Great Clifton bypass, which is in Cumbria and is not part of the section of road that we are considering tonight. I hope that we shall be able to make announcements on those bypasses when we make the roads review announcement later this year.
Safety on the A.66 emerged as one of the major regional concerns in our consultation, just as it emerged as the major concern of your Lordships. Our objective is to produce from the roads review a targeted improvement programme which supports our integrated transport strategy and delivers clear benefits against the five criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, referred. We also envisage setting in hand work to develop strategies to address other priority problems on

425
the network and to look at routes and particular issues so that we are not confined simply to the schemes already proposed under the programme.
As I said earlier, decisions on road investment are never easy and, sooner or later, choices have to be made about relative priorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, I have not heard from all the Cumbrian Peers available tonight, but I do know that other schemes in other areas of the country have as strong and passionate support as the schemes that would improve the A.66. I know from the consultation process that there is a wide spectrum of views about almost every single scheme in the programme and about the relative priorities of investing in roads as against in other forms of transport, let alone in other forms of public expenditure. These are not simple decisions.
In my experience, every road scheme has its detractors as well as its supporters, but we are determined that the investment programme on which we eventually decide should reflect the importance that this Government attach to safety. In my consideration, and that of my colleagues, of the proposals that we are reviewing at the moment, the strong feelings expressed tonight about the A.66 will be fully weighed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.43 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 8.43 p.m.]

Government of Wales Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 62.
[Amendments Nos. 165 to 170 not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 170A:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—

YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(" .—(1) The Assembly may establish a committee to provide advice to the Assembly about matters affecting young people in Wales.
(2) A committee established under this section shall be known by such title as the standing orders may provide (but is referred to in this Act as the Youth Advisory Committee).
(3) The members of the Youth Advisory Committee shall be—

(a) all members of the Assembly under the age of 26 at the time of their election to the Assembly, and

(b) persons selected by the Assembly from outside the membership of the Assembly.

(4) The standing orders of the Assembly shall provide for the selection of the members referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) The Youth Advisory Committee shall elect one of the members of the committee to chair it.").
The noble Lord said: In the previous debate on regional committees, it was emphasised that that was somehow the most important issue facing the assembly in terms of its structure. In my view—I still adhere to this view even after a good dinner with my noble friend
426
Lord Hooson—that is pandering to the old allegiances of Wales. My amendment is an attempt to create a different kind of citizenship. The reason why I propose the establishment of a youth advisory committee for the assembly and why I flag it up at the top of the flagpole is because I believe that there are now opportunities to transform the nature of participatory democracy within our society through the enhancing and deepening of a notion of citizenship, particularly among the younger citizens of the country.
I propose that a youth advisory committee should be established. It would build on the existing work of our tremendous young people's movement in Wales. I shall not try to list all the bodies concerned, but I have personal experience of the activity of the Boys and Girls Clubs, and of the Urdd, the Welsh League of Youth, the activity of which was evidenced so dramatically last week in Pwllheli at the annual eisteddfod. I refer also to the activity of the young farmers' clubs, which will be demonstrated yet again soon at the Royal Welsh Show at Llanelwedd. There are many other youth organisations.
Young people's culture in Wales is now becoming internationally recognised as a force for change. It is of deep cultural interest. It is a great joy to me that two young men from the Conwy Valley, part of the Catatonia Band, with their CD "International Velvet", were recently, and still are, at the top of the charts and that the Super Furry Animals shot up to No. 12 with "Ice Hockey Hair" only last week. I speak of these things because I am privileged in my own family to have younger men than myself, of that generation, who are involved in the media and in music.
That generation of young people has passed through many of the conflicts about the old kinds of Welshness which still seem to bedevil some of your Lordships in our debates. There is a notion of a post-modern, recreated sense of Wales and a sense of a new Welsh citizenship. We need to recognise that in a practical and participatory way by recognising the contribution of those young people to the remaking of Wales and by involving them actively in our processes.
I suggest that the Welsh youth advisory committee to the assembly should meet in the assembly building, in the chamber when the assembly is not sitting—or perhaps even when it is sitting, but not on sitting days—and that it should contribute actively a critique of the activities of the assembly.
This is not middle-aged paternalism on my part. I move this amendment because I believe that the creation of a new citizenship is an appropriate mission for the assembly. That citizenship must reverberate in another context which we discussed very late last night. I was very pleased with the response of the Solicitor-General on the question of the involvement of all the minority communities in Wales of whatever ethnic background. (I hate the word "ethnic", but it is a word in regular parlance to describe differences in culture and background.) I want that involvement to be

427
part of the celebration of a diverse citizenship. This amendment more than any other gives us the opportunity to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support this amendment probably for the same reason as that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. In discussion with young people in Wales I do not detect political concern about the future so much as a concern that they should be involved in reforming the institutions of our society. I am not so sure that this is a new development. When I read the life history of Aneurin Bevan and James Griffiths I find the same impulse driving them forward. I should like to think that this is not just a modern development but is part of the history of Wales. It may well be that there are no members of the assembly under the age of 26 at the time of the election. Nevertheless, I believe that this amendment is very important. The critical words here are "may establish". I am sure that this should be drawn to the attention of the advisory committee and in due course the assembly.
Lord Davies of Coity: I believe that there must be a voice and expression for youth. I hope that some members of the assembly will be under the age of 26. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to a number of organisations who represented young people in Wales in various fora. I wonder whether this is sufficient to draw to the attention of the assembly, by way of representations through those organisations, the advice that this clause suggests should be provided to the assembly. The provision is not mandatory; it refers to "may" rather than "shall" or "must". Therefore, there is an option as to whether the assembly establishes it or not. One wonders whether it is necessary to have this further tier of advice for the assembly through this kind of forum when there will be many other organisations representing young people in Wales who will be putting advice both to the assembly and presumably the regional advisory committees in any event.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has this evening tabled a number of amendments which suggest additional committees in the assembly. I suspect that he has become rather worried because I have been sympathetic to his point of view and have understood his argument. On one occasion I tried to give his amendment a fair wind as it moved towards the Minister. On this amendment I shall redeem his reputation. I cannot support it. I fully appreciate the importance of involving young people in politics and the government of our country. But when I read an amendment like this it smacks of tokenism. I could shift youth and put down pensioners who are also a major group in our society; or I could put down women (if that were possible) or the disabled or ethnic minorities. There is a big danger here. Once one goes down this road people want more and more committees representing different groups.
As an outsider, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made an impassioned plea against the regionalisation of Wales, setting one region against another by having
428
regional committees. I believe that his argument carried some logic. I fear that that logic has been set aside during the dinner hour and we have reached an illogical position. If it is of any assistance to the Minister, he will have my support if he decides to reject this amendment.
Lord Hooson: I am sure that the Committee agrees that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, should not disturb or upset the early election campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas in this way. All noble Lords agree that youth should be encouraged to stand for the assembly in all parties. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He will remember the time when he was a wild young politician in Aberystwyth and I was an equally wild young politician on the other side. We did not need to be encouraged to go into politics; we had the instinct to do so. All of us would like to see young people stand for the assembly and become members of it.
But I believe that it is a little mean of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—who has admitted for the first time, as I recollect, that he is middle-aged—to adopt a cut-off point of 26. The amendment provides that the members of the youth advisory committee should all be members of the assembly under the age of 26 at the time of their election to the assembly. One would have thought that 30 was a reasonable age, but there we are. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, always has his own agenda and 26 must be a magical figure in his mind. But I do not believe that we need statutory young people, as it were; we need young people who are impelled to go into politics. No doubt they can be leavened by some wise and experienced heads in the assembly, like that of the middle-aged gentleman, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. But I do not believe that it is necessary to lay down what the assembly should and should not do by way of committees.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity indicated, this is not a necessary amendment. Clause 55(1)(b) already allows the assembly to establish whatever committees it sees fit. Subsection (2)(b) removes the requirement for party balance if the committee or sub-committee is solely advisory. One could have a youth advisory committee composed of all members under 26. I believe that it would he a committee with either a vestigial or non-existent membership, if past experience is any indication.
I intended to resist this amendment vigorously until I heard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He gave me cause for caution. It was suggested that one could have an assembly of pensioners. I did not say, "Look around". This is one of those wizard schemes, but it is no more than that. Certainly, we do not agree with the co-option of outside members. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out—he did not complain—that there would be a two-tier membership—although he repudiated that description when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, put it to him—namely, regional members and constituency members. Now he wants a third tier which is not elected at all. Goodness me! He must have been polluted by the House of Lords.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The reason for the cut-off age of 26 is that that is the age adopted by many of the youth

