Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

House of Commons, 21 January 1998.

ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES AND ASSEMBLY ELECTORAL REGIONS

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 19A, in page 70, line 11, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 188, in page 72, line 12, leave out '(where appropriate)'. No. 187, in line 13, after 'geographic', insert 'demographic, social or cultural'. No. 71, in line 16, leave out 'one half' and insert 'three quarters'. No. 72, in line 17, leave out from 'by' to end of line 18 and insert 'four) either three quarters of the highest number which is less than that total number and exactly divisible by four or the number produced by adding one to three quarters of that highest number'.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It is my privilege to speak to the amendments. The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendment Nos. 19A, 71 and 72. Amendment No. 19A, which is also supported by members of Plaid Cymru, increases the number of seats in each electoral region from four to six. That increases the number of Members sitting in the Welsh assembly from 60 to 70. Amendment No. 71 adjusts the figures in the schedule so that the number of electoral region Members is three quarters of the number of constituency Members, and that, in effect, increases from 60 to 70 the number of Members in the assembly. Amendment No. 72 provides for an increase in the number of constituencies to a number that is not exactly divisible by four, so the highest number of constituencies that is divisible by four is used in this case. The amendments are obviously linked to the additional member system proposed by the Government—they propose to use a version of the additional member system. AMS is a hybrid based on two elements; here I acknowledge the Electoral Reform Society brief. Each constituency would elect one representative by the first-past-the-post system. In Wales, there will be 40 single-Member constituencies, matching the 40 Welsh Westminster constituencies. Additional Members will be elected from a closed party list and used to correct the disproportionate effects of the first-past-the-post element. There will be 20 additional Members, four from each of the five old European constituencies that make up the new electoral regions. In the European elections of 1999, Wales will be a single Euro-constituency. In the traditional model, as used in Germany and New Zealand, about the same number of Members are elected from the list as from the constituency element. Unlike most additional member systems, the Welsh assembly system will not have a national tabulation, but will aim to be proportional in the electoral regions. Integral to that system is the fact that each voter will have two votes, one for the constituency Member, and the other for the closed party list. One of the main arguments used against that form of AMS is the closed nature of the party list, but that is the subject of a later amendment. The amendments have the effect of increasing the number of top-up Members from 20 to 30, and the total number of assembly Members from 60 to 70. When working up its policy on a Welsh assembly, the Labour party originally proposed 80 seats for the assembly, but eventually had to reduce that to 60—we suspect to appease old Labour Members who do not support PR. An increased number of Members would, first, result in a more proportional assembly in terms of the percentages of votes cast for the Members elected. Secondly, the regions will feel that they have more representation in Cardiff, Swansea or wherever than they would under a 40:20 split. What is more, there need to be more Members to service all the committees adequately. I draw the Minister's attention to the comment by the Institute of Welsh Affairs to the effect that an 80-Member assembly would be needed to serve all the committees adequately. The Electoral Reform Society briefing includes figures to show that, with more Members per region, the system would be nearer true proportionality.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Why do we need more politicians in the Welsh assembly, when the hon. Gentleman appears—judging by the empty Benches around him—to be doing his job completely on his own?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The right hon. Gentleman is slightly over-simplifying. I am just trying to improve what is basically a good Bill, and to make it more democratic. That should be the right hon. Gentleman's aim as well. It would certainly benefit his party if there were 10 more Members. Our concern, however, is to have slightly more representatives for north and mid-Wales. The referendum no vote was quite strong in some of those areas, and Welsh people feel that they would like to be more involved in the running of the assembly, to make it more inclusive and to allow it to take account of the higher no vote in some areas.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting some deviation from the general principle of relating the number of elected representatives to the number of people whom they represent? Does he perhaps think that Members should be elected on the basis of how many acres, or trees, or cows, or sheep they represent? I know that the Liberal Democrat party has adopted its recent position since losing power many years ago, when it did nothing about the electoral system, and now wants to reform it—but I am not sure whom the hon. Gentleman wants these Members to represent.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I cannot take that entirely seriously. The hon. Gentleman will know that the original leader of the Labour party, Keir Hardie, also espoused proportional representation when he represented Merthyr Tydfil. Something has happened to his party's policy during the century. If representation were based on acres, there would be many more people than me standing here, as I represent the third largest constituency in Britain in terms of acres. Our argument is that there must be enough Members to service the assembly properly and to bring greater democracy. The Institute of Welsh Affairs called for an 80-Member assembly. We do not go that far, but the IWA's arguments for a larger assembly still apply to our amendment, which calls for a 70-seat assembly. The IWA argues that the number of committees created by the Bill requires a larger number of Members. The Bill creates at least six sets of statutory committees and bodies, all of which will require assembly Members. It is likely that the assembly itself will also have four regional committees. That is food for thought, when we consider how to use effectively the Members of the assembly to get good, decisive results from those important committees. There are to be subject committees, audit committees and the executive committee, which is likely to consist of the chairs or leaders of those committees—possibly, if we accept other amendments, in some kind of Cabinet arrangement. We need proper scrutiny of subjects relevant to the regions of Wales, and of subsidiary legislation, for example, and a local government partnership council as well. There is much constructive work to be done by the Welsh assembly. The arguments for increasing the number of Members are strong, as 1 hope that I have demonstrated. Important issues are involved. The amendment will achieve greater democracy in the Welsh assembly, and make it more efficient and more effective, in the interests of the people of Wales.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I listened assiduously to yesterday's debate on clause 2. Despite the fact that the Liberals and the nationalists moved amendments, I detected an underlying triangular consensus between the Government, the Liberals and the nationalists on the electoral system and its purpose, which was to create a sense of inclusiveness and a means of expressing a plurality of views and opinions in the assembly. I hope that that spirit of plurality of views can be extended to our present debate, that I can participate in the expression of a plurality of thought on the schedule, and that the tolerance sought for the new assembly will be extended to us. I find the schedule and the electoral arrangements proposed in it one of the least satisfactory features of the Bill. That is not because, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) suggested, we are old-fashioned people with an aversion to proportional representation. I believe that there may be a case for PR, but I have a different fear, which strangely was not expressed in any of the interesting and detailed contributions to the debate yesterday. I fear that the electoral system proposed in the schedule, and the consequential assembly that will be created, will at best be a recipe for confusion, and at worst build in serious conflict between elected assembly Members and Westminster Members. There should be consensus in the Committee that we desperately need an assembly that will co-operate with Westminster. We do not want to build in, through legislation or our electoral system, potential conflict. Rather, we would like the highest co-operation between the assembly and Westminster. However, I fear that the arrangements in the schedule for the method of election will build in a system of potential conflict between Westminster and assembly Members. Whenever I have listened to or taken part in debates on electoral reform, it has been interesting to see that, somehow, politicians suspend their natural political instincts or sense. We get very involved in the loving detail about whether it is a single transferable vote or the additional member system. With the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), one question was not asked very often yesterday: how will it work? What will be the political chemistry of the system that we are devising in the schedule? How will the proposed electoral arrangements work in terms of the relationships between assembly Members elected under this system and Westminster Members? If we are brewing a possible conflict between the two, we should think twice and think hard about what we are doing. We did not ask those questions yesterday because we became wrapped up in whether STV was better than the additional member system. We did not exercise a bit of old-fashioned political sense about our own political experience, and about how the system may or may not work on the ground if we agree the schedule. By modelling two thirds of the assembly—as the schedule suggests—on the Westminster single-Member seat, one is starting to build in the first element of conflict between, for example, the Members of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for Caerphilly, for Rhondda, for Llanelli and elsewhere at Westminster, and the assembly Member elected for an identical geographical constituency area.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

My hon. Friend has introduced a powerful point. I speak from experience. Some years ago, I was elected as the member of the European Parliament for south-east Wales, and covered 10 Westminster constituencies, across the area from the Rhondda down to Chepstow. The relative roles of the Member of the European Parliament and the Westminster Member are quite amazing. In two constituencies, which will remain nameless, when I was invited to attend a meeting, the local Member of Parliament said that he would not attend because he did not recognise the European Parliament. That was a constitutional issue, but there was an element of conflict. The second element of conflict was his assertion that a particular subject had more to do with Westminster than Europe. My hon. Friend is right to draw that potential conflict to the attention of the Committee.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

What will happen when two Members sit for the same area and claim to speak with exactly the same voice, and have the same authority from the same electorate? What will happen if those Members have strikingly different opinions on a particular issue?

Raymond Powell (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend will be aware that I proposed that there should be seats for 40 women and 40 men. That would represent 40 parliamentary constituencies in Wales, which would alleviate any possibility of introducing proportional representation. My hon. Friend made a point about representation. If a man and a woman were elected for one parliamentary seat and had conflicting interests, who should speak on behalf of the constituents whom they represent? I am glad that he thought of it.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

My hon. Friend tempts me, but at this stage in the presentation of my case I do not want to be drawn into the gender debate. I want to confine myself to the fact that the schedule may lead to the sort of conflict that I have described between the assembly Member and the Westminster Member, both elected to the same geographical constituency. The situation is then given a bit of a twist by the interesting and curious situation of the four Members of no fixed constituency abode in each of the five European constituencies, wandering around within the European dimension, each of whom may speak for Merthyr and Rhymney, Caerphilly, Rhondda or wherever, claiming equal validity for their opinions and beliefs. It is a curious mix. Instead of going into the minutiae of one representational system or another, let us run the system in the schedule through a couple of scenarios. It would be a good idea, and a very with-it idea, to play a devolution war game, running some of the worst scenarios through the electoral system in the schedule to see what our political instincts tell us will happen in certain circumstances. For example, there may be a closure of a popular local school or hospital, or the reorganisation of a trust, something of which the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), had vivid first-hand experience only last weekend, or a contentious opencast proposal. Whatever else, the system in the schedule will create a wonderful democratic bidding for opposition to such schemes. However much one is on the same side, in the same party or the best of friends, the system is guaranteed to lead to some kind of democratic bidding on contentious local issues of one kind or another.