429
organisations that we have discussed. As to the notion of involving young people who are not directly elected, it is important that the assembly should have advisory committees that do not necessarily restrict themselves to assembly members. There is therefore a relationship established between the assembly and outside bodies.
I am particularly concerned that we do not appreciate the extent to which there is serious disaffection about political processes not just among the younger generation but throughout the population. We must find new ways to do so, and not just by having a massive Welsh Office budget to promote the assembly by television advertising, however well it may do it. I have a high regard for the information division of the Welsh Office. I am sure that it will do it very well. In the budget that may be made available for the presentation of the opportunity that the assembly will provide, and the necessary excitement that should be created before the elections, I hope that the Welsh Office will have in mind the need to consult youth organisations to ensure that the youth vote is maximised, and that there will be a high level of participation.
We all referred to the legitimacy of the low poll in its referendum and the small majority. If we have such a low poll in the assembly elections themselves, we do not have legitimacy. Therefore we have to ensure that all sections of the population are involved, particularly those that have a vested interest in the creation and the future of the institutions.
That is not part of any election campaign; it is a serious reflection, unlike the aspersions on my integrity in these matters of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, which I am sure he will soon withdraw. My concern is the involvement of the young people of Wales in the building of the new kind of post-modern Wales which we are desperately trying to construct. It is not on the old terms of bro' against bro' in which people indulged in the previous debate. Wales is to be a post-modern nation. Within that nation there is a distinction between diversity of gender, diversity of youth, diversity of age, and diversity of life cycle rather than this over-arching notion of community and region which seems to obsess people.
The young people of Wales do not have that view. They form an outward looking internationalist generation. We need to involve them in the construction of the assembly. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we may well return to this issue, even in this ageist assembly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 63 [Delegation of functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 171 to 189 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 33, line 9, at end insert ("; and in delegating a function under subsection (5) the Assembly First Secretary may limit or prohibit its further delegation under section 64.").
The noble Lord said: Within this group are my Amendment No. 190 and Amendment No. 190A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. My Amendment No. 190 is a drafting amendment. It rectifies an unintended omission in the Bill.
Clause 63 authorises the assembly itself, its committees and its first secretary to delegate functions. Clause 64 permits delegation of functions to staff. In the case of the assembly or a committee, any exercise of the power to delegate can attach to it a condition of no further delegation to staff; in the case of the assembly first secretary no such ability to restrict onward delegation presently exists. The purpose of the amendment is to place the first secretary in the same position as the assembly or a committee when delegating a function. In other words, if he wishes he can attach a condition of no further delegation to staff. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My concern about this amendment relates again to the issue of where powers reside in relation to the structure of the assembly and its committees, particularly its powers to appoint. We referred to these issues late the other night in terms of the delegation of powers of appointment. My concern is that the powers of appointment may reside with secretaries and may not be for the assembly as a whole as regards public appointments. I hope that the Minister can respond to those issues.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure whether the noble Lord was speaking to his Amendment No. 190A.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I was.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry, I was not clear in my own mind. His Amendment No. 190A puts specific constraints on the powers to delegate. It would exclude delegating powers under Clause 31. In fact the assembly is given no powers to delegate in Clause 31. That clause allows Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to specify public posts in the filling of which the assembly will need to be involved. I take it that the noble Lord intends that when those posts are specified, the assembly should not be permitted to delegate its entitlement to be consulted before a Minister of the Crown makes the appointment. We are back to our old friend: why do we not trust the assembly to exercise its own functions and powers?
The Order in Council might specify appointments to S4C as ones upon which the assembly should be consulted before the appropriate Secretary of State reaches his decision. Surely the assembly might come to a conclusion that it should deal in plenary session, or it might come to the conclusion that it should be delegated to the assembly secretary and subject committee responsible for Welsh language matters. There may be some appointments which rightly should be considered in private. Some matters—relatively few, and the bias should be against privacy—need to be considered privately otherwise good candidates may well not put themselves forward.
The unintended consequence of the noble Lord's amendment would prevent that delegation. I think that my Amendment No. 190 should be supported because it is a tidying up amendment. We do not see the necessity for the constraint that Amendment No. 190A would

431
impose upon the assembly's powers to set up committees. I invite the noble Lord to support my amendment and to withdraw his.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 190A not moved.]
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Exercise of functions by Assembly staff]:
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 33, line 22, after ("functions") insert ("of its or his (to such extent as it or he may determine)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.193 not moved.]
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 194:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

SCRUTINY BY HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE
(".—(1) The subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for ensuring that, before a draft of a statutory instrument containing Assembly general subordinate legislation is laid before the Assembly, the draft is—

(a) submitted to a committee consisting of all Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies in Wales, and

(b) approved by that committee.

(2) When any draft is submitted to the committee referred to in subsection ( 1) above, the committee shall report within a reasonable period as to whether it approves the draft.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause enables us to have a debate about the role of the two legislatures, as they will be in the future: the Parliament of the United Kingdom which will deal with primary legislation; and the assembly in Wales which will deal with secondary legislation.
Since I tabled the amendment, we have teased out quite a lot of information. Earlier today we teased out the fact that some pieces of secondary legislation will be joint legislation and will be dealt with by this place without the assembly having any part in them. I shall look at that because it seems to run counter to what I think are the general principles of devolution.
Lord Prys-Davies: Is that agreed? Where an order is made jointly by the assembly and Westminster, will the assembly not be asked to approve the order?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Thanks to the vigilance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we considered Clause 59. The noble Lord will see that Clause 59(6)(c) refers to any subordinate legislation which is,
"not made or proposed to be made jointly with a Minister of the Crown",
432
and so on. I understand that such measures will not go to the assembly. It is part of the discussion we had earlier.
Lord Prys-Davies: I recall that discussion. It was my understanding—I may well be wrong—that we were awaiting clarification or confirmation of the position.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is what I was saying. We had teased out an unusual situation, thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. In the circumstances of Clause 59, the assembly would not be playing a part in the secondary legislation. There is a reasonable debate to be had about the role of the assembly and of its place in secondary legislation.
The new clause acknowledges the role of Welsh Members of Parliament in the creation of legislation for Wales. Those Members of Parliament will be involved in the primary legislation. If that piece of primary legislation is very Welsh in nature then, as is the nature of the House of Commons, those Members will be pretty well on their own when they consider the Welsh parts of a Bill. They will be involved in primary legislation. That will be retained here. That will be their responsibility. However, as is increasingly the case, where primary legislation calls for secondary legislation, the limitations placed by government Ministers from the Dispatch Box in another place and here should be taken into account when considering the framing of the assembly's secondary legislation.
One of my concerns is that secondary legislation is very much the creature of primary legislation. Noble Lords are particularly vigilant as regards secondary legislation or delegated powers. As I mentioned previously, I have been both gamekeeper and poacher. I was a founder member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. As a Minister, I was the recipient of some pretty crisp reports from it, upon which I acted in almost every case. In the one case when I did not act on it, the Bill was changed sufficiently to allow me to claim that I never actually refused to take cognisance of what the committee said.
Some noble Lords are particularly keen to probe what Ministers mean when they ask for powers of secondary legislation. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is particularly vigilant on this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and, in the case of the portfolio I held, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, were all particularly keen to get on the record what was in my mind when I asked for powers to make orders. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, had a clever way of asking whether such and such was in the Bill. I would say, "No". Before one knew where one was, one was narrowing down what could be dealt with in the orders.
Undoubtedly, Members of Parliament and your Lordships in the primary legislation will tie in the boundaries of that secondary legislation. Therefore, the relationship between the primary legislation and the secondary legislation is considerable. In my view, if the Government and Parliament wish to tie down the Welsh assembly on secondary legislation, it will be easy for them to do so either directly on the face of the Bill

433
or by ministerial explanations from the Dispatch Box, which these days carry considerable weight thanks to Pepper v. Hart and the like.
The Welsh assembly may find that the powers we are giving to it on secondary legislation can be tightly constrained by the primary legislation of this House. Therefore, although I understand it, there is a certain amount of illogicality in the position where responsibilities are split. I do not want to see a Welsh assembly create an entirely separate Welsh legal system with primary legislative powers. I do not think anyone does except, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Nor do I want the Government to go back on their referendum case that the Welsh assembly should deal with the secondary legislation. That has passed and I accept it entirely. However, I am suggesting that some people who had all the say in the creation of the primary legislation should have a little say in the creation of the secondary legislation. Therefore, there should be provision for scrutiny if necessary, including, if they wish, Welsh Members of another place, of secondary legislation.
My argument has been slightly strengthened by the exploration of Clause 59(6)(c). It is clear that in certain joint aspects only this place will scrutinise. In some ways, I am not happy about that and I shall think about it. However, as regards the proposed new clause, I wonder whether there is a case for sharing the scrutiny so that the assembly can perhaps undertake more than the Bill envisages—that is a matter we should consider on Report—but, more importantly, that Welsh Members of the other place can share the responsibility for the secondary legislation whose primary parent they helped to create.
I have made my point clear and I look forward to hearing the Minister's view of the new clause which would bring into play the Welsh Members of another place. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I hope that the Government will reject the proposed new clause out of hand. I suspect that its object and its effect is to undermine the whole process of devolution. The new clause proposes a supervisory body made up of Members of Parliament in the other place. Imagine what would happen if Members of the House of Commons approved a draft of the subordinate legislation and then the assembly took a different view. There would be an immediate clash between the assembly and the elected Members of the House of Commons in Wales. We have had this debate time and again on the Bill. The Opposition are trying by every means to ensure that the true process of devolution is not realised.
Lord Prys-Davies: In view of the earlier debate today and out of respect for the Opposition, I draw a distinction between the subordinate legislation power, which has been split, and the power which still remains to be jointly exercised.
As regards the power that has been split, surely the Conservative Front Bench cannot be saying that it has to be subject to the approval of the Members of
434
Parliament from Welsh constituencies in another place. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, who, in the circumstances of a Welsh order, will answer for the order in the Commons? Who will defend the order against its critics in the Commons?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I imagine that as the Secretary of State will still have a role to play, he will have to explain the orders. I can see that the noble Lord does not approve of that, but there it is.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps I am naïve, but I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I see as a real problem primary legislation being put through this Parliament and secondary legislation being undertaken in Cardiff. I have one simple question to ask the Minister. Will remarks made by a Minister at the Dispatch Box carry the same weight in the assembly as they do in England, or is the assembly subject to sovereignty? As my noble friend pointed out, unfortunately, a remark made by the Minister carries considerable weight. I am sure that he would prefer that not to be the case, but I wish to know whether it will carry the same weight in the assembly.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Unless the Minister wishes to respond immediately to the noble Lord's question, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 196, and also to Amendment No. 196A which is tabled in my name. As Members of the Committee will be aware, these are a part of a series of amendments which seek to protect the rights of all assembly members to have full participation in the work of the assembly. My amendment is aimed to ensure that draft statutory instruments produced within the assembly may be laid by any member or any committee. In other words, we are referring back to the theme that we developed previously: it is not just the executive that should be initiating delegated legislation; indeed, it should be open to initiation by other members or by the committee structure.
There is a general concern which I have, and it is one to which we may need to return, about the relationship among the body corporate of the Welsh Assembly, its new cabinet structure and the rest of the membership. There is also my strong desire that we do not create an artificial Crown in parliament within what is already a body corporate, so that there is an executive which somehow has overreaching power and there is no opportunity for the general membership of the assembly to participate in the delegated legislation process which will exist within the assembly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group includes Amendments Nos. 194, 196, 196A, 199 and 201. Perhaps I may deal immediately with the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. Pepper v. Hart is sometimes a misconstrued and perhaps over-weighted doctrine. It is not everything that Ministers say at the Dispatch Box which necessarily binds Her Majesty's judges. That is perhaps just as well for both parties concerned. There are special

435
circumstances involved. The rule in Pepper v. Hart, with which I shall not trouble the Committee at too great tedium, is to do with the construction of legislation passed in this Parliament. Therefore, it is not a question of what I say on these occasions which might or might not fall within that doctrine. Indeed, that would not be relevant if a court had to construe subordinate legislation passed by the assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has said that he will be a candidate, I feel that I should confirm that I shall not be. Therefore, there is no prospect in any circumstance of anything I say being held against someone, not least myself, if the judges have to construe secondary legislation passed by the assembly.
However, perhaps I may turn to this clutch of amendments. I am rather surprised by Amendment No. 194. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, it would impose a new procedure for Welsh subordinate legislation which would apply to no other part of the UK. The vast bulk of subordinate legislation is made without the need for preliminary consideration by any parliamentary committee. Further, upon this occasion of devolution—glad, confident devolution I had thought it to be—subordinate legislation passed by the Welsh assembly would have to be submitted to the equivalent of the Welsh Grand Committee in the other place. That does not really sound like devolution to me; indeed, it sounds like the failed attempt of a double-glazing salesman on a rather poor Wednesday afternoon, or perhaps Thursday afternoon, if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, objects.
Such a suggestion is really not consistent. It would mean that every draft order proposed by the assembly, regardless of whether the assembly had decided that it did not merit detailed scrutiny, would have to go to the Welsh Grand Committee. That would be quite an extraordinary procedure. Many of the orders would be highly technical. If they are not highly technical, the assembly's own procedures will ensure full public scrutiny. There is a rather odd assumption behind all this—and I put this quite gently—that when one is devolving powers one is, at the same time, saying to the assembly, "You can't be trusted to make your own orders without the supervision of Members of the other place". We reject that; indeed, levity apart, it represents a fundamental difference of approach. The assembly will be a democratically accountable elected body and will exercise its order-making powers in the full view of the public eye. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not persist with his amendment.
Amendment No. 196A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would allow assembly members or any committee to put forward draft statutory instruments. This is a question of legislative initiative. Who should be able to initiate the process whereby the assembly decides to make an order? The answer given in this amendment is that any member or committee should be able to lay draft orders before the assembly. An analogy might be drawn with the ability of Members of Parliament to promote Private Members' Bills. We do not want to prevent individual assembly members from coming forward with proposals for orders.
436
At the end of the day we are back at the same hymn sheet. It is, and must be, fundamentally a matter for the assembly to decide. I suggest once more that it is not a provision that should be included on the face of the Bill. This matter concerns the working arrangements for the management of the assembly's day-to-day affairs. Amendments Nos. 196, 199 and 201 standing in my name are not controversial. They are drafting amendments to secure consistency throughout the Bill in the terminology used.
The Earl of Northesk: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to refer to a matter which may almost appear to be a red herring. I should be intrigued to know whether it is the Government's wish that the Salisbury Convention should apply to the assembly as regards any delegated powers—for example, to set class size limits for five, six and seven year-olds.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not entirely certain of the point of that question. Is the noble Earl referring to the Salisbury Convention with regard to manifesto commitments in this Chamber, or is he referring to a sub-Salisbury Convention, a Cranborne Convention, as regards the attitude that opposition parties should adopt to manifesto commitments in the case of a majority party being in power—if one exists—as defined in the interesting way that we discussed earlier this evening? I am not sure to which position the noble Earl attaches his question.
The Earl of Northesk: I have a slight difficulty as regards the electoral procedures for the assembly. We could end up with a democratic mandated assembly—almost parliament—which potentially could have a different manifesto to that of the UK Parliament. I am interested in the inter-relationship between the two. Would skeletal Bills passed by this Parliament permit an assembly to fly in the face of the UK-wide democratic mandate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect that has nothing at all to do with the Marquess of Salisbury or his convention. The Marquess of Salisbury's convention can bite only if there is a bicameral legislature; in other words, can the upper Chamber overrule manifesto commitments made by those who are elected to the lower Chamber? However, there is only one chamber in the Welsh assembly. I do not see that the noble Earl's question bites on the Welsh assembly at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Committee for the points that have been made. I am sorry the Committee takes such a dismissive view of the poor old Welsh MPs at the other end of the building. I was trying to find a meaningful role for them, but I have been brushed aside. I did not consider them as some kind of supervisory body from another planet. I thought they were from the planet Wales. But be that as it may.
I wish to question the Minister a little further as regards my concerns about the constraints which primary legislation passed by the Welsh MPs might

437
place on the Welsh assembly. As I know from my experience, if someone feels that secondary legislation goes beyond what is consistent with primary legislation, or indeed with the explanations given by the Minister when the primary legislation was enacted, that person can take the matter to court. He or she can claim that the Government are exceeding their powers. Indeed, organisations are quite vigorous in that regard, especially in regard to social security. What I am trying to tease out is that this would be the same, as I assume it would, for the Welsh assembly, despite the fact that the primary legislation and the commitments were made in this Parliament, either in this Chamber or in the other place. If some organisation thought that the Welsh assembly was going beyond the powers granted in primary legislation, could it take a court action and prevent secondary legislation going ahead? I believe that to be the case. Perhaps the noble Lord will give his view. We are grateful to have his legal views for free, which must annoy him somewhat.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not annoying to give legal advice free; it is deeply distressing—particularly for someone from North Wales.
When the noble Lord referred to primary legislation passed by Welsh MPs, I think he meant by Parliament, and I understand that. If primary legislation gives powers to a Welsh assembly to introduce what by definition would be secondary legislation, should there be a question of vires the matter would be justiciable. If it is justiciable in some circumstances, not all, then the ruling in Pepper v. Hart would apply. I do not think therefore that we are in disagreement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that very clear reply. If the amendment has done nothing else, it has provided me with an opportunity to tease out that point. Having been reprimanded by other noble Lords for wanting to double-guess the Welsh assembly, I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, that, on Report, if I put forward an amendment to Clause 59(6)(c) to give the Welsh assembly some more bite in these joint matters, I shall look forward to their support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Regulatory appraisals]:
[Amendments Nos. 194A to 194D not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Making of Assembly general subordinate legislation]:
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 34, line 19, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 196A to 197 not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 197A:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—