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

But surely there is nothing unusual about that. I bow to the experience of my hon. Friend who has been in politics for much longer than I have, but that happens at every level of politics and surely that diversity has been one of the great strengths of Britain's constitution for many years.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I am not saying that it does not exist; I am saying that the schedule will intensify it, as a matter not simply of degree but of character. I do not think that my hon. Friend would claim to speak with the same conviction as I on, say, an opencast proposal in Merthyr and Rhymney. But if two of us claim to speak with equal validity on such an issue, the situation will be intensified in a way that we have not thought through. I am not saying that that does not exist now, but the structure in the schedule will produce a hyper-competitive system.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

As my hon. Friend has been the Member for a Cardiff constituency, although it was a long time ago, and, since then, the Member for a valleys constituency, does his experience fit in with mine? Until 1 May this year, during my 10 years as Labour Member of Parliament for Cardiff, West, surrounded in the Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff, North by Conservative Members—except for the brief period when my hon. Friend the present Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) won the by-election—if I had had a pound for every phone call that I received from a Labour-supporting constituent in the Vale of Glamorgan or Cardiff, North, claiming that they wanted me to be their constituency Member for a particular purpose because they did not trust their Tory Member of Parliament, I would be a rich man. That is the difficulty. In an area such as Cardiff or South Glamorgan, where there is party diversity, it would be convenient for Conservatives to be able to go to a Conservative Member of the Assembly and for Labour supporters to go to a Labour Member of the Assembly.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

That is an interesting scenario. Democracy requires competition and therefore choice, as described by my hon. Friend, but we are creating a system in which two people will claim equal right to express the opinions of the same constituency, drawing from the same well of democratic choice. [Interruption.] Shall I arbitrate over the discussion that has broken out behind me? The issue did not emerge during yesterday's debates, but it seems to have needed an airing. We are hearing some interesting differences of opinion. Of course, there is competition in the current system, but the peculiar electoral structure devised for the assembly will intensify the issues and arguments. That is an inevitable consequence of a dual democratic system, which is what we are devising. We should think of institutional ways—particularly electoral systems—to minimise some of those consequences. The consequences of what is proposed were not fully explained during the referendum campaign. The Bill substitutes a strong, accountable Executive—the Secretary of State for Wales—with a democratic assembly Executive. They are two different animals. After 30 or more years' experience of watching the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State, I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has one of the finest and most privileged jobs in the Government. Like other hon. Members representing Welsh seats, I would love to have been the Secretary of State for Wales. On many occasions, the Secretary of State has been a successful arbiter over the warring demands of those making representations to him—which includes all of us, in our different ways; we all try to put pressure on him and influence him. The last thing that we should do is change the system on the ground that the Secretary of State for Wales is not accountable. He is accountable in all sorts of ways. We are replacing a system in which the Secretary of State is an arbiter, at arm's length from the passion in one part of the community, with a democratic alternative, which will behave more as we do when trying to persuade the Secretary of State, rather than acting as a rational Executive.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

rose—

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I shall give way in a minute, when I have finished my point. I am not saying that the change is wrong, but we should identify the interesting and serious problems that will arise from it. I should like to take my scenario of a school closure, opencast scheme or trust reorganisation through to the decision-making process, but first I shall give way.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Is my hon. Friend saying that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was accountable to the people as Secretary of State for Wales when he refused to sleep a night in Wales? What kind of accountability is that? The man had no connection with Wales and no responsibility towards the Welsh people.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

rose—

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I should have loved to be drawn into an answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), but, in the light of what you have said, Mr. Martin, I shall not be. I am trying to describe the system that will arise and be promoted by the electoral system proposed in the schedule. That is—I hope—the relevance of my remarks.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

The amendments, as I understand them, seek to change the proposed single-member constituency arrangements. I am addressing my remarks to the fact that I think that the arrangements need changing—although I do not necessarily agree with the way in which the amendments do it. The sort of scenario that I am describing arises from the electoral structure that the schedule will create. Even if it were changed by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, it would still lead to some of the problems that I am describing. I shall respond directly to the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. The schedule creates a total of 100 full-time politicians representing Wales—in the assembly and in Westminster. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman read with great interest the case put by the Institute of Welsh Affairs for an even larger assembly. I do not believe that there are jobs—given the electoral arrangements in the schedule and the 40 full-time Members in Westminster—for 100 full-time politicians in Wales. Therefore, something has to go. Perhaps the assembly should be as large as is proposed. I considered the way in which functions will be transferred to the assembly. I suspect that about a third of my parliamentary work—the proportion may be different for other Members—would be transferred to the assembly if I adhered strictly to the demarcation line. If that is so, there will be huge, compelling pressure to reduce the size of the representation of Wales in Westminster. That is an inevitable consequence. Indeed, why should that not be so, given that we are asking everybody else in society to work harder and raise productivity, and that a third of one's parliamentary work is to be lost? There will be pressure—sadly, even a case—for a reduction in the size of representation of Wales in Westminster, which is of considerable concern. I see everybody nodding—yet we never told the electorate at any time that it was a consequence of the proposals.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

I am glad that my hon. Friend spends a third of his time on work that is to be transferred. I seem to spend a third of my time dealing with the Child Support Agency, although I wish that I did not. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he agree that there might be pressure for a reduction in the number of Westminster Members if the proposals go ahead, but that it ought to be resisted because we do not have enough Members to exercise scrutiny? Scrutiny is an important consideration which will be important in the assembly. We need a sufficient number of elected Members of the Assembly to scrutinise matters, and more Members—or at least the same number—in Westminster. Perhaps the proportions could be changed so that England is represented by the right proportion of Members. Nevertheless, scrutiny ought to be one of the principal questions that we address.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I certainly would not and do not support a reduction in the representation of Welsh Members at Westminster. What I said was that I feared that the pressure would grow. There will be a powerful rationale behind that pressure, because the electoral system that we are creating in the schedule will lead to the competition that I have described. We shall then have to decide which type of system we want. Would it not be better to change the structure of elections to the assembly in a different way from that in the schedule? Otherwise, I suspect that we shall have to change the nature of the way in which we elect Members to Westminster.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Assuming that the Boundary Commission operates as we think it will, the Scots' numbers will be reduced under the Scotland Bill. There would be the most dreadful stoochie if the number of Scots Members were reduced but the number of Welsh Members were not.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I can answer that simply—

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I appreciate that, Mr. Martin, especially as you sit for a Scottish seat. I shall simply reply briefly to my hon. Friend that there is no such comparison, because the Bills are different and we can therefore make a different case. I can answer his question in simple fashion.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

There would still be a stoochie.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The point arises in the general context of devolution, as well as here in particular. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that he thought that his work load here would decrease by one third. I am surprised that he thinks that the decrease would be so large, in the case of Wales. Does he not foresee pressure growing, if some Members of Parliament here do only two thirds of what others do, not only for a reduction in numbers but for changing the status of the Member of Parliament at Westminster? Is that not another great concern for Wales? I am not saying that that is what I want to happen, but it is a problem which arises from the legislation, and we have to find a way of dealing with it.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

The pressures will grow. That is the simple point I wanted to bring to the House. They will grow—

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Let me answer the other point first. The pressures will grow because of the curious structures that we have decided to include in the schedule, which introduces a dual democratic system in which two thirds of the new assembly will be elected on exactly the same constituency basis as is used for Westminster. The point I was making is that the schedule will then have set up a competitive structure. It would be far preferable to devise an electoral structure that did not intensify the competitive element between the assembly and Westminster, but emphasised as best we can the complementary element. That has been the burden of my case, and I hope that I have kept in order, within the scope of the schedule, to argue it.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

My hon. Friend should not be too deterministic about saying that one third of his work will probably transfer to the one or two Members of the Assembly who represent Merthyr. In my experience, by virtue of the Acts that the House has passed even during the 10 years that I have been a Member, there has been a huge increase in the volume of work, all of which would, as it happens, remain with Westminster. The Child Support Agency, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned, is one example; the disability living allowance, dating from 1992, is another; the increasing complexity of immigration procedures is a third. All have meant a massive increase in my work load as a constituency Member of Parliament, and all that work will remain with Westminster. Furthermore, who knows what other Acts the House may pass to increase the burdens on constituency Members?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

We all have a common experience of the increase in the work load as a result of the changes that my hon. Friend mentions. That is what we do now, and we get paid for it. It is a privilege to do that work; it is the greatest privilege of all to be the Member of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I am saying to my hon. Friend that, nevertheless, by the very nature of things, I spend a great deal of my time dealing with matters connected with the host of functions and responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Those will all be transferred to the assembly, which must mean that a distinct percentage of our existing parliamentary work load will go to the assembly. In fact, I suspect that we shall duplicate that work. We shall not have a decrease in our work load because we shall probably all do it. Certainly, there will be at least two Members representing exactly the same patch, and I suspect that our constituents will come to both of us. Our constituents may be doubly represented, and doubly blessed, but I think that that is potentially a huge area for competition and for Members to bid against each other in all sorts of ways on issues that arise both locally and nationally. It should make a significant difference to the role that one plays here if so many of the functions that I find myself speaking about and involved with here are transferred to the assembly.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Surely there is no case for reducing the number of Welsh Members of Parliament here while the Welsh assembly cannot pass primary legislation or raise taxes, because it is here that those functions are carried out.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

That is true. We are here to scrutinise taxation, to decide whether to assent to it and to produce annual legislation; but we do other work as well. I do not know whether any of my colleagues have attempted the same exercise, but I looked at what I had done over the past parliamentary year, and identified a strict demarcation line between the work that would continue to be done at Westminster and that which would be done by the Assembly. I related my constituency and parliamentary work to the functions that would be transferred. If I kept strictly to the demarcation line between Assembly and Westminster work, I suspect that a significant part of my work load would go to the assembly. I fear that people will start arguing that that will happen, and that representation here must therefore be reduced. I do not support such an outcome, but I think that we are building up pressure.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I apologise, Mr. Martin. I blame other hon. Members who keep intervening.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

rose—

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I fear that I am going to be tempted again, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that his question will be in order.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I will try my best. When we look at the amendments—I hope that, by mentioning them, I will drag my question into order—we see that it is not just a case of confusion between the hon. Gentleman representing his constituency here at Westminster and the assembly Member representing the same constituency in Cardiff, Swansea or wherever the assembly will end up. There will be another four regional Members, who will say that they, too, have a right to represent the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Indeed, if amendment No. 19A is passed, there will be six additional Members. That will create enormous confusion. The hon. Gentleman asks what he will do at Westminster. I think that he will be very busy writing to his fellow Members in Cardiff, Swansea or wherever, and dealing with their replies. There will be an enormous backlog of mail.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I think that I shall be in order if I reply to the hon. Gentleman. From the outset, the burden of my case has been simple. The schedule, as it stands—I am not content with the proposed amendments—will create an electoral system that will heighten, or intensify, the competitive element between the assembly and Westminster, and I am therefore not sure that it will create a stable political relationship between them. The electoral system could bring about either greater stability or greater instability. My difficulty is this. Either my right hon. and hon. Friends should have been bolder and gone for full-blooded proportional representation of one kind or another—the single transferable vote, perhaps—to elect the whole assembly, which would at least have been elected on a very different basis and would not have involved the present hybrid hotch-potch of constituency plus added Members; or they should have said, "We shall need to reform the nature of representation here, and the electoral system allowing Members of Parliament to be sent to Westminster from Wales." We could have had a constituency-based arrangement for the assembly and a PR system for Westminster. What we have done, however, falls between two stools. We have half adopted the combination of single and additional Members, but we have built into that system potentially competitive and conflicting electoral arrangements, which will cause conflict between the assembly and Westminster.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I have listened with care to my hon. Friend's argument, and I know how strongly he feels. Does he regret that he did not argue his persuasive case for an all-embracing system of proportional representation when he and I debated the matter in the Labour party before our policy was established? If he had argued the case then as forcefully as he is doing now—who knows?—he might have won.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I probably do regret it. My right hon. Friend is right to chide me, in the gentlest possible way. I think that it was a gentle form of chiding. It is true that it has taken me a while to accept that we need some form of PR. Only when I was confronted by this hybrid arrangement did it dawn on me that we might get the worst of both worlds. We have not had a proper chance to debate the subject. In our examination of the schedule, the flaws have become manifest. I do not support the amendment; but I also do not like the combination of single-member seats and added Members, which will create a dual democratic bidding system that could not lead to good government in Wales.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that this might be one of the unsatisfactory aspects of having had a referendum before the parliamentary discussion? The whole purpose of the parliamentary mangle, or anvil, or whatever one calls it, is to discuss exactly such problems. If the referendum had taken place on a post-legislative basis, with the question, "Do you approve of the Government of Wales Act 1998?", it would have been easier to make satisfactory alterations.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