APPRAISAL OF PROPOSFD GUIDANCE TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES
(". Where the Assembly proposes to make relevant Welsh subordinate legislation other than Assembly general subordinate legislation in the form of guidance to local planning authorities, the subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for securing that an appraisal is carried out comparing the proposed guidance with any similar guidance in force or proposed for England, and for the appraisal to be published before the Assembly makes a decision whether to issue the guidance.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment returns to the thorny problem of subordinate legislation. The Bill makes provision for the handling by the assembly of assembly general subordinate legislation; that is to say, legislation required to be made by statutory instrument.
However, the Bill makes no minimum requirements for other subordinate legislation, such as circulars, guidance or directions. Thus, it would be possible, for example, for the assembly to go against the drafting of planning circulars to the relevant assembly secretaries. Town and country planning legislation operates in such a way that that guidance for Ministers has been very important in creating the conditions in which the law operates. Welsh farmers must not be disadvantaged by planning guidance which, for example, would make it more difficult for them to obtain consent for diversified farm enterprises as compared with their counterparts in England. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an appraisal is carried out comparing proposed planning guidance for Wales with any similar guidance in force or proposed for England, such appraisal to be published before the assembly proceeds to issue the guidance.
Perhaps this amendment should have been grouped with my Amendment No. 64, which dealt with the problem of who should adjudicate in planning appeals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replied that such a job will be transferred to the assembly and said:
"I dare say in due time the assembly will wish to give careful attention".—[Official Report, 2/6/98; col. 225.]
I suspect that the Minister will reply in a similar manner to Amendment No. 197A. That gives rise to the question as to whether the Committee can make any suggestions as to how to improve the Bill by making it more definitive. I hope that the Minister and the Committee might be a little more definitive on this matter. After all, guidelines for planning appeals, and so on, have an overall UK significance. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is a difficult subject. Planning appeals, in particular, are highly contentious. Much of the material for planning appeals revolves around the guidance and how it is interpreted by the local planning authority, and so on. I think I know what the answer will be because the amendment is similar to amendments moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in an attempt to ensure that nothing should be done in Wales which disadvantaged

439
Welsh business against English business. This amendment could be said to be similar, relating to a position where someone in Wales who wants to undertake some business venture finds it more difficult to obtain planning permission than does his competitor just over the border in England under the same primary legislative planning laws.
If the primary legislation is the same, are we sure that it will be "safe" from legal challenge if it ends up, having gone through the Welsh assembly and come out as guidance, different in some degree from what has gone through the UK Parliament and has come out as English guidance? Will there be some tracking back up one tree and down another by the clever lawyers who make their living out of planning inquiries? They are a pretty astute bunch, it has to be said. The Minister, who is equally astute, will have to be absolutely certain that in the future people will not be able to play planning guidelines on one side of the border against planning guidelines on the other side of the border, when both derive from the same primary legislation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Those last points are well considered and are well taken. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said. The primary legislation will remain common to both jurisdictions. The assembly will not have the capacity to amend it. However, within that framework the assembly needs proper room for manoeuvre in adjusting planning policies to Welsh circumstances. We do not believe that a formal requirement of the type envisaged by the proposed new clause would assist that process.
The position is not the same in Wales and in England at present. Unlike the position in England, planning policy guidance to Welsh authorities is embodied in two self-standing documents which are supplemented by a series of technical advice notes. In England the system is different, where there is a series of planning policy guidance notes, which some of us happily recognise as having sustained us over the past years as PPGs.
The Welsh documents cover much of the same ground as the English documents. But they are not the same and are differently presented. I therefore recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said and the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. However, the primary legislation remains the same. There is no opportunity for amendment of the legislation. There is the same area of manoeuvre as is generally available to the Secretary of State at the moment. Of course it is the Secretary of State's functions which are devolved to the assembly.
I have taken a little trouble to tease out the situation. At the end of the day there is not much difference between the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and myself on the general approach.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: It was not just planning that I had in mind; I was thinking also of other guidance notes. It is late in the evening, but I am surprised that the planning guidance lines are different in Wales from England. The few odd guidance lines that I have come
440
across—one particularly, needless to say, was in relation to wind farms—were the same in the two countries. However, I shall look at the matter again.
My noble friend Lord Mackay raises a real problem. I shall consider what the Minister said, because there may still be an issue in this regard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Disapplication of procedural requirements]:
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Financial initiative]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 35, line 38, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 35, line 42, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 [Preservation of order]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201A:
Page 36, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
("( ) In particular, standing orders made for preserving order in such proceedings must include provision for—

(a) preventing conduct which would constitute a criminal offence, and

(b) a sub judice rule, and may include").

The noble Lord said: Within this group of amendments are an important number of matters. Essentially, they relate to the conduct of the assembly's public proceedings in plenary session or in committee.
Amendment No. 201A brings this Bill into line on this point with the Scotland Bill by requiring, rather than permitting, the assembly's standing orders to include provision preventing criminal acts in the course of proceedings, and also requiring the assembly to adopt a sub judice rule in respect of its debates. Standing orders could then, if the assembly wished, also include provision for excluding members from proceedings and for withdrawing their rights and privileges. Amendments Nos. 201B, 202B and 202C are then designed to secure consistency of language in reference to the proceedings of the assembly or its committees.
The amendments proposed to Clause 73—Amendments Nos. 202D to 202J—are mainly to improve the drafting. But Members of the Committee should particularly note Amendment No. 202F. As drafted, the clause is concerned with preventing or

441
restricting a member's participation in assembly plenary or committee proceedings if he or she has a registrable interest. Amendment No. 202F, however, adds a new element: standing orders may include provisions preventing or restricting a member of the executive committee from exercising a function if he or she has a registrable interest in any matter to which the function relates. This reflects the fact that, following adoption of the amendments to permit a cabinet system to operate, decisions will frequently be taken by individual assembly secretaries rather than by committees. Standing orders may make similar provision in respect of the chairman or other authorised person who is permitted to act for the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee under subsection (6) of Clause 60.
Amendments Nos. 202K and 203A seek to make drafting improvements, but Amendment No. 204A is a little more important. This amendment has been tabled following an undertaking given to Opposition Conservative spokesmen in another place that we would seek to clarify the scope of absolute privilege afforded to assembly members in assembly proceedings. The amplification provided by proposed new subsection (2) to Clause 78 is entirely modelled on the provisions in the Defamation Act 1996. In particular paragraph (2)(e) allows absolute privilege to be claimed in respect of a statement and any communication about registration of interests. That is taken from the 1996 Act. It is important to ensure that individuals who are concerned that assembly members have not followed the rules about registration of interests should be able to communicate that to the proper persons without fear of incurring liability and defamation.
Amendment No. 204B is a drafting amendment designed to secure consistency of language in references to assembly, plenary or committee proceedings—in this case in relation to liability for contempt of court. Amendment No. 212B is simply a consequential amendment flowing from the changes proposed to Clause 78.
In a sense this is a technical set of amendments, but they are important to facilitate proper standards of integrity on the part of members of the executive committee and to protect freedom of speech in the assembly through the changes to Clause 78. At this stage, therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 201 A.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I thank the Minister for taking us through these very important amendments, which we welcome. They help to allay concerns that were expressed earlier about actions or failures on the part of the assembly, assembly members and its officials. We respect the fact that they are intended to maintain high levels of integrity and, at the same time, safeguard freedom of speech.
Lord Hooson: We regard these amendments as essential for the good working of the assembly. It is
442
difficult to see them slightly out of context, but we think that they meet the requirements. If we have any reservations we can come back with them on Report.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If any of your Lordships have reservations, and you felt able to communicate them to me, then if there were any difficulties in drafting I would be more than happy to meet those matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 [Openness]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201B:
Page 36, line 33, leave out from ("any") to first ("to") in line 35 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee) which have taken place, or are to take place,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 36, line 38, leave out ("alleging maladministration by the Assembly") and insert ("about actions or failures on the part of the Assembly and for dealing with reports by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and the Health Service Commissioner for Wales of investigations pursuant to complaints relating to the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: This is a new group of amendments starting at Amendment No. 202 and ending eventually at Amendment No. 273. Amendment No. 202 relates to Clause 71 by inserting references to the new office of Welsh administration ombudsman and the existing office of Health Service Commissioner for Wales. I said earlier that we have listened with some care to observations put forward in another place about whether or not we should have a Welsh administration ombudsman, and I think that this new view has been generally welcomed. In speaking to Amendment No. 202, I shall, with the Committee's leave, speak to the new schedules, which it is proposed should be inserted into the Bill, relating to both these offices and also to consequential amendments.
In the White Paper we indicated that we wanted to extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to cover the work of the assembly. At that time we were going to follow the precedent of the Wales Act 1978. However, the parliamentary commissioner himself suggested a different approach; that is, the creation of a new office of Welsh administration ombudsman. We gave that very careful thought. Having done that, it involved a quite significant change of direction as far as concerns the drafting of the Bill. If any of your Lordships chide me that there is a good deal of re-amendment to be done, I accept that charge. But I plead guilty on the basis that the cause is worthy. It is only now that we can come forward with the extensive amendments necessary. We are persuaded that the parliamentary commissioner's approach is right.
The principal considerations leading us to that conclusion were the inappropriateness of an officer of Parliament, as the commissioner is treated, having dealings with, and reporting to, members of another

443
elected body; and difficulties connected with the remedial process where maladministration was found, given that no Minister would be accountable to Parliament for the assembly's performance of its functions and any remedies offered.
The detail is set out in Part I of the first new schedule. Appointments, remuneration and so forth are closely modelled on the 1967 Act which established the parliamentary commissioner. On remuneration, your Lordships may wish to look at paragraph 4(2) of the schedule. That provides for no remuneration to be payable if the Welsh ombudsman is simultaneously the parliamentary commissioner. It is possible for the two offices to be held simultaneously by the same person. That refers back to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about abatements of salary if two posts are held.
The expenses of the Welsh ombudsman will be met by the assembly, to which he will report. Presently, the parliamentary commissioner's costs come from a Cabinet Office Vote. Discussions are proceeding for an element of that Vote, representing the Welsh component of the parliamentary commissioner's costs, to be transferred to the Welsh block to enable the assembly to meet the Welsh ombudsman's costs.
The new ombudsman's jurisdiction is set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the first new schedule. It goes beyond that of the assembly itself. At the moment the parliamentary commissioner has jurisdiction over the Welsh Office and a number of Welsh non-departmental public bodies. But it is not always clear, certainly to me, why some bodies are inside the jurisdiction and others are not. The Development Board for Rural Wales is within the jurisdiction but the WDA is not. We are dealing specifically with that by making the new WDA subject to the new ombudsman's jurisdiction. We also propose that the assembly be given power to revise the list of bodies subject to that jurisdiction. That power would be limited. The assembly could only add a public body to the list if it had functions exercisable in Wales in a field in which the assembly itself has functions. So it would offer scope in due course for rationalisation of jurisdiction, which is a very important matter, particularly when domestic politics in Wales have been plagued either by corruption, or allegations of corruption, or, often just as mischievous, suspicions of corruption.
On re-viewing matters we have come to the conclusion that the definition of a body which may be added to the list was drawn rather wider than intended. If your Lordships are content to accept the amendments as they stand, we shall need to bring back some further amendments at Report to make clear that the bodies which can be added to the list cannot include government departments, as paragraph 14(5) envisages. The ombudsman can investigate allegations of maladministration by any of the bodies subject to his jurisdiction.
Paragraph 16(4) of the new schedule is of interest because it requires a complainant to exhaust any internal remedies provided by the body complained against before the ombudsman can take up the case. However,
444
the ombudsman has discretion to waive that requirement if he does not feel it reasonable in the particular circumstances for that to have happened. That is an important balance. One ought to exhaust internal remedies in the same way as one has to on judicial review. But there is the exception available in the ombudsman's discretion if he believes that it is not appropriate. This is a more flexible mechanism than the usual judicial review.
Paragraph 17 of the new schedule deals with complaint-making. Again, we are taking up a suggestion made by the parliamentary commissioner. It was pressed on us by CBI Wales. It will be open for an individual to go directly to the ombudsman without the need for such complaints to go via the complainant's assembly member. That is different from the Westminster situation, but it is consistent with the current arrangements for the Health Service Commissioner and the local government ombudsman. We believe that that is the right way for the new office. It will certainly make it more readily accessible to individual complainants.
I draw the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the new schedule. They deal with reports and action taken. If the ombudsman investigates and finds maladministration, the body responsible, which includes the assembly, will be given three months to decide how to respond. If it fails within that time or its proposed form of action was not satisfactory, a further report would be issued setting out the action which the ombudsman considered necessary to meet the case. If the assembly itself had been guilty of maladministration, the assembly's first secretary would be required to move that the assembly approved the ombudsman's recommendations as to the form of redress. These are novel provisions and they are intended to be such. They have been the subject of discussion with the parliamentary commissioner. I can tell the Committee that they have his warm support.
These are important matters and I deal more briefly perhaps with other amendments. The amendments relating to the Health Service Commissioner look to three objectives: first, to amend the commissioner's jurisdiction to enable him to investigate complaints about the performance of health service bodies, including performance by the assembly itself in the exercise of an assembly health service function. That may be the sort of function that the Secretary of State performs now in relation to the health service, but it might, if the assembly exercises the power given to it by Clause 28 of the Bill, also be concerned with service provision. Secondly, they make provision parallel to that proposed for the Welsh administration ombudsman in relation to reports of investigations and action taken in response. That is in paragraph 11 of the new schedule proposed for the Health Service Commissioner. Again, there is a time limit of three months.
Thirdly, the opportunity is taken to put the Health Service Commissioner on the same formal basis as the Welsh administration ombudsman. The expenses of the office will be met by the assembly following the appropriate transfer, as may be, from a Cabinet Office Vote. There is no bar to the same person holding at the same time the office of Health Service Commissioner

445
for Wales and the Welsh administration ombudsman as well as parliamentary commissioner, but only one salary would be payable.
The remaining set of amendments are consequential. I believe that all I need to say is that the bodies subject to investigation by the Welsh administration ombudsman would not generally be subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner. Various ombudsmen or women are enjoined to consult and co-operate one with another to ensure that complainants obtain effective and efficient handling of their complaints.
These are important amendments. They took a lot of thinking through and we have not got the final, perfect and definitive form. But I believe I reflect a good deal of feeling in Wales that sometimes in the past there has been a tendency for obscurantist, defensive responses to proper complaints from the public. We believe that it is very important to have this defined, disciplined scheme whereby a particular time limit is set so that a report must be made and, failing that, sanctions will follow. I believe that in some ways this new regime might be a model for other parliamentary institutions. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: We welcome the new schedule as a major improvement to the Bill. If we as a revising Chamber have been able to do nothing at all other than include this new schedule in the Bill, we shall have performed a very useful service.
As the schedule is based largely on the 1967 Act, we are fairly certain that the Government have got it right. However, there are extensions to, and developments of, the replicated provisions of that Act because not only do we have a Welsh ombudsman who will be responsible for answering complaints of maladministration in the area of responsibility of the assembly, but we also have an extension of that responsibility to the Health Service Commissioner. I am sure that direct approaches on the part of consumers of services to the Welsh ombudsman and the Health Service Commissioner will be very much welcomed, just as the services of the parliamentary commissioner have always been welcomed in Wales. Just as the development of that service has been welcomed—so that there can be a direct approach on the part of electors where permissable—I am sure that this development will be welcomed also.
We shall, of course, study the schedule between now and Report stage. If we can in any way help to improve it, we shall certainly put forward amendments for consideration, as the Minister suggested.
Lord Hooson: I am sure that the Minister will extend to this matter his invitation with regard to previous matters. I know that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will want to study the provision and that he may return to the Minister with points of detail. Generally, however, we very much appreciate, and approve of, what has been done. The Minister is correct to suggest that this provides a model which may be
446
copied elsewhere. Based on experience of what at times have been ineffective procedures, this provision seeks to tighten the complaints procedures and those for responding to complaints. That is most acceptable.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We want the best that we can possibly get, not least by way of drafting. I am more than happy to accept proposals put to me either in correspondence or in personal meetings with officials.
The Earl of Balfour: I welcome this opportunity to ask one or two questions. Perhaps I may ask your Lordships to look at today's Marshalled List and particularly at Amendment No. 245, which introduces the new schedule. I refer particularly to page 28 of the Marshalled List and to paragraph 15(2), which states:
"A body falls within this sub-paragraph if"
and to sub-paragraph (b) which then states:
"at least half of its expenditure on the exercise of functions in relation to Wales … is met directly from payments made by the Assembly".
As the assembly, as I understand it, will not have its own fund-raising powers, I wonder whether the schedule is not being rather restrictive in asking the assembly to provide 50 per cent. of the funds. I should have thought that one-third would be quite satisfactory in this case.
My next question arises in relation to page 36. In paragraph 24(1)(b) one sees the words,
"for the purposes of any proceedings for … an offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989".
I believe that there is an inconsistency here between this group of amendments and Amendments Nos. 119A and 254A which we discussed almost at the beginning of the proceedings. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I believe his earlier amendments are correct and that reference should be made to the Official Secrets Act 1989. If I remember correctly, that Act covers all the enactments between 1911 and 1989. I believe that there is an inconsistency here and it is worth raising a question upon it at this stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not aware of any inconsistency but I shall research the matter and respond in the usual way to the noble Earl's question. As to his question as regards page 28, the assembly itself has no tax-raising power but it will be in receipt of significant funds—the overwhelming part of the £7 billion that is presently under the control of the Secretary of State. We believe that to take a half rather than a third is perfectly reasonable, but we shall similarly reflect on the noble Earl's point. Referring to the Official Secrets Act, I believe that this new provision is correct. However, I shall look at it again. As to funding, a number of examples can be given.
The Earl of Balfour: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I do not intend to criticise the drafting. I believe that the provisions are perfectly correct. I merely refer to the difference in wording between the