That might have been so, in that before we got to the referendum we would have had more arguments in the media and much of the discussion would have gone out of society's political bloodstream. That is something which parliamentary debates can achieve. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly chides me for not coming to these conclusions early enough to influence Labour party policy, but the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would have been more sensible. My right hon. Friend's point is rather an historic one than one on which we can dwell now.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

My hon. Friend may recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would be prepared to review the electoral system in the light of experience. Will my hon. Friend make at that stage the representations that he is making now, to lift the debate on the issue in Wales? I agree with my right hon. Friend: my hon. Friend's points could have been made during the consultation process.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I would not presume to be lifting the debate, but I think that we can raise the issues now rather than waiting for a review. I am suggesting that the schedule creates a potentially unstable situation, with a competitive, conflicting bidding structure between Westminster and the assembly. That situation is a direct consequence of the electoral system that we are adopting. We should think hard about this. I fear that it may be too late to try to recast the schedule to accommodate my views, but it is worth considering. We have not considered the impact of the changes in the Bill on the circumstances in Westminster. We have not really thought through the impact of the changes that will flow from creating a dual democratic structure. We have certainly not argued it through or presented the issues and arguments to the Welsh electorate.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

I hope that my hon. Friends will not imagine that we have arrived at the additional members system as a result of a great philosophical debate or a commitment to extending democracy. The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, visited Cardiff and it was decided that there would be an element of proportionality. Constituency Labour parties and Members of Parliament were asked to submit views. Some, such as myself, did so, and went to the Labour party executive in Cardiff, where the matter was considered. I am not suggesting that the system should be changed, but do not imagine that it arrived through any great philosophical decision; it arrived simply because somebody asked what was the least amount of proportionality that we could introduce, and we got lumbered with this. That is the real truth of the matter, and do not let anyone suggest otherwise.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I appreciate my hon. Friend's observations. Incidentally, if we did not have the consultations on the matter that we should, I hope that we will consult on the selection process for candidates. However, that issue is not covered in the amendment and I shall leave it there. You may not believe it, Mr. Martin, but I am trying hard to bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Is not it clear from the intervention by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Gentleman has not heard the speech because he has only just come in.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have heard the speech. Is it not clear that all that the Bill is about is a good—or rather, bad—old-fashioned Labour party fix?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I do not think that we need to listen to the remarks of an hon. Member who has only just come in. If I had realised that, I would not have given way to him. He has not had the courtesy to be here for the beginning of the debate or for most of my contribution. I shall try to come to a conclusion and this will be my third attempt to move to a peroration. I rose to make a simple, but fundamental point. We do not want to create a competitive system between Westminster and the assembly. The schedule and the proposed electoral system will intensify the potential for competition, and that may not be in the best interests of the good governance of Wales. I hope that we will have a review of how the assembly is elected or how this House is elected, because those two issues impact on each other in a way that we have not been honest enough to acknowledge before.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I shall tread carefully and try to stay within the terms of the debate, but I shall also choose my words carefully because I do not wish to interfere in internal Labour party grief. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) introduced the West Lothian question. Yesterday, he intervened several times and introduced a new acid test—whether an hon. Member who spoke wished to stand for the assembly. That may be relevant to our debate today, because the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke eloquently about the possibility of seats disappearing from the House for representatives from Wales. I unashamedly admit that I do not care if seats do disappear, because real devolution would inevitably mean that responsibilities would move from this place. As night follows day, that would make the case for a review and for fewer Welsh Members at Westminster. I do not know what there is to fear in that, unless I reverse the argument and suggest that some hon. Members might be concerned about their own jobs in this place, but I shall not get into that argument at this stage. I wish to support amendment No. 19A tabled by the Liberal Democrats and my hon. Friends, but I shall not speak to it directly because it was moved eloquently by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). I was interested by the intervention by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) when he said that the Government's proposals amounted to the least proportionality that they could get away with. That must surely make the case for the amendment. The point of the amendment is not to increase costs, to make jobs for the boys or to make more seats for any party, but to increase proportionality. Academics and people who know more about electoral systems than most hon. Members—including me—have said that the only way to increase proportionality is to increase representation.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman should have listened a little more closely to my words because I was explaining why we had arrived at this position. It was a form of criticism of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Labour party has been extremely generous to its political opponents. The beneficiaries will be Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who were virtually wiped out in Wales. The Labour party has taken a dramatic step forward in the governance of this country by introducing an element of proportionality. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise the Labour party but should congratulate it on giving its opponents a lifeline.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I was not criticising the Labour party for introducing the notion; I welcome the notion. I was speaking in support of the amendment, the case for which has been proved. Amendment No. 188 seeks to delete the words "where appropriate". Clearly, there are always geographical considerations when we are dealing with constituencies, which are, by definition, always special. To include the words "where appropriate" makes evaluation of the geographical considerations merely a side issue, which can never be right. It should always be far more than that. Amendment No. 188 also has a bearing on a later amendment. The schedule says: The regional electorate for an Assembly electoral region shall be as near the regional electorate for each other Assembly electoral region as is reasonably practicable, having regard (where appropriate) to special geographical considerations. The qualifying words "where appropriate" add nothing to that provision. Even if the amendment is accepted, the schedule remains deficient because other important considerations must be taken into account if we are effectively to carve out constituency boundaries. Amendment No. 187 seeks to insert the words "demographic, social or cultural", which are important criteria. The criteria brought to bear on this issue should be no less comprehensive than those currently used in drawing parliamentary boundaries—those adopted by the boundary commission. It is a grave mistake only to play the numbers game because it produces unhappy, sometimes grotesque, results. For example, the Wales Mid and West European parliamentary constituency referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) yesterday is an incredibly unwieldy boundary. To the north, it includes Eglwysbach, a charming little village perched on a hillside just five minutes' drive from the north Wales coast. To the south, it goes as far as Pembrokeshire and Llanelli on the south Wales coast. Thus one European constituency stretches the length of Wales, although it excludes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). Perhaps we could include that at some stage. How anyone can suggest that that European constituency is cohesive is beyond my comprehension. It is impossible to manage, which may be why the Labour MEP is making such a mess of it. Unfortunately, the people of the Conwy valley have little in common with the good people of Llanelli. Both are Welsh speaking, but in terms of social outlook and cultural indices, they are quite different and there is little cohesion between the two communities. The boundary commission said that, by putting together the eight parliamentary constituencies, we would reach the magic figure of 500,000, which was all that was necessary. That was a short-sighted and unhelpful approach. I sincerely hope that the Government will look carefully at the amendment, which is not partisan in any way. It is designed solely to ensure that we have better boundaries and, ultimately, more lasting and better representation.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

A moment ago, my hon. Friend referred to the words "where appropriate". I invite him and, through him, invite the Government to explain where it would be inappropriate to take such matters into account. If there are circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to do so, the House should know about them.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That is a good point and I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with it. I submit that the geography of any boundary must always be a special consideration, because we cannot start to look at any boundary without the geography. The wording is deficient and I believe, in a non-partisan way, that the amendment would improve the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to my remarks, given that I am specifically addressing the amendment; and, in due course, we might be able to a have a worthwhile debate on the subject. One of the strengths of Wales is the fact that the whole country is culturally diverse. We must cater as much for those whose cultural life is transacted through the medium of English as for those who live, breathe, work and transact their culture through the medium of Welsh. We are a bilingual nation, so it is important that we consider both languages equally. I am pleased that the Bill makes reference to the equality and parity of both languages. I know that that reference has been included in all sincerity and I welcome it, but such factors must be considered carefully and fully when drawing up boundaries if such boundaries are to last. I mentioned the importance of demography and geography. We have a diverse country and some areas naturally look to others in terms of market towns, and so forth. In the northern part of my constituency, people in the Conwy valley look toward Llanrwst and Llandudno for shopping and social functions, whereas in the southern part, the people of Meirionnydd feel strongly that they are part of mid-Wales and tend to look in that direction. The Secretary of State goaded me twice during the debates in the Welsh Grand Committee—

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

indicated dissent.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I do not mean that in a pejorative sense, but the Secretary of State did try to entice me to express a view on where Meirionnydd should be in the new powerhouse set-up; I understand that no decision has been reached yet. Being a careful person, I answered, "Yes and no". The reason is plain: we in Meirionnydd want to remain in both the mid-Wales set-up and the North Wales training and enterprise council area. I hope that that helps the right hon. Gentleman—it is probably more helpful than my response in the Welsh Grand Committee.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

That will, of course, be of partial help in my deliberations.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

On a serious note, I have written to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which will make submissions on the subject, and to the Secretary of State to express the overwhelming view that Meirionnydd should stay in the mid-Wales partnership where the powerhouse is concerned, but that it should be allowed to remain within the area of the North Wales TEC. That arrangement has worked perfectly well hitherto and it is the status quo, although it may be in breach of one or two current lines of thought. I urge the Secretary of State to consider that submission, because it is the best arrangement in all circumstances. In looking at questions of demography and geography, we cannot ignore the important matter of transport links. Often, we look at a map and see that one area apparently lies well with another, but the hills and valleys of Wales mean that the view from the ground may be different. It is important that we bring into the process and take into account local feelings and preferences. After all, the purpose of the exercise will be to draw boundaries that are acceptable to the people we are proud to serve. We must ensure that we carry their support and we can do that only by guaranteeing that they play a full part in the relevant discussions. When drawing up boundaries, it is, therefore, important that demographic, cultural and social aspects are considered as well as geographical ones. If our efforts are to succeed, we need boundaries that will be in place for years to come, and which are acceptable to everyone in Wales. If those boundaries are imposed without proper discussions, there is a danger that people in some parts of Wales will feel—wrongly, I believe—that instead of Westminster diktat, they should read Cardiff or Swansea diktat. That is the last thing that any of us would want. That is why it is important that all possible sensibilities are noted and catered for. In my respectful submission, the amendments are neither revolutionary nor partisan, and they would improve schedule 1. I urge hon. Members to consider them carefully and I hope that the Government will offer me some assurance that the matters I have raised will be considered.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). It is designed to improve the proportionality element of the additional member system by increasing the number of seats as well as creating more Members to handle the expected amount of work. In Wales, the ratio will be 40:20, or 2:1, whereas Scotland obviously has a larger element of proportionality. I support AMS not only because it is fair and will probably allow all the major political parties to be represented in the assembly, but because it should also make it easier for women and black people to be elected to it. The political parties have made a commitment to that. If it were possible to have longer lists, it would make the process easier. All countries with some element of proportionality have more women participating in the political system than we have achieved. We have already discussed how we reached the 40:20 ratio and the fact that we will have 20 additional Members as a result. We must acknowledge that there is some resistance to proportional representation. The proposed arrangements will offer Wales the experience of PR for the first time. Perhaps there is some element of truth in what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said about AMS being the system that we can get away with. It is the first step, and politics is about compromise. We put the AMS proposal to the electorate and campaigned for it in the referendum, so we must keep with it. I accept that AMS makes it more difficult to elect the number of women that want to see in the assembly. That means that responsibility for trying to achieve equal representation will fall heavily on the political parties.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

In terms of gender balance and ensuring that we have representatives from the ethnic minorities, does the hon. Lady accept that the point made by her hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is fact? If the results of the general election, for example, were replicated, the parties represented on the Opposition Benches would probably be allocated a substantial proportion of the additional Members on the list. If those parties want to achieve a gender balance, they can use the regional lists. For the Labour party, however, that exercise would not produce that result. How would the Labour party achieve such gender balance?

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

With regional lists, it will be much easier to get more women elected to the assembly because one could have a list that went one man, one woman, and so on. That would be an easy and acceptable method to use. In the 40 seats in which the first-past-the-post system will operate, the political parties will obviously have to take action within their organisations to ensure the gender balance. The Labour party has already taken steps to do that. I hope that the other political parties will do the same for both first-past-the-post and additional Member seats. I know that Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats are committed to that. I was surprised yesterday when the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is not here today, said that the Labour party was old-fashioned and unreconstructed. The Liberal Democrat party should perhaps look at its record on gender representation in the House of Commons, which is not of the best—nor is the nationalists'. We rely on them to put it right in the assembly. The Conservative party also seems to be having second thoughts about gender balance. It now accepts that it is a good thing to have the population as a whole represented in the House of Commons. We look forward to seeing what it will do when the assembly is set up.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I am following my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. If we cannot achieve gender balance through schedule 1 and the electoral system and will, therefore, have to rely on party devices, will my hon. Friend support maximum consultation with the parties?

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I think that I have made the point that I wanted to make on numbers. It was particularly in relation to gender balance that I wanted to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The Committee should be aware that the effect of amendment No. 19A is to make a frightful situation worse, albeit not half as bad as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) would make it with his recent conversion. The amendment would increase the number of representatives who effectively represented no one but the party hacks who had placed them on the list. Yesterday, a great deal of attention was given to examples from Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. I ask members of the Committee to consider the effects of the voting systems in those places on representatives and the quality of their representation. I have visited those places and it is instructive to witness the level of anxiety about, for example, economic and monetary union, and open hostility to it. If, however, one speaks to the elected representatives, one finds that they do not represent that deeply held anxiety and hostility. The fact is that they owe their election not to the voters, but to the hacks who put them on the list.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Thank you, Mr. Martin. The amendment would increase the quantity of inadequate representation and would, therefore, give the assembly, from its inception, a democratic deficit.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

In opposing the amendments, I congratulate my party on introducing its proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that there would be conflict if two Members represented one constituency.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

May I speak first? That is the trouble with these gogs. I have thought seriously about what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said. At the beginning, I went along with him, but, on reflection, I believe that his fears may be unjustified and that the two representatives will find a method of working together. When I was a Member of the European Parliament—the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), will remember this example—the Davignon plan on steel production was introduced. The European apparatchiks decided to reduce the amount of steel production in this country and the Tory Government decided to cut it over and above what the European Commission had suggested. That introduced both a Westminster and a European dimension to the discussion. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will graphically remember, there were differences between the Members of the European Parliament and hon. Members, but progress was made. We must remember that, with these amendments, we are talking about constitutional development. This country's constitutional development has been dynamic. If there are points of conflict, they are often the areas where there is more dynamism and where there can be change. On reflection, therefore, the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney may not be justified, although I imagine that there will be people with small minds who do not particularly want to act in the interests of the people they represent and who will look for that democratic extra in all situations, which does their electors a disservice. I have criticised some of the Labour party's proposals on the government of Wales for sincere and specific reasons, but it ill behoves Opposition Members to criticise the Labour party. Whether they agree with its proposals or not, what is proposed is a dramatic step forward in the government and constitutional development of this country. We have had discussions in the Labour party. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) talked of old Labour. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I like to consider myself classic Labour rather than old Labour. As a democratic party, we have differences of opinion. There was an extensive debate in the Labour party on proportional representation and the number of seats that should be in the assembly, which the amendments address—I mention them before you bring me back to order, Mr. Martin—and we came up with proposals. The Tories never did. In fact, if the Tories had not mismanaged Wales for 18 years, we would never have had this Bill. As for the Liberals, they were never in favour of such a proposal when they were in power. It was only after they lost power that they wanted proportional representation. Plaid Cymru would catch at any old straw. It is a rag-bag of political ideas—a little bit of this and a little bit of that—and contains the odd journeymen of Welsh politics who box and cox for any position. The Labour party has made specific and clear suggestions. I do not particularly believe in the extension of proportionality, but it is an honest position. I am going to support it because it is the only game in town. It also has some distinct advantages. My reservations about the conflicts that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said might arise were wiped out as he developed his argument and I considered the situations that he spoke of. Under the system proposed in the Bill, there will be points of conflict in matters such as education, housing and transport and in the division of the budget—the dispersal of moneys to local authorities. We have not introduced to the equation how local councillors will fit in with their assembly man or woman, Member of Parliament and Member of the European Parliament. Opposition Members are always bleating about democratic accountability. They will have it coming out of their ears in three or four years' time—it will be pouring out of Wales—so I do not understand why they want to amend decent proposals from Labour Members.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I oppose amendment No. 19A. The law of diminishing returns would apply to the assembly. The greater the number of politicians representing Wales, the worse representation people will get: constituents will not get the representation that they deserve. The creation of another two Members in each multi-Member area would multiply the problems caused by the Bill. As the Bill stands, a constituent with a problem will have a choice: to write to their Member of Parliament—who already represents fewer electors than an hon. Member from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, perhaps 56,000 electors—to write to their Member of the European Parliament, to write to the assembly Member for their constituency or to write to four other assembly Members with some interest in their constituency. Amendment No. 19A would increase the number in the latter group from four to six. The law of diminishing returns would apply. The biggest problem that most assembly Members will have when a constituent comes to see them with a problem will be working out whether the constituent has come to see them only or whether he or she has written to other assembly Members and who else has taken up the case. We all know from experience that some people come to a Member of Parliament when they have tried everyone else or when they have tried neighbouring Members of Parliament. Sometimes their problem is insoluble. Some individuals in Wales may be given a wonderful opportunity. If the Bill is passed as it stands, such people could visit seven individuals with their problems; if amendment No. 19A is passed, they could visit nine individuals. That is a gross over-representation.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

While the hon. Gentleman is reflecting on democratic accountability, will he explain how he feels about the present system, in which about one third of a budget of £7 billion is accounted for by the unelected quango state, in which about 100 unelected public bodies, known as quangos, are entirely immune from accountability and scrutiny and in which nearly 1,000 people are appointed to quangos by the Secretary of State without accountability or scrutiny? While the hon. Gentleman is reflecting on how disgruntled constituents should seek redress in a democratic system, will he explain how they can get redress in the present undemocratic system?

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The argument that I was making had more to do with the structure of the system—the number of representatives. If we had a first-past-the-post system—an issue which the House disposed of yesterday—we would have fewer problems with accountability and fewer Members running round tackling problems. Of course the Secretary of State is accountable to the House and to the many Welsh Members in the Chamber and Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, many of whom do an excellent job. Wales has not been especially badly represented in the Chamber over the years; it has had many outstanding Members of Parliament. The key point is that one must look at any constitutional proposal as much from the point of view of ordinary constituents as from that of political parties and Westminster institutions.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am astounded by the Secretary of State's extraordinarily denigratory regard for his fellow hon. Members from Wales. They are directly accountable to the constituencies. If he felt that it was appropriate, all those powers could be exercised by Welsh Members of Parliament and there would be direct accountability to the electorate for the disposal and dispersal of those powers. I do not understand the point of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and return to opposing amendment No. 19A. If I did not, the Committee would not make progress.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

For the sake of accuracy, let me make it clear that I was making no criticism whatever of hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. My criticism was of the system and of previous Secretaries of State, who have wielded an enormous power of patronage in a way that was unacceptable, bordering on the corrupt. Our parliamentary system has proved inadequate in hauling those to account.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I thank the Secretary of State for his further contribution. An increase from seven to nine in the number of representatives from multi-Member areas would diminish the quality of representation because Members who represent constituents will fall over one another's feet trying to tackle similar problems and to take up problems with civil servants and local government. I do not believe that the quality of representation will improve if the number of Members increases. If I had a choice—which I do not—I would have reduced the representation in terms of additional Members, but the Committee disposed of that matter yesterday. The key point is that accountability will be confused in some areas. Although hon. Members have said that it is up to the good will of the Members who represent an area to work together where possible—I am sure that there is a good local interest in representatives from particular areas having conventions to work together—there will be a great deal of confusion, which will diminish representation. In the nature of the system that will be produced, different political parties will represent different areas. Although that will give diversity—and perhaps competition, which would be a good thing in one or two parts of the Principality—it will cause problems in terms of Members dealing with constituents. The amendment is not useful. I prefer to stick with what the Government have proposed and if there is a Division I shall vote against amendment No. 19A.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has completely forgotten a large chunk of our purpose in this place: scrutiny. Three thousand statutory instruments pass through the House each Session. I wonder how many he has read in his time in the House. I shall try to speak to the amendments. You have been very generous, Mr. Martin, in allowing the debate to range slightly wide. I do not intend to seek to catch your eye in the stand part debate and I hope that I shall not cause you to call me to order. Yesterday's discussion was important because the Secretary of State has a job to do and he must get right the interaction between primary and secondary legislation. We are looking for him to do something about that. I fear that in this discussion—we are up against the guillotine at 7 o'clock—we can do nothing about that. I have sympathy with the amendments. I would have preferred a national assembly with more than 40 or 60 Members—a single transferable vote assembly or whatever. That would have made it easier to take into account gender balance, and scrutiny would have been easier. However, I fear, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), that we have 40:20 and must put up with it. I am afraid that it was partly necessary to drag some sections of the Labour party kicking and screaming and make them accept that a simple first-past-the-post system was not good enough and that an element of proportional representation was needed. I do not know whether it was the minimum that we could get away with. There was a further problem. The enemies of the Bill were saying that the assembly would cost a lot of money; we have all read it in the newspapers in Wales. As a result, there was pressure on the Secretary of State to make the assembly as small as possible. There was pressure not to have 50 Members or STV, which caused us to end up with 40:20. This is not my ideal, but I shall support the Secretary of State this time. I can assure him that if he argues, "We have this now; we cannot start taking it all to pieces and looking at it again and because of practicality we must stick with it," he will have my support in the Lobby if the House divides on the amendment. I shall be brief because we have many amendments and clauses to debate. There is a measure of agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that although he did not originally believe in the proposed system he had come round to saying and thinking that a measure of proportionality was right. There may be opponents of proportionality in the Committee, but they are not standing up and speaking in the debates. I believe that we are going in the right direction. In any case, I suggest that the national assembly itself can consider the matter once it comes into being. I regret that there is nothing we can do about the amendments at this point. They have my sympathy, but we should now move on to the other parts of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I support what my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said. By means of the amendment, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru are trying to make a bad situation worse. Last night, the Committee decided, contrary to our wishes, to pursue this lunatic experiment with proportional representation. I predict that the Labour party will rue the day it did this, because one day, in Wales and in Scotland, Labour's opponents in the nationalist parties will come to dominate the assemblies and will press for full independence for Wales and Scotland. That, however, is a debate for another day.