447
amendments moved earlier today and the amendment now being moved with reference to the Official Secrets Act.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall check and check again and write to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 202A not moved.]
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Accountability]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202B:
Page 36, line 44, leave out ("meetings") and insert ("proceedings").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202C:
Page 37, line 3, leave out from ("any") to first ("to") in line 5 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee) which have taken place, or are to take place,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Integrity]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 202CA:
Page 37, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to remove the requirement to declare a non-financial interest. No one can object to the requirement to declare financial interests, which obviously should include the financial interests of family and friends. Although the latter obligation may result in a few borderline cases, on the whole the financial interest requirement is straightforward and free from ambiguities and grey areas.
The same cannot be said of non-financial interests. Even the word "interest" in a non-financial context is peculiar when one comes to think about it. For example, there are some who take the view that if one's third cousin twice removed was mugged five years previously one should declare that fact before speaking in support of a Bill, in this place or another place, the aim of which is to increase maximum sentences for crimes of violence. There are others—the majority, I would hope—who contend that that is being preposterously pernickety and way over the top.
The trouble is that no one is sure where the line should be drawn where non-financial interests are concerned. If someone misjudges the precise location of that line in this place or the other place, nothing remotely serious is likely to occur. Indeed, in nearly all cases nothing is likely to occur. But things will be very different where the Welsh assembly is concerned. Clause 73(5) permits the total exclusion from the assembly, and any of its committees, and sub-committees, of anyone who fails to declare a non-financial interest, plus the withdrawal of all rights and privileges for the time being.
Clause 73(6) goes even further, and allows for the prosecution of such an individual, which can result in a fine of up to £5,000 being imposed upon him or her. For a minor transgression which involves not a whiff of financial corruption those penalties seem ridiculously disproportionate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It seems to me that the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are directed at two matters. The first is whether there should be an offence relating to non-financial interests; and the second is what should be the consequences by way of sanction.
It is important to recognise that many interests of significance need not necessarily be financial. Indeed, yesterday, we spent what was not the happy hour, but certainly a happy hour, with a number of us declaring various interests to do with the University of Wales, none of which, I am happy to say, had anything to do with financial interests of any sort. We were dealing, for instance, with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about HEFCW and the funding of the university. He, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and others all declared interests in the fact that they are connected with the university or, in some cases, had been. That is the proper thing to do, not because our own judgment or our own vote would be affected but because there might be the thought outside that it could have been.
There are other interests which are non-financial. They should be declared and properly registered on these occasions. If there is a trivial oversight, which is likely to happen to all of us, because we may have forgotten that 10 years ago we were the trustee of a society for which we had no remuneration, it is open to the assembly to take its own sensible course. It might be to take no action; it might be to reprimand: it might be in a gross case that a prosecution would be instituted. The sanction range is there. It would be used with discretion. Particularly these days, when there are significant suspicions about what motivates men and women in public life, to limit the requirement to financial matter would be too restrictive. The range of sanctions is there to be used discreetly.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that more Members of the Committee did not join in, because I think that it is an important topic. I seem to have drawn the short straw again in the timing of my amendment, but there it is. The noble Lord summed up accurately the aims of the amendment. The trouble is that there is a philosophical gulf here. I have always taken the view that unless there is positive corruption it is a waste of time and effort declaring a non-financial interest. The idea, for example, that someone declares that he is secretary of a bridge club before speaking on a proposal to encourage the teaching of bridge among sixth-formers is preposterous. However, I acknowledge that other people feel differently about it. I appear to be a minority at present. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 202D to 202J:
Page 37, line 21, leave out ("Standing orders made in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2)") and insert ("The standing orders").
Page 37, line 25, leave out ("with") and insert ("if he has").
Page 37, line 26, at end insert (", and
(b) for preventing or restricting the exercise of a function by a member of the executive committee, or the exercise of a function by an Assembly member by virtue of section 60(6), if he has a registrable interest, or an interest mentioned in subsection (2), in any matter to which the function relates").
Page 37, line 27, at beginning insert ("The").
Page 37, line 36, at beginning insert ("The").
Page 38, line 2, leave out ("subsections (1) to (3),") and insert ("subsection (1), (2) or (3)(a).
( ) exercises any function in contravention of any provision included in the standing orders in pursuance of subsection (3)(b),").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Publication]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202K:
Page 38, line I after ("remakes") insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Bodies and offices covered by section 75]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 202L:
Page 83, line 17, at end insert—
(" . The British Council.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add to the list of bodies in Schedule 4, with reference to Section 75 which deals with the power to require attendance and production of documents. Yesterday, at col. 210 of the Official Report, the Minister indicated some progress on Schedule 2 whereby it was intended that the assembly should be involved in the nomination processes for members of the CRE, the National Disability Council and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
We are moving closer towards relationships between nominated bodies and NDPBs—which were creatures of the Welsh Office under the previous system—and those UK bodies which have a strong impact on the population within Wales. The reason that various bodies are added will be clear to those with an involvement.
I shall not go through the list at this time of night. As it is at the top of the list, I acknowledge the importance of the partnership that now exists between various bodies in Wales and the British Council, in particular in recent years where reorganisation of that council has led
450
to a more proactive partnership role in the promotion internationally of Welsh cultures and language through the British Council's activities.
I mention also the importance of the research councils. Those bodies expend substantial public money. When one refers to the need to develop the level of research at higher education institutions within Wales, the role of the research councils seems crucial. I should like an indication from the Minister of the rationale about the number of bodies listed in Schedule 4 to which Section 75 powers relate and the possibility of extending that list at a later date. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord asks two questions: first, what is the rationale; and, secondly, what is the basis for further additions to the list of bodies which could be summonsed. The assembly is free to invite any public body to give evidence. We have limited the power of summons. We thought that the principal point of difference was to specify public bodies only where they are working in areas where the assembly has its own responsibilities. In Schedule 4 there are references to many agricultural bodies and health bodies, both subject areas where the assembly has statutory functions.
The 17 additional public bodies have activities which cannot be directly related to the range of functions which the assembly would have. For instance, there is no functional remit on equal opportunities or race relations and therefore we do not see that the assembly ought to be able to summon the EOC or the CRE. For the same reason, we have left out industry regulators.
I turn to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because it is important for the future. Clause 76(5) allows the Secretary of State to add bodies to the list in Schedule 4. The Secretary of State has said many times that devolution is a process not an event. Certainly, subsection (5) is specifically included. I hope to deal with the kind of questions about the future and future relationships to which the noble Lord referred and I hope that that explanation is of assistance.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister. After putting up the flag and taking it down, and with a view to putting it up again at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 202M to 202AC not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Witnesses and documents: supplementary]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 202AD:
Page 39, line 37, leave out from ("scale") to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is to remove the power to imprison for up to three months any officer or employee of a public body who fails to turn up at the assembly when bidden to do so or fails to produce documents when bidden to do so. No doubt such disobedience if it occurs would cause considerable inconvenience and perhaps a level 5 fine—in other words, up to £5,000 is accordingly justified. However, I very much doubt whether the

451
75 per cent. of the Welsh electorate who failed to vote for the assembly believe the offence to be so heinous as to merit imprisonment for any period. Furthermore, I doubt whether the majority of the 25 per cent. who voted for the assembly believe so either.
Although their functions are not strictly comparable, the GLC, which was responsible for almost three times as many people as the Welsh assembly will be, did not have such powers. Theoretically, the House of Commons Select Committees have the power to send recalcitrant or disobedient witnesses to the Tower, but they are wary of ever doing so. They know that as a result of the imposition of disproportionate sentences—disproportionate in the eyes of the public—martyrdom can be created. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 75 allows the assembly to summon employees or members of a public body to give evidence or, just as important or more so in many cases, to produce documents. Clause 76 makes it a criminal offence to refuse to give evidence or to falsify or destroy documents. The falsification or destruction of documents strikes at the very heart of any proper inquiry that could be made into wrongdoing.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right in saying that Clause 76(3) gives a maximum penalty of up to three months. He made an analogy with the GLC and I offer another. The provision is replicated for the Scottish parliament in the Scotland Bill with exactly the same terms. Indeed, the power of imprisonment is a kind of statutory parallel to the House of Commons' power to imprison for contempt. I take his example to bolster my argument. He said that it is virtually theoretical and rarely if ever used. That is right, but it is a useful power which the assembly ought to have in order to make it plain to anyone who refuses to give evidence on a lawful occasion, or who tries to pervert the course of justice by the falsification or destruction of documents, that this is a criminal offence of some seriousness.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I agree with him that the destruction of documents is a serious matter and that perhaps it is right that imprisonment should be available for that particular offence. But as regards imprisonment for simply failing to turn up, I simply cannot agree that that is justified. Indeed, I would not have thought that the vast majority of the public would think so. If it ever were to be imposed, I believe that it would be highly counterproductive. However, in the absence of any further support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Role of Secretary of State for Wales]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 40, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly may require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend any proceedings of the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: The wording which appears alongside this clause in the margin of the Bill is quite extraordinary. It simply refers to the,
"Role of Secretary of State for Wales".
Here we are dealing with the Government of Wales Bill and one would have thought that there might be set out there something for the Secretary of State to do. In fact, all that he can do is,
"attend or participate in the proceedings … of the Assembly",
so long as he does not vote and does not attend or participate in the proceedings of a committee of the assembly or, indeed, any sub-committee. Apart from that, the only other role for the Secretary of State for Wales under this Government of Wales Bill is to receive certain documents at the same time as members of the assembly.
I suggest that the Government take another look at the wording that appears alongside that clause in the Bill. It does not in any sense encompass the role of the Secretary of State in his functions regarding operating, as I said last night, as the channel of communication between the Welsh assembly and the Westminster Parliament.
Amendment No. 203 says:
"The Assembly may require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend any proceedings of the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly".
No sanction is suggested; indeed, we are not interested in fines or in imprisonment because, obviously, if the Secretary of State, as the Minister of the Crown, is required to attend the assembly, he will go. However, we believe that the assembly should be able to require the Secretary of State to appear before it so as to explain the current position of the Government, of the Cabinet, as regards the policies that the Government propose to include in future primary legislation; and to discuss with the assembly, or with a committee of the assembly, their concerns, their proposals for secondary legislation and how that all fits in within the scheme of things.
It has been a recurring theme of discussions on this Bill that there should be proper channels of communication so as to smooth over any difficulties which may arise between, for example, a government at Westminster of one colour and an assembly in Cardiff of an entirely different colour. One of the objections which might be raised to the proposed amendment is that it in some way makes the Secretary of State accountable to the Welsh assembly. I do not flinch from that; indeed, I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not be accountable for his role as a communicator to the assembly. Moreover, I see no reason why he should not be called upon to explain the positions that he has taken in Cabinet and explain how he is presenting to the Westminster Parliament the concerns of the Welsh assembly. We believe that he should be accountable in that sense.
We are entering into an entirely new constitutional settlement so far as concerns Wales. If that means that the Secretary of State is accountable in a way which we have not known in the past, so be it. It is a new institution. It will require new machinery and it is