Paul Flynn (Labour, Newport West)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise—there is an early-day motion about the democratic deficit in Wales—the glaring unfairness in Welsh politics which led to a party that won a considerable number of votes at the election sending no representatives to Parliament? Does he realise that PR will give the fringe parties in Wales, such as the Greens and the Conservatives, some chance of representation?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the debate, but I can tell him that my opposition to proportional representation is absolute. It is a disastrous system which has been abandoned by many countries in Europe where it has been tried and found wanting. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole was right: the people we are here to represent will be confused by the new system. More bureaucratic obstacles will be put in their way and they will not know who to approach. Scrutiny will suffer, too. The way Parliament has always scrutinised primary and secondary legislation will be diluted. I whole-heartedly oppose this attempt by the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru to increase confusion.

Raymond Powell (Labour, Ogmore)

I oppose amendment No. 19A. I take it that the Liberal Democrats have ulterior motives for supporting it. They are supposed to be in bed with the Government on this and many other matters, but it looks today as if they will find no support for the idea of 10 extra seats in the assembly. I for one will oppose them. I sympathise with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on most of these issues. He referred to the opposition that there had been in the Labour party to the proposed number of seats in the assembly; he referred especially to proportional representation. The latter was discussed over a long period by my party—for many years, in fact. I suspect that your Scottish colleagues, Mr. Martin, have also discussed PR and the correct representation for a Scottish Parliament at great length and in great detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned, there was at one time agreement on the first-past-the-post system for the Welsh assembly. Some years ago, some of us formed the all-party first past the post system group; we believed in first past the post for all manner of elections in this country. That view was held by quite a number of colleagues who are now Ministers. Some time later, I was notified that a new agreement had been reached at a conference held in Llandudno: an agreement to go for proportional representation. Possibly some of us should have given up our other duties to participate in that discussion—but we did not. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was among those who failed to do so. In any case, the whole idea was changed by a democratic decision. That is not to say that Members of this House who objected to PR were entirely convinced. I do not know of any form of election in this country, in local government or anywhere else, in which PR is used. I believe that the Committee may come to regret the fact that the system is to be introduced for a Welsh assembly. Still, I am a democrat and a decision has been reached. That decision has been referred to time and again in these debates and in the White Paper. I am therefore considering opposing the amendment and supporting the Government's moves to introduce a system which was, after all, voted for in the referendum and promised in the White Paper—although I harbour some reservations about the manner of its introduction. Another good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was that so many responsibilities are to be taken away from Members of this House and given to the Welsh assembly that our work load here may well be reduced—possibly by 25 per cent. or more. I do not know whether that will mean a reduction in the number of seats in Parliament, but all the documents on the subject that I have read suggest that it will. Indeed, the Bill itself hints at a reduction in the number of parliamentary seats and even in the number of assembly seats. A reduction in the number of seats for Members of Parliament in Wales would mean a reduction in the number of seats in the assembly. People who have studied the work of the committees proposed for the assembly conclude that the numerical strength that is currently suggested would be insufficient to cover the work load already designated to the committees. The committees would experience difficulty, but we, too, would find it difficult to agree to the number of parliamentary seats being reduced. If that happens—it could also happen in Scotland—there will be numerous objections from hon. Members.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

With reference to Scotland, dare I use the word "stoochie" again? There has been great trouble about the proposal that after the assembly has been in operation for some years, the membership should be reduced from 129 to about 112 because of the alteration of seats here in Westminster. No one would wish it on an assembly that it should be set up and, after a decade, have the number of seats reduced. That would create awful stoochies.

Raymond Powell (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend is right. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has produced a pamphlet on an effective national assembly, in which it refers to the key amendments to the Government's proposals in the Bill. On the size of the assembly, the pamphlet states in the third paragraph of the section on determining the total number of Members: The consequences for the size of the Assembly (and indeed for the membership of the Scottish Parliament) are serious if those numbers are reduced. For automatically the number of constituency members has to be reduced since that is tied to the number of parliamentary constituencies for the time being. Further, the number of additional members must also be recalculated to maintain the ratio of 2:1 (Schedule I, para. 8) in the case of the Assembly. So a reduction of 4 Welsh MPs results in a loss of 6 members from the Assembly, without any legislative action. The constitution working party of the IWA was set up to examine all aspects of the Bill. I respectfully suggest that the pronouncements in such a paper should be studied carefully by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office. During the election campaign, I expressed my views on the introduction of proportional representation.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have read carefully the report of the Institute of Welsh Affairs. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no provision in the Bill that would reduce the number of Members in the Welsh assembly. He is quite wrong to draw that conclusion.

Raymond Powell (Labour, Ogmore)

With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, I read out a paragraph of the document produced by the Institute of Welsh Affairs.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I have some difficulty understanding my hon. Friend's point. The Bill contains no provision to reduce the number of Westminster representatives. Perhaps he could expand on that point.

Raymond Powell (Labour, Ogmore)

I can only repeat what I quoted from the IWA document. If my hon. Friend reads it, he will reach the same conclusion. I am merely arguing against the Liberal Democrat amendment and expressing the views that I expressed during the referendum campaign. I voted no because of the proposal to introduce a PR system. We will regret that in the future. I repeat that that was the only reason I voted no. I am a devolutionist at heart. I voted for devolution in 1978 and I campaigned for devolution at that time. We should look back at what was suggested in the Wales Act 1978, not only on the question of representation, but on the powers. We were not prepared to extend the powers that are now proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was a member of the Government at the time. He will recall what it was proposed that we extend to Wales. The main issue at the time was the extension of local government and the formation of unitary authorities. Unitary authorities have been introduced in Wales. That is not the issue. Now, a Welsh assembly is proposed with a membership of 60. I proposed that there should be 40 men and 40 women representing 40 parliamentary seats—a man and a woman for each seat—but that was thrown out. My suggestion was not even supported by the women in Wales, who at one time advocated equal rights for women. They did not support my proposal to give the assembly 80 seats. If my proposal had been supported, we would have encountered the difficulty outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—whether the man or the woman would represent the constituency. The question now is who will represent the Ogmore constituency, say, in an assembly. We will elect the Member of the Assembly for Ogmore, who will participate in selecting the four Members to serve the region—each of the five regions will be represented by four Members—but who will represent the views of the constituents? Will it be the Member of Parliament, one of the Members representing the European seats, or the Member of the elected assembly? How will constituents' views be expressed? Where in the Bill is there any such demarcation?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I begin by taking the Secretary of State to task for something that he said earlier to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), when the hon. Gentleman suggested an alteration to the electoral system that would mean that proportional representation applied to all constituency seats, rather than some of them. The hon. Gentleman was told that if only he had made such representations earlier, matters might have been different because of his persuasive argument. Surely, however, that is what the Committee stage is all about. By the logic and strength of my argument, and my magnetic personal charm, I hope to persuade the Secretary of State to accept some of my views. Surely it is not all done and dusted, and we will not be told that any suggestions that we make now should have been brought to the Secretary of State before the Committee stage. I hope that he meant something different by what he said to his hon. Friend, and that he will consider all the ideas presented in Committee with the aim of improving the Bill, as we all want to do.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am a very firm advocate of inclusive politics and am always prepared to listen to views that have been expressed. I merely invited my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), as he has reflected long and hard and is advocating proportional representation, to reflect on whether he had followed the right course of action in not making representations at the time, some 18 months ago, when invited to do so. I find the hon. Gentleman's arguments very persuasive, but not enough to change my mind. In the league of persuasiveness, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is at the top, and the hon. Gentleman is right at the bottom.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am delighted to hear that I am at the bottom. If there were a basement, no doubt I would be in that as well.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

We must have a bit of sanity here. When has legislation ever been changed as a result of debates in this place? It does happen, but it is almost as rare as seeing the proverbial pig flying in the sky.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is an early bath for all of us if that is the case. I would rather hope that debates in the House give Ministers opportunities to amend their own legislation, as do debates in Committee, as we have seen from the amendments. I shall make my contribution brief so that we discuss as many amendments as possible.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

One of the additional problems is that, having had a referendum, it is harder for those of us who then change our minds to argue the case, because, quite rightly, the Government can say that these matters were put very clearly to the people before the referendum. We also have to work out the curious chemistry between referendum politics and parliamentary representative politics of the kind that we are debating.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I agree. In many ways it is almost as though the referendum is being used as an instrument of coercion. We have to get the right balance, or we could not accept the amendments that are before us. The White Paper clearly stated that we would present to the Welsh public an additional member system, 40 constituencies, and the top-up of 20. That was clearly explained in the White Paper. We must also take into account the fact that only one in four Welsh people supported the proposals. Therefore, as the Prime Minister himself said on the steps of No. 10 Downing street, we have to listen to what the Welsh people have said and bend over backwards to meet their concerns. I hope that that is what this process will be about. As far as I am concerned, the amendments that we are considering could be termed the welfare-to-work amendments, or the job creation scheme. Not content with having just 60 politicians, the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru say that we should have 70—an extra 10. One of the arguments that we used during the referendum campaign was whether the people of Wales want their money spent on 60 more politicians or on services, and we heard the message.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned welfare to work. If he wanted to be flippant about it, this is the best designed scheme to get it working for all the Tories without seats in Wales. We know that some of them want to get back on the bandwagon.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The Government's generosity knows no bounds. What they are doing is superb: to include all these special measures and to take all the extra effort to ensure that my former colleagues will be given some worthwhile work in Wales. When the elections to the assembly take place, not only my former colleagues but many other Conservatives will be standing and no doubt will not only win on the additional member system but, after what the Government have done in the past several months, will represent the constituencies themselves. No doubt some of them will sit alongside Conservative Members of the Assembly. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was talking about—constituency Members sitting at Westminster, a constituency representative sitting in Cardiff, Swansea or wherever, and regional representation on top of that. That will lead to massive confusion for the elector. It will also lead to massive confusion and conflict, as the hon. Gentleman said, between Westminster Members of Parliament and Members of the assembly, and the additional Members—whether there are four or six—if we go down the route suggested by the amendments.