453
machinery of this particular sort that we consider to be absolutely essential if the arrangements are to work smoothly.
This in a sense follows on from the amendments that we moved last night and to which we shall return. We hope that this amendment is acceptable to the Government. We hope that they will rethink their position. We hope that they will define a serious role for the Secretary of State. In the course of our discussions a number of people have asked what responsibilities the Secretary of State will have. People have commented that his role will be light. Here is a function that he should exercise. We commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Amendment No. 204, which stands in my name, is grouped with this amendment. We have discussed the role of the Secretary of State, the role of Members of both Chambers of the UK Parliament and the role of Members of the European Parliament. I do not wish to go over all that ground again but it is important that we consider new ways of developing collaboration between the national assembly in Cardiff Bay, these Chambers of Parliament and the structures of the European Parliament and the European Union, because whether some Members of the Committee opposite like it or not we are now moving into a quasi-federal relationship within the United Kingdom. That requires subtle ways of operating as between the different levels of elected bodies. It requires some creative thinking about the best way to deliver these relationships.
I mention the European dimension because, as I mentioned earlier tonight, I am a member of Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee of this Chamber. I have therefore had the opportunity to meet many members of other member states' parliaments, of the European Parliament and of other regional or subordinate assemblies within the European Union. One of the criticisms that is constantly heard involves the lack of a satisfactory relationship between the different levels of elected bodies within that structure; that is, the lack of a good relationship between this Chamber, another place and the European Parliament; and the lack of a good relationship between the regional assemblies in other member states and their national assemblies and the European Parliament. There is a continual drive to try to develop these relationships.
My amendment suggests that we should be innovative in the national assembly. We should seek a formal arrangement whereby MPs and Members of this Chamber who have an interest in, or who represent constituencies in Wales, and MEPs should be involved in discussions in the assembly. I have not perhaps assisted the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in trying to find a role for the Secretary of State.
The trouble with constitutional debates is that we tend to talk about structures. I shall illustrate what I mean by giving the Committee a scenario. Let us consider the agricultural crisis, which is a theme that has run through our debates. Within that context what better forum is
454
there for a proper and serious discussion of the issues than that of MPs, Members of this Chamber, MEPs and members of the national assembly being together in Cardiff Bay or Westminster—Cardiff Bay would be a more appropriate location—to discuss these issues? I do not refer to the kind of debate that we had in the Welsh Grand Committee of another place in Carmarthen a few weeks ago, which was truncated because of various circumstances—not a second-hand debate on the issues, but one in which all those with an interest and responsibility could be present. That could include—I say this for the entertainment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay—Members of the UK Parliament, not necessarily representing Welsh constituencies, who had an interest in the subject. Fisheries, forestry, agriculture, sheepmeat and all the issues that we discussed overnight are all relevant here. They are good examples of what such a creative, constructive forum could take on board.
There are models from different kinds of parliaments. The Bundesrat and the Bundestag in the German Federal Republic, the Austrian federal structure and the Danish structure have different ways of ensuring that their representatives within the European structure are mandated, or subject to scrutiny or recall, in different ways in relation to their obligations. We are presented here with an exciting opportunity. All I ask from my noble friend the Minister is an assurance that what I crave is not impossible. Not that it should have to happen, as of course I flag up with my "shall" flag, but that it might happen. I therefore look forward to his response.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, explained, Amendment No. 203 allows the assembly to require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend proceedings of the assembly or a committee. He already has an entitlement to attend and participate in assembly proceedings, but not proceedings of a committee or sub-committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the thinking behind subsections (1) and (2) of this clause. It seems odd to debar the Secretary of State from committees. Can we be certain now that he will never be required to attend a committee?
The amendment would seem to fill a gap, by enabling the assembly to require the Secretary of State's attendance at proceedings of the assembly or its committees. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said at the beginning of his remarks, it is a permissive amendment through and through. The Secretary of State is not bound to respond positively to an assembly requirement to attend any of its proceedings any more than a Minister in the United Kingdom Government is bound to attend a Select Committee. He can send a civil servant in his place, although it might be very unwise to do so and might result in heavy criticism of the Minister concerned.
One cannot help wondering what the situation might be if the Secretary of State for Wales were also a member of the assembly, and possibly first secretary of the assembly. In that case these problems would presumably not arise.

455
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, extends the entitlement of the Secretary of State to attend and participate in assembly proceedings to other MPs and MEPs generally, and to assembly committees as well, but makes the exercise of the entitlement conditional upon the request of the assembly or its presiding officer or his deputy.
As we have heard, the assembly has extensive powers under Clause 75 to require the attendance of a great number of people to give evidence to it. I appreciate that MPs and MEPs are in a very different category in that they are not beholden to the assembly in any way.
I am certainly excited by the prospect held out by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, of MPs and MEPs contributing to assembly discussions. But, although I see some validity in the arguments and the potential value of contributions by MPs and MEPs to the assembly's deliberations in certain circumstances, I am bound to point out that there are some dangers, too. I should hate to think that the noble Lord might find that the invitees whom we are talking about might be supporters of the dominant party only; or that they might be asked to attend for party political reasons, so that they can have a home platform, perhaps, for their views at a critical time, possibly before an election. For once, I ask that standing orders should guard against abuses of that kind.
I am very much in sympathy with the thrust of the noble Lord's amendments and I appreciate the kind of synthesis and innovative ideas that can come from a new combination, a new meeting of minds. That, I am sure, would be to the benefit of Wales and all who might come to Wales, from Europe and elsewhere. But we may well be told that it is not necessary to write this on the face of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We do not believe that the assembly ought to be able to summon the Secretary of State. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The Secretary of State is not accountable to the assembly; he is accountable to Parliament at Westminster. That is an important point. I echo his view, which I think was shared by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that one wants collaboration between the Secretary of State and the assembly, and I was pleased to have the warm endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, of the prospect of the present Secretary of State perhaps becoming first secretary or assembly secretary in due time, for the convenient ordering of business, if I understood his drift correctly.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked specifically why there was the limited reference in Clause 77. We thought it was appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to attend plenaries as of right. He can, of course, attend committees by invitation. We thought that that was the right balance. That is the reason that we came to that judgment.
With regard to Amendment No. 204, we do not think it right that others should participate in assembly meetings, apparently influencing its actions by speaking, although I appreciate that it is proposed that they
456
should not vote. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would receive benefit from a number of situations. For instance, Clause 41, which is quite extensive, might be of interest to him. I simply put that down as a marker for him. That clause gives quite a wide power.
One reason for allowing MPs and MEPs to be members simultaneously of the assembly, if they can persuade their electorates that they should be, is that it provides collaboration and cross-fertilisation. We would certainly expect Welsh MEPs to work closely with the relevant committees by giving evidence and by providing information and documents on European developments in particular fields of policy. We believe that that is the way to do it rather than by their appearing to join in as non-voting members of the assembly. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that one wants the closest possible collaboration with MPs and MEPs, but we believe that it should be by giving evidence and providing information rather than by attending meetings of the assembly in their own right.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: Perhaps I can intervene to say a word on Amendment No. 203. The noble Lord said that the view of the Government was that the assembly should have no right to summon the Secretary of State. Let us forget the scenario in which the Secretary of State is also the first secretary of the assembly and take it for granted that the Secretary of State is somebody separate from the first secretary. He is surely going to be a link man between the Government and the assembly. It seems very odd that he has a right at any time to attend a plenary session of the assembly, and yet the assembly has no right to ask him or require him to attend the assembly.
It may well be—let us forget the present political persuasion of the Government—that the Secretary of State is of a different political complexion from the complexion of the assembly. Surely it is right, if the Secretary of State for Wales is the link person between the Government and the assembly, that the assembly must have the right to require him to attend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Fundamentally, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament in Westminster; he is not accountable in that sense to the assembly. He is there as an important channel of communication but it does not require him to be summonsed to an assembly. His accountability and fundamental duty lies in Westminster.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am extremely disappointed at the response of the Government to this amendment. As my noble friend said yesterday—or it may have been this morning—the Bill has certain assumptions built into it. One is that the Labour Party is dominant in Wales and therefore for the rest of time will be the dominant party. However, I remind the Committee that the Liberal Party won every seat in Wales in 1905 or 1906—I stand corrected. The second assumption is that the Secretary of State is of the same

457
party and that therefore he can wander into the assembly if he thinks fit. He has the power to go in and make his views known.
If we remember what we were discussing yesterday, the Secretary of State may choose to discuss such part of the Government's programme at Westminster as he thinks is fit and suitable for the assembly to consider. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, that is entirely within his discretion. We are trying to look at other possibilities where there are different parties in power. It may be the Labour Party at Westminster and the Liberal Democrats in Cardiff; it could be a combination of parties in Cardiff or it could be the Conservative Party in Westminster and so forth—we do not expect to see them in Cardiff, obviously.
All sorts of possibilities arise and one ought to look at the legislation not from a single point of view, as it is framed at the moment. That is the reason why we are urging—as we urged yesterday—that there should be a requirement for the Secretary of State to explain himself. We should not go back into outdated constitutional theory that the Secretary of State for Wales is accountable only in Parliament. Why should not he be accountable in the sense of having to explain what he is doing to the Welsh assembly? After all, in this Bill the Secretary of State has a right to go into the assembly if he chooses and to speak. If he has a right to go in and to speak at his own discretion, why cannot the assembly question him? Why cannot it require him to go there when there is something of real importance afoot?
I urge the Government to go back and rethink their position on the role of the Secretary of State: give him a meaningful task to carry out. I promise the Minister that we will be back to see how far he has got in his thinking and perhaps to expand upon our own thinking at a later stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 19 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly itself which have taken place or are to take place,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Defamation]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 40, line 25, leave out from ("in") to (""statement"") in line 29 and insert (", for the purposes of or for purposes incidental to proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee), and

(b) the publication by or under the authority of the Assembly of a report of such proceedings,

is absolutely privileged.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies, in particular, to any statement made in—

(a) evidence given before the Assembly, a committee of the Assembly or a sub-committee of such a committee,

(b) a document laid before the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee,

(c) a document prepared for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, the transaction of business by the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee,

(d) a document (other than a report to which subsection (1)(b) applies) formulated, made or published by or under the authority of the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee, or

(e) any communication with any person having functions in connection with the registration of interests of Assembly members.

(2A) In subsections (1) and (2)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 78, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Monson: Parliamentary privilege and quasi-parliamentary privilege is exactly that—privilege. Albeit with the best of intentions, it gives certain powers to one small group of people at the possible—and I stress the word "possible"—expense of one or more of a very much larger group of people. For that reason alone it should be doled out very sparingly.
The question arises of why a non-legislative body should be given such privileges at all. As I said earlier, the GLC was responsible for three times as many people as the Welsh assembly will be, and it did not enjoy them as far as I am aware. Neither the Birmingham Unitary Authority, nor Essex County Council, nor Kent County Council, all with populations of well over 1 million, have them either. Nor, as far as I am aware—and the noble Lord will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong—will the new Greater London authority.
Moreover, the privileged statements that assembly persons will be entitled to make need not be confined to assertions about people in Wales or matters affecting Wales. It is perfectly true that privileged comments in either House of Parliament in Westminster need not be restricted to matters concerning British subjects or UK matters. However, should somebody in either House of Parliament in this country unfairly attack an individual in France, Switzerland, the United States or Japan, it is highly unlikely that the attack will be reported in the victim's own country unless the accusation was extremely serious, for example if the individual concerned had been a war criminal and responsible for many hundreds of deaths.
How very different the situation will be in Wales. I am sure no one would do so deliberately, but an assembly man or assembly woman could accidently defame individuals—not only in Swansea but in Southampton, Sudbury, Stockton-on-Tees or Stirling. Unlike France, Germany and Italy, where people read different newspapers according to the region of the

459
particular country they happen to live in, here in our small, overcrowded, centralised country we all tend to read a few high-circulation newspapers and watch the same few TV channels. So any inadvertent libel or slander gets massive, nigh universal, coverage throughout the United Kingdom. Exactly the same argument will apply to the Scottish parliament of course, but at least the Scottish parliament will be a legislative body.
In the vain hope that this time round there may be some contribution from one or both of the Opposition Benches, I beg to oppose the Question that Clause 79 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We agreed earlier that Clause 78 should be amended and the amendments were very significantly a response to concerns expressed by the leading spokesman for the Conservative Party in another place. We believe that protection from actions in defamation is a necessary protection for members of the assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to it as privilege. Yes, it is a privilege for members to be able to speak fearlessly in defence of the interests of their constituents, whether or not they have primary legislative powers.
The privilege is there not to protect members alone but to protect the public interest in its wider, fuller sense. One wants to have free, fearless discussion, debates and exchanges of opinion in an assembly of this sort. The assembly will be important. If members are constantly looking over their shoulders waiting for the writ, they will not be able to discharge their functions properly. That is why we took on board the concerns expressed in another place and brought forward the amendments. I respectfully and fundamentally disagree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said.
Lord Monson: First, I apologise for referring to Clause 79. I should have said Clause 78. Before I decide what to do, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. Is it the case that when the Bill was originally drafted it did not include the possibility of privilege? I infer that that is the case from what the noble Lord has just said. Secondly, can he say why other important bodies which have no legislative functions—I refer to the late GLC and the future Greater London authority—do not have similar privileges?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: They did not have those privileges because Parliament decided differently. It is not right to say that the Welsh assembly has no legislative functions. It will have some legislative powers. But apart from that, it is to be the assembly for the whole nation. It is a very important body. If members are not able to speak freely, protected by the privilege which we have in this House, unelected as we are, they will not be able to do their work consonant with the wider public interest. As to whether Clause 78 was in precisely this form when
460
the Bill was first drafted all those many months ago, I presently cannot remember. But whether it was or it was not, the question is what its form should be when it leaves your Lordships' House. I urge your Lordships to the conclusion I have put forward. This is a necessary protection. It is useful for the public that frank debate should go on without the fear of defamation proceedings.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We support this clause as it is drafted and as amended in the course of our discussions. Parliament exists not simply to legislate but also to redress grievances. It would be an anomaly, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if he reflects upon the matter, will appreciate, that matters which are to be devolved to Wales, such as issues of housing, education and so on, could be spoken of freely in this place and in another place but not so freely in the assembly. Surely the same standard has to apply—the same ability to speak fearlessly on these topics, to expose grievances on issues that are being devolved to Wales, as on those which will remain with the Parliament at Westminster.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that Parliament exists to redress grievances. I agree. But of course the Welsh assembly is not a parliament. It is not described as such. It does not have the functions of a parliament with full legislative powers. He also talked about protecting the people of Wales. That is an admirable objective. But as I hope I explained, the assembly persons will not have to restrict their comments purely to Welsh matters. They ought to perhaps, but they need not. That is one of the aspects of this which worries me and I dare say would worry other people if they knew about it. I am not sure that many people are aware that this privilege is going to be granted to the assembly. However, it is late at night. For the time being, therefore, I withdraw my objection to this clause.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Contempt of court]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204B:
Page 41, line 3, leave out from first ("in") to first (—the") in line 6 and insert (", for the purposes of or for purposes incidental to proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee), or
(b) to the extent that it consists of a report of such proceedings made by or under the authority of the Assembly.
(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) applies, in particular, to any publication made in any evidence, document or communication such as is specified in section 78(2)(a) to (e); and in that subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did indicate earlier that when I moved the amendment to Clause 54 it would be necessary, if the Committee so agreed, to omit Clause 81 from the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. This is the second time that the noble Lord has taken one of his own clauses out of the Bill. Would that it actually shortened the Bill, but it has not. The one line and a little bit has been replaced by three lines and a little bit. At this time
462
of night it is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has carried the load of the Government Front Bench on this Bill in Committee throughout today. I congratulate him and I am happy to agree to the Question on this clause.
Clause 81 negatived.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.