Paul Flynn (Labour, Newport West)

The Conservatives.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

No. The Conservatives would benefit under the system proposed by the Government, but if we were to go further and stretch the additional representation, the system would, of course, benefit the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, but it is all done under the guise of fairness. We have to scratch the surface of fairness, Sir Alan, to find out exactly what the minority parties are doing. They are looking not simply for fairer representation but better representation, so we have to take it all with a pinch of salt. As far as the other amendments tabled by Plaid Cymru are concerned, we have to be very suspicious about going down the route that they suggest. Perhaps we will have to use different criteria for the regions that will be represented by additional members.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

What the hon. Gentleman just said is absolute nonsense. The matters contained in the amendment are considerations that are normally applied by the Boundary Commissioner in any event.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It would not be the first time that I have spoken nonsense, Sir Alan, and I suspect that it will not be the last. Plaid Cymru is trying to use the system to get better representation for themselves. At the moment, each of the European constituencies has just one representative in Brussels. Under the system that we are considering, there will be four. The arguments that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is using to suggest that there should be changes in the system falls down completely. After all, certain constituencies are more difficult than others in terms of terrain and for social and cultural reasons. The same applies to the boundaries. We have to take the good with the bad. The White Paper and Library papers mention population. At least there is some equality of representation, which we should consider very carefully so that the differences between the areas are not as massive as they are in some parliamentary constituencies. For example, in 1992, the Isle of Wight had a population of 90,000 and some places in Scotland had 46,000. The disparities are hardly as bad as they are in parts of Wales. We have to be careful about that. The European boundaries may not be ideal, but at least they give some equality of representation to the people who live in those areas, and with the additional representation of four extra Members the system will be fine. With regard to the whole gamut of the additional member system, why are we putting the cart before the horse? Lord Jenkins of Hillhead currently heads a committee considering proportional representation. It seems a little hurried to put forward this system before hearing what that committee has to say. Had we waited, some form of consensus might have been reached, although perhaps not from the Conservatives, who although they will benefit from the system suggested by the Government, cannot support it.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I speak in opposition to the amendments. It is an interesting fact that, when the assembly elections are conducted on 1 May 1999, it will be the first occasion in the British isles when a system of proportional representation is used. That is an interesting and challenging departure. I cannot pretend that the system devised by the Government, to give legitimacy to the Welsh assembly and to ensure that all political parties have a stake in it, is entirely logical or coherent. At times, politics is neither logical nor coherent. However, the Government have devised the best in the circumstances, given the political asymmetry of Wales and the real danger that, had the Government decided on a first-past-the-post system, legitimacy would have been taken away from the assembly in its early years. Credit should be given where it is due. It would have been in the Labour party's interests to insist on a first-past-the-post system in order to replicate the sort of electoral results which meant that Wales became, in that much used cliche, a Tory-free zone. But that is not the purpose behind what on any view must be regarded as an altruistic attempt to grapple with the electoral and political geography of Wales.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

The hon. Gentleman said that proportional representation had never been used before in the British Isles, but it is today used in Northern Ireland for the election of Members to the European Parliament. It was originally established as the electoral system for the Stormont Parliament, although the Stormont Parliament itself changed that, much to the consternation of the Government at the time.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting what was undoubtedly an error on my part. I hope that the Committee will forgive me. None the less, it is a constitutional innovation for the United Kingdom to introduce a system of proportionality in domestic elections. One would have to concede that it is not the most elegant of solutions, but it is a workable solution which can be reviewed in the light of experience. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, he intends to review the electoral system in the light of experience, and that is an important concession.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman unduly. He has apologised most profusely once to the Chair. Perhaps he would like to apologise again. Local elections in Northern Ireland have been conducted by proportional representation for the last eight, nine or 10 years.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

Yes, I took on board what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said in its entirety. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for clarifying that point. The Government produced a White Paper which set out the electoral system in detail and it would be wrong for the Government to depart from the regime that has been put to the people of Wales in a referendum. We should not forget that there is a real anxiety in Wales that the assembly will be expensive. We have to meet that anxiety, and to propose a further increase in the number of representatives would be counterproductive because it would be expensive. The assembly should conduct itself according to the number of Members available. I anticipate that the committee structure will not be too unwieldy. It should reflect the fact that the assembly will have to work in partnership with the House and that the assembly will be taking a strategic view of issues in Wales generally. I congratulate the Government on their proposals for the electoral system. It is a genuine attempt to put flesh on the bones of the idea of inclusive politics; of a partnership between the people of Wales in order to give democratic legitimacy to an innovation for the British constitution.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made the extraordinary admission, which I have never heard before, that it was not the first time that he had spoken nonsense. That is not to say that other Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have not spoken nonsense; it is just that this is the first time it has ever been admitted from the Front Bench, and very welcome that was. The amendments are important because they all relate to the issue of how the legislation will ensure that the Welsh assembly has what one could call a healthy degree of opposition. No one wants one-party control. The majority party will probably be the Labour party for most of the time, although one can never predict something as unpredictable as democracy. But on the basis of the past 70 years, that is likely. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that the Government intend to try to ensure that there is healthy opposition. That was one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during his visit to Wales as Leader of the Opposition which was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). He would not have used the sort of Anglo-Welsh dialect that I am using, but he said that there must be a tidy degree of opposition in the Welsh assembly or people will fall into lazy ways. I think that we would all accept that democracy needs challenge to work in a healthy way. The first person to make that point was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Brangwyn hall in Swansea about four years ago in a speech which was either famous or notorious, according to one's point of view, when he referred to the culture of arrogance which we have seen from time to time in certain local authorities where Labour has ruled virtually unchallenged for the past 70 years. A frisson ran round the Brangwyn hall in the Swansea Guildhall—perhaps a name which I should not mention these days—because there were councillors present who knew all too well what my right hon. Friend was talking about. It is to ensure that that culture of arrogance does not occur that the Government have decided to go for 2:1 proportional representation, using the additional member system. Yesterday, we accepted that AMS would be the principle on which proportional representation would be based, so we are not arguing about that tonight; only whether the split should be 4:3 or 2:1. In addition, there are certain other amendments, including amendment No. 187 from Plaid Cymru. The issue is whether 4:3 is better than 2:1. People have said that the Scots have gone for 4:3 so why should Wales go for 2:1? In a way, it is all based on what I understand to be the intention of amendment No. 187, which, on my reading, is perfectly sensible. I do not think that we are going to divide on it. The 2:1 split was chosen in preference to a 4:3 split or some other ratio giving even less of a proportional element because of the geographical, social and economic considerations of Wales. The special circumstances of Wales are similar to those of Scotland in some ways. The Prime Minister was undoubtedly impressed by the definite commitment of Scotland to a 4:3 split and a 129-seat Parliament with a large number of people on the list. Some of the same dangers of Labour domination are also relevant in Wales. 6 pm We need a stronger Conservative Opposition in Wales than we are ever likely to get by ordinary means. In my first 10 years in the House, people used to say that the situation in Wales and Scotland was rather like what would happen if Kent, Hampshire and Sussex were a separate country—there would be no Labour representation. I am not sure of the exact numbers, but the 1997 Labour landslide has produced a healthy Labour representation in those counties. Indeed, it is possible that Labour has a majority there. I do not know whether any Conservative Members can correct me on that. The situation must be pretty close to equality. Unfortunately, although Labour landslides such as those in 1945, 1966 and 1997 give us—albeit only every 30 years—a healthy Labour representation in the wealthier parts of the home counties, that does not occur for the Conservatives in Wales. Even at their high point in 1983, they never came anything like as close to a majority or parity as Labour has in the wealthiest parts of the home counties. We want to ensure healthy opposition. How far should we go to ensure that? Should we go beyond a 2:1 split of first past the post and additional member system? As a top-up system, the additional member system is the firmest guarantee of proportionality. The compensation is that we do not need to go beyond a 50 per cent. top-up—one third of the total membership. People can easily understand a 2:1 ratio. An election in a bad year for Labour could result in 30 Labour seats and 10 each for the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru—or perhaps some other division, such as 12, 10 and eight. In theory, it is therefore possible that Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives could join together—it is unlikely, but it could happen if Labour were doing something really stupid—and overthrow Labour control. That is what we want.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The mixture of first past the post and the additional member system could result in Labour, with a small majority, losing by-elections when its Members unfortunately died or moved, while the weaker parties appointed Members under the additional member system when the same happened to them. That is not entirely fair. An Administration could lose control, having been originally popular enough to win the first past the post seats.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

That confirms what I have said. We are trying to construct a fair political system for Wales, where the Conservatives have never won a majority. It is probably fair to say, given how things have gone since 1983, that they will never win a majority there. The pendulum in Welsh politics does not swing sufficiently far to bring the Conservatives into power, even in years such as 1983, just after the Falklands war. The 2:1 split addresses that problem. We have been fair to the Conservatives and to ourselves, as the likely dominant party. We want a system under which, if the likely Labour majority does something stupid, the other three parties, which might just be coming close to a majority and perhaps need only one Labour rebel, could overturn the party in control. I do not know how that could be described as objectionable. It is a healthy democratic answer to the almost unique circumstances of Wales, where Labour is far more dominant than in Scotland, because the nationalist party is far weaker than that in Scotland in its overall proportion of the vote. We want to construct a democratically healthy system under which, if Labour does something stupid, it could be turned out of office. That is why I strongly resist the amendments, which do not recognise the magnanimity or the democratic spirit in which the schedule has been constructed, to provide healthy opposition and healthy democracy in the Welsh assembly.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I was delighted by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). This has been a fascinating and educational afternoon. I should like to ask one question, prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell). I have known two hon. Members for Ogmore—the late Walter Padley, who played a prominent role as a Minister in the Foreign Office and in many other capacities, and my current hon. Friend. Will future hon. Members for Ogmore be seen as anything more in their Welsh capacity than supplicants for more money? I fear that the main task of future Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament will be perceived as trying to get more budgetary advantage for Wales and Scotland. If they fail, they will get a rough time from the Members of the Assembly and will be accused of letting them down by not getting enough lolly. Therein lie all sorts of difficulties for the functioning of a subordinate Parliament in part of a unitary state. Because of time constraints and a promise that I made to the Whips, I shall leave my contribution at that serious question.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, the debate has been educational and as wide ranging as possible, given the amendments, which we started considering earlier this afternoon. The amendments would increase the assembly from 60 to 70 Members. The Government believe that the appropriate size is 60, as we said in our White Paper. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, that has driven forward the debate. The proposal was endorsed in the referendum on 18 September. Fiddling about with the numbers at this stage would move too far from the referendum proposals.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I note that the Minister says that he does not want to move from the proposal at this stage. If the assembly finds it difficult to get the right balance of membership on committees and comes back on that issue, will the Government be prepared to listen?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Of course we shall listen to what the House and the assembly say when it is in operation. That was going to be my closing remark. The fact that I am jumping to it immediately does not mean that I shall sit down now. There are other issues to take into account. We have decided on a 60-Member assembly with a 2:1 split. There have been calls for more Members because of the committees that the assembly will need to establish. That was one of the strong points made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). However, we have looked at the issue closely. There will be a group to advise us on the standing orders for the assembly. We are sure that we can get a razor-sharp focus in Wales that will not require large, cumbersome committees. Sixty Members will have plenty to do. The figure strikes an appropriate balance. Obviously, it is a question of judgment, and at this time we judge that 60 Members is appropriate. Constituency representatives will have their focus, and voters will be able to relate to it. Electoral areas based on European constituencies will be familiar to voters. Therefore, there is an element of continuity in the proposals and, at the same time, significant change in the move to proportional representation. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised a number of practical points about potential conflicts. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), a fellow former Member of the European Parliament and—coincidentally—a fellow former Vice-President of the European Parliament, described conflicts that might emerge in the early days. It is fair to say that one is likely to find that when a new institution is given responsibilities which, to a certain extent, overlap those of an existing institution. Indeed, there has been such conflict between councillors and Members of Parliament for a long time. That point was not raised in the debate. I feel confident that, with the passing of time, many such conflicts will be resolved as relationships develop within the parties and among the personalities. I refer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I do not think that Welsh or Scottish Members will be seen only as people who are in Westminster to argue about the Welsh or the Scottish bloc. There will be debates on issues relating to education, health, social security and defence to which Members from Wales particularly will want to contribute, because such issues will have an impact on Wales and the assembly. There will be plenty for Members from Wales to do. I refer briefly to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). The Government feel that the amendments are not necessary or appropriate. Some guidance on special geographical considerations is appropriate. It will not always be appropriate to take geography into account, but sometimes, when there appears to be conflict over, for example, the size of a constituency or where a boundary should be, some geographical consideration might allow the boundary commission to move away from all the other things that it has to consider. Equally, rather than trying to specify in the Bill the sort of things that the hon. Gentleman wanted in respect of the boundary commission's work, it would be better to allow flexibility to remain. Demographic, social and cultural considerations, for example, are already in the background of the commission's work. To include such specifications in the Bill and make them drive the process forward would be far too strong a move.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Why should the Government bother to include geography and exclude all other aspects?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

It is because tangible considerations such as mountain ranges, river valleys and estuaries must be taken into account. Other considerations tend to change over time. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) reflected accurately the publication of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, it would appear that there has been a misunderstanding of how the boundary commission works. The boundary commission can never reduce the number of seats in a boundary review. Reductions in the number of seats can come about only as a result of primary legislation. As it was agreed to reduce the number of seats in Scotland, specific provision for that has been made in the Scotland Bill. That does not apply to Wales, so such considerations do not need to be brought forward. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy expressed his preference with regard to the powerhouse and the North Wales training and enterprise council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering his submission carefully and will make a judgment on it later. I hope that members of the Committee accept that the amendments do not add anything to the Bill. They are not needed, and in some cases, they conflict with the referendum result. If they were pressed to a vote, the Government would urge the Committee to reject them.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I congratulate members of the Committee on an interesting debate. We have just heard a defence of the status quo, which is nothing more than I would expect from the Government. The amendments were tabled to create a more proportional Welsh assembly, so that the regions of Wales would feel more included in the process, and so that the assembly's committee system would be better served, with 10 more Members. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) understandably wants a constructive and stable relationship between the assembly and the Westminster Parliament. He asked how that would work. We certainly believe that there is a clear delineation between domestic policy, which will be exercised by the assembly and, at the moment, is exercised by the Secretary of State and his Ministers in the Welsh Office, and macro-economic functions in the Westminster Parliament concerning such matters as defence. The hon. Gentleman referred to a dual democratic bidding. We obviously have doubts about that as well, which is why we proposed the single transferable vote system yesterday. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned the least proportional system that the Government could get away with, which let the cat out of the bag. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) discussed under amendments Nos. 188 and 187 the need for demographic, social and cultural factors to be considered more. We certainly support that, especially in relation to electoral boundaries. Incidentally, I welcome his statement that he wants Meirionnydd to remain the powerhouse. That is an important statement, which I hope the Secretary of State and the Minister will take into account. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) rightly said that proportional representation would help to bring women and black people into the assembly—

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Get on with it.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I am trying to sum up. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) talked about party lists and hacks. We addressed that question yesterday when we proposed an STV system. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that Wales is taking a dramatic step forward, and I agree. All we are asking in the amendments is for democracy to be allowed to go a little further. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that there would be too many people and that they would be falling over each other, but Great Britain has the lowest number of elected persons in western Europe. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) toed the party line in saying that the 40:20 split was probably correct, and minimalist in terms of Members—the smallest assembly that could possibly be envisaged. Judging by that statement, I presume that he would prefer that system to go forward. Other points were made by other hon. Members, but time is running out. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that the proposal would mean 10 more politicians, and also that the Conservatives would win seats in the assembly. I am pleased that the Conservative party is on board for the assembly. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) said that to introduce an electoral system involving proportional representation was epoch-making. It was rightly pointed out to him that Northern Ireland adopted such a system long ago. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West magnanimously stated that he might be prepared to accept a situation in which opposing Labour would be allowed. He also said that the Labour party was stronger in Wales than in Scotland-yet the system in Wales is less proportional than that proposed for Scotland. I leave him with that question to ponder. The amendments are about representation, democracy and fairness, but the questions that they raise have been aired and I do not wish to press them. Amendment negatived.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in page 71, line 31, leave out 'local government', and insert 'parliamentary'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 189, in page 73, line 7, leave out 'local government' and insert 'parliamentary'. No. 31A, in clause 10, page 6, line 21, leave out from 'who' to end of line 26, and insert 'are entitled to vote as electors in a parliamentary election'. No. 74, in clause 10, page 6, line 21, leave out from 'who' to end of line 26 and insert 'are entitled to vote as electors in a parliamentary election or who would be so entitled if they were not peers'. No. 179, in clause 10, page 6, line 22, leave out 'local government' and insert 'parliamentary'. No. 180, in clause 10, page 6, line 25, leave out 'local government' and insert 'parliamentary'. No. 181, in clause 10, page 6, line 26, after 'constituency', insert 'which is the principal private residence of the elector.'. No. 175, in clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert 'save that the Secretary of State may by order provide for the registration as electors of persons who (a) have been permanently resident in Wales at any time in the 20 years preceding the election in question, (b) are not entitled to vote in Wales at a parliamentary election, and (c) are entitled to vote elsewhere at a parliamentary election.'. No. 182, in clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert 'and (c) are not registered at that address solely by virtue of being occupants of a second home.'.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Mr. Cynog Dafis.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Elfyn Llwyd, Sir Alan. I feel especially hurt because I ensured that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) called you "Sir Alan", rather than "Mr. Alan". I shall probably never intervene again. Now I shall try to be serious; I am afraid that the whole debate has been too exciting for me. I shall deal with the amendments as quickly as I can. Amendment No. 186, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and in those of my other hon. Friends and myself, is designed to insert the word "parliamentary" instead of the words "local government". The purpose of the amendment is simple. It would mean that elections to the national assembly were based on the parliamentary list of electors instead of the local government list. There are several reasons for that. First, clearly the assembly will not be a creature of local government. I hasten to add that I have no antipathy to local government. I welcome clause 110, which gives the national assembly a duty to promote the interests and needs of local government; that is sensible. There is also the important question of avoiding duplication of work. It would be simple to use the parliamentary electors list in connection with the national assembly. Status is another question which arises. Personally, I have never been unduly conscious of status; I believe that it is often bogus, a question more of self-delusion than of anything else. However, I suppose that it will add a certain status to the new national assembly if the parliamentary list is used. The amendment should not cause the Government great difficulty, and I would welcome Ministers' views in due course. Amendment No. 181, which refers to the principal private residence of the elector, can be coupled with amendment No. 175. Those two amendments have slightly more content. During the referendum campaign, there was much evidence to support the view that people with second or holiday homes in Wales travelled back specifically to vote no on 18 September. That was an attempted denial of democracy, when we consider the fact that up to 20 or 25 per cent. of the housing stock in many areas of Wales is devoted to second or holiday homes. The idea is unacceptable, whoever those people are and wherever they come from. It almost brought about a denial of the democratic voice of the people of Wales on 18 September, so I hope that proper consideration can be given to our suggestion. I shall truncate what I intended to say. I meant to say considerably more, but I shall not dwell on it all now. The other amendment, which is also important, would enable expatriate Welsh people to vote in the election. There is no reason why they should not. It happens in parliamentary elections, and I see no reason why they should not be allowed to vote in the forthcoming elections to the national assembly. Many Welsh Members of Parliament spend time courting Welsh expatriates and trying to persuade them to come back and invest in Wales and to set up in business there. If the amendment were accepted, we could at least say to them that they would be given the basic civil right of a vote for the main national assembly of their home country. With those few words, I commend our amendments to the Committee.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

The amendments, tabled by the Welsh nationalists and ourselves, go to the heart of the confusion in the Bill. They ask whether the assembly is really a form of parliament or simply a branch of local government. If we extrapolate from the Government's proposal to use the local government franchise, the assembly seems to be just a branch of local government. We question whether that is appropriate, especially in view of the unhappiness that we expressed about the franchise for the referendum, because Welsh people living outside Wales had no vote. We have some sympathy with the nationalists' amendment, which would give people living outside Wales some say in the elections to their national assembly. Many people, although they may live outside Wales, remain Welsh nationals and to that extent their rights should be respected. Perversely, by choosing the local government franchise, the Government have introduced the other quirk-the fact that people who happen to be living in Wales temporarily will be included in the franchise. That will extend to non-United Kingdom European Community nationals who may be in Wales for a limited period. They will be treated as equal citizens for the assembly elections, and we question whether that is appropriate. I ask the Minister a simple question to which I should like a straight answer. Does he agree that we are obliged to have the provision under article 8b of the Maastricht treaty, which refers to the right of a European Union citizen to vote and to stand as a candidate in what are described as "municipal elections"? Would the national assembly elections be included in the definition of municipal elections under that article?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

This has been a brief debate, but it enables us to draw out the necessary points. The Government do not want to accept any of the amendments because we believe that the question is one not of status but of allowing people who live in Wales, and who will be affected by the services provided by the National Assembly for Wales, the opportunity to vote. That would include 38 peers and 5,010 citizens of the European Union who are currently on the appropriate register. It would also mean that the 658 overseas citizens would not be able to vote. As they would have no direct interest, because the basic primary powers of legislation would stay at Westminster, we think that using the local government register is more appropriate. The Maastricht point was interesting, but we do not think that there is any problem in regard to a definition of what constitutes a municipal election. An election relating to the National Assembly for Wales is patently not a municipal election, whatever register is used. As for the question of the expatriate vote, and the exclusion of those who have second homes in Wales, we do not feel that we can put people who use Welsh services at a disadvantage, because the national assembly's decisions may have an impact on them. Nor do we consider that it would be useful to have any kind of expatriate vote, given the experience in the Vale of Glamorgan, where, in a parliamentary election, the expatriate vote was greater than the majority.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

May I press the Minister a little further? He said that someone with a second home had an investment and an interest. Does that mean that the Government will eventually allow French citizens with second homes in England to vote in general elections, or does what the Minister said apply only to those with second homes in Wales? As for the question of expatriates, do the Government intend, in the next general election, not to allow United Kingdom expatriates to vote in United Kingdom elections? That is the logic of the Minister's position.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

That has nothing to do with the Bill. We are considering what is appropriate for Wales in this context. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to address all his questions to the appropriate Ministers.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

We have had another interesting debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

TIME OF ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 2, line 18, at end insert 'but that day shall not coincide with a day designated for holding elections to local authorities in Wales'.'

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 168, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'May' and insert 'October.'. No. 183, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'May in the fourth' and insert 'April in the fifth'. No. 51A, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 26. No. 24A, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Assembly'. No. 58A, in page 2, line 27, after first 'the', insert 'first'. No. 59A, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'community'. No. 25A, in page 2, line 28, after 'State', insert 'or Assembly as the case may be'. No. 2A, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. No. 60A, in page 2, line 29, at end insert— '() for the polls at ordinary elections of county or county borough councillors to be postponed, for not more than thirteen months, to a day specified in the order,'. No. 184, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'community'. No. 61, in page 2, line 33, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'. No. 169, in page 2, line 36, at end insert— '(5) Orders under subsections (3) and (4) shall be made by the Assembly in respect of elections subsequent to the first ordinary election.'.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Formally!

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I shall try to ignore that embellishment from the hon. Gentleman, who suggests that the amendment should have been moved formally. I think that he needs to hear some gog eloquence from me to be persuaded of the merits of the amendments. My party has an interest in amendment No. 59A, tabled by mostly Liberal Members. We also support amendments Nos. 184 and 169, as well as amendments Nos. 168 and 183. The aim of the amendments is to avoid holding elections for the assembly on the same day as the county or community elections. We believe that there are pressing reasons for that to be done, and four viewpoints support our view. First, there is the viewpoint of the electors. There is a real danger of confusion between the two campaigns. There will be campaigns for elections to the Welsh county councils in 22 counties—elections that are very important, in which local issues are at stake. The Government have said time after time that the assembly is not meant to be seen as an extension of local government, but there will inevitably be a danger of its being seen in that way if the two campaigns are taking place at the same time. There will be a danger of confusion between the issues. Voting hours may also be a problem. Will the voting hours for the assembly be the same as those that normally apply in parliamentary elections—between 7 am and 10 pm—or will they be between 8 am and 9 pm? Electors may also be drowned in campaigning literature. How many candidates will there be? There will be the list candidates for the region, the direct assembly candidates and local government candidates, all of whom will be putting their literature through the electors' letter boxes. Will the assembly candidates' literature be sent by Freepost? Presumably, the local government candidates' literature will not. Such issues are bound to arise. Electors will also have to sort out the 40:20 system—the added-member system. The danger is that, with all those elections taking place at the same time, they will vote with their backsides and stay at home. How will the postal vote rules operate? Will they be identical with the local government rules? If not, that will cause additional difficulties. Secondly, there are problems from the viewpoint of the candidates. Particularly on this first occasion, some younger councillors in all parties may want to stand for the assembly, possibly in less hopeful areas. They may want to be on the Labour party list, and the chances of gaining a place on that list may be restricted. There may be Plaid Cymru candidates or, even worse, Conservative candidates, whose chances of securing a seat will be more remote. Those candidates will, however, want to put down a marker for the future. If those people are to stand for the assembly, it will be almost impossible for them to remain candidates for local government. They cannot present themselves to the electorate saying that they will serve on both bodies. Membership of both would be incompatible, and such candidates will find themselves under pressure. In such circumstances, candidates would be in an impossible position. They would have to give up their council seats just in order to stand for the assembly, with, perhaps, no great chance of being elected. That will restrict the number of good candidates coming forward.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am genuinely confused. I had assumed that the purpose of choosing local government election day was to secure a larger turnout, thus validating the assembly elections. There was a 25 per cent. yes vote—on a very low turnout—in the national referendum vote. I thought that choosing local government election day might induce more people to vote, because they were voting for something that mattered.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in a Liverpool council election just before Christmas, there was a 6 per cent. turnout? That makes our 50 per cent. turnout look very respectable.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

But of course. How could I resist the hon. Gentleman?

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

The evidence in Wales is quite the opposite. In 1979, when the parliamentary elections were held on the same day as the local elections, there was a huge turnout, and the voters were not at all confused. What the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago brought home to me the reason for the amendments. In many areas, Plaid Cymru will probably not be able to find enough candidates.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am happy to disabuse the hon. Gentleman immediately. We have started opening our list for those who are interested in being candidates. In the first two weeks, there were 160 names on it. We have no difficulty in that direction, whatever little local problems the hon. Gentleman may have in the Rhondda valley. Thirdly, there is the viewpoint of the political parties. How can we ensure that the manifestos that address local issues—and may be produced within the county areas—and the manifestos relevant to the assembly are differentiated between, and are presented in a way that is clear to the electorate? There is a danger that the electorate may confuse what is being said about one issue with what is being said about the other. How will parties ensure that expenditure on the two campaigns is kept separate? If there are to be party political broadcasts, it will be difficult to get the balance right. Fourthly, there is the viewpoint of the organisation of the elections by the returning officers and local government officers. Considerable difficulties could arise. Presumably, there will be different ballot boxes for the local government and the assembly votes, so there is a real danger of the wrong votes going into the wrong boxes; or, if they are all to be put into one box, what will be the position of voters in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), where the local election results are relevant to Gwynedd or Conwy councils, the assembly constituency includes both Conwy and Gwynedd, and the added member regional vote is relevant to a seat that runs all the way down to south Pembroke and Llanelli? There will be immense confusion in trying to disaggregate the votes. That is a real problem. Those who are responsible for running elections have approached me, expressing that worry and beseeching the Government to reconsider.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

There is a simple solution: to have different coloured ballot papers. It has happened in other elections, and most people can differentiate between the colours and know which colour should go into which box.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman followed what I was saying about Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, which will come under at least three authorities. There will have to be immense sorting out of votes before they can start to be counted and sent in different directions. When he examines the circumstances in such areas, he will find that there is much more of a problem than he thinks. Those points were made to me not in any political sense, but by returning officers who foresee considerable difficulties. It will be especially difficult in the first round of elections to the assembly, in which we will have the additional strain of differentiating between the single seats and the regional lists; so that first round should be held on a different day from the local government elections. For those reasons, I ask Ministers to consider the issue seriously between now and Report. They may not accept the amendments at this point, but it is a serious issue, as confusion may arise in the counting of the votes. The confusion that we are building into the system could make the little local difficulty that we had in the referendum seem small beer indeed.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The amendments that we tabled, starting with No. 58A, are designed to delay the county council elections for 13 months and to synchronise the timing from that point, to avoid the clash of elections for the assembly and the county council.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

We believe that fixed-term parliaments should have a fixed term. Our amendments relate to the Secretary of State's power to vary the term, which is contrary to the spirit of a fixed term. I hope that the Government will reconsider.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

We are well aware of the fact that, in the late spring or early summer of 1999, many people in Wales will be asked to participate in four different sets of elections: the first elections to the assembly; the county and county borough elections; community council elections; and the European Parliament elections. We are aware of the practical difficulties, many of which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned, but we do not think that voters, electoral administrators or the political parties would be enthusiastic if we were to stage those important elections on three or four separate days in a short space of time; nor do we think it right to postpone elections for 13 months, because the local government elections were geared to a four-year period and they should continue on that basis. 6.45 pm We believe that it would be more sensible and practical for some elections to be held together. If, for example, under existing arrangements, the assembly elections were to be held on the same day as the county and county borough elections, they would coincide with the community council elections, so we could have two sets of elections on two separate days. We believe that the appropriate way to do that is for the first elections to the assembly to be on 6 May, along with the county and county borough elections. There are practical difficulties, and we will work on them, but we have to remember that in 1979 the two elections ran on the same day with no reported difficulties. On this occasion, we must also take into account the additional Members, and we are working on that. Amendments Nos. 24A and 169 would allow for different ways of approaching orders under subsections (3) and (4) once the assembly is established. We do not believe that that is right. The amendments should be set aside. Amendment No. 51 would permanently set the date of elections. We believe that there must be flexibility. We see no purpose in amendment No. 61A, and we believe that amendment No. 25 would cause confusion by allowing either the Secretary of State or the assembly to decide on the date of elections. We want to re-examine amendments Nos. 24A and 169, and we ask that they not be pressed. We oppose all the other amendments and invite the Committee to reject them.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am grateful to the Minister for being willing to consider amendment No. 169. I hope that the Government will be willing to give the assembly the power to decide, when it is up and running. I should be grateful for any move in that direction. I urge the Minister, none the less, to hold consultations, between now and Report, with returning officers in Wales, so that all their observations can be taken on board. If he finds that there is some substance in the worries that I have expressed, especially from the organisational point of view, the Government can make the necessary amendments here or in the House of Lords. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

VOTING AT ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'is to' and insert 'may'.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

These are probing amendments, and I want to draw the Minister's attention to the wording of the clause, which seems to imply that for an elector to have valid votes he or she must cast two votes. Subsection (1) says: Each person … shall have two votes", subsection (2) says: One … is to be given for a candidate … for the constituency", and subsection (3) says: The other … is to be given for … electoral region. What happens if an elector wants to cast only one vote? Will that vote be disqualified?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

As far as we are concerned, the existing drafting offers no scope to suggest that the voters could cast their two votes other than as set out in the Bill. There is no compulsion to cast two votes. They will have two votes, and it will be up to them how they cast those votes. If we receive legal counsel to say otherwise, we will look at it again.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

The difficulty we have is with the word "shall" in clause 4(1). Its normal construction implies an obligation on someone. If the clause had read "may" have two votes or that a single vote would not be disqualified, the position would have been clearer. I accept that the Minister may need to go away and think about the problem, but that point has been made to us.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider the issue, although we do not believe that a change is needed.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

Given that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 2, line 42, at end insert— '(aa) a candidate who is a member of a registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is located,'.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Amendment No. 50 is an important proposal on the issue of open lists. It would allow voters to place their vote for the electoral region for a candidate on a party list or for the party. Amendment No. 51 would allow voters to vote for a candidate on a party list, but not to vote for the party. Amendment No. 30 would allow voters to vote for the candidate on a list. The closed lists proposed in the Bill for the electoral regions will not give the voter any feeling of involvement in the process. Political parties will have enormous powers to control the selection and ordering of candidates, a process in which the voters will not be involved. That will increase the public perception that political parties are remote and out of touch, and will leave no opportunity for voters to reject an unpopular candidate at the top of the list. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) called that the Tatton factor on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. In the East German unification election in 1990, closed lists were used. The top candidate on one list was exposed as a secret police informer four days before the election and too late to change the list. Electors had no choice but to vote for him if they wanted to vote for his party. The amendments would allow some voter choice in the elections. A completely open list would place the candidates on the ballot paper in alphabetical order and allow voters to choose the candidates to be elected for each party. That would allow voters to choose candidates from within parties, and to choose between men and women and between candidates from different wings of the same party. Voter choice would emphasise the inclusiveness of the electorate and make the assembly more representative of Wales and the Welsh people.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The hon. Gentleman said that candidates would be placed in alphabetical order. I presume that he means within their party groupings.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I cannot answer that question at the moment, but I will research it and get back to the right hon. Gentleman. I need to look into the question in more detail and I cannot do that in the middle of a speech. An alternative to the completely open list would allow voters to vote for a party or for a candidate. That system is used in Belgium for elections to the European Parliament. About half the voters vote for a party and accept the party list; the other half vote for a candidate on the list. It is rare for sufficient voters to vote for a candidate placed low on the list, but the provision is there and would have an effect in exceptional circumstances. The Home Secretary is still considering allowing voter choice in the European parliamentary elections, and he has not ruled out changing the closed list system proposed in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. If open lists were used for elections to the Welsh assembly, we would lead the way and set a precedent for elections to the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. We are approaching the first-ever elections to the Welsh assembly. It is vital that we get the system right from the beginning. The people of Wales must feel that the system has been chosen for them, not to serve the interests of political parties. Let us choose a system that will allow voter involvement and increase the interest of the Welsh people in the assembly. Allowing open lists would achieve that.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I support the amendments. Amendment No. 57 would give the Minister another option. If he wishes to reject the option of open list, or part open list, he could—as a compromise—ensure that the names of the candidates will appear on the list. The Minister will know that people traditionally like to see the names of the candidates on the list. Amendment No. 57 does not go as far as those tabled by the Liberal Democrats and it would not mean that the voter would be able to distinguish between candidates, but at least the ballot paper would contain the names of the candidates whom the party had decided should appear on the list in a particular order. Even if the Minister cannot grant the Liberal Democrats' requests, he could accept amendment No. 57.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) raises an important point because, if the system is to work, the voters must know who is on which list. However, complications can arise, as I know from my experience of the elections to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I understand that each party will have 12 candidates, with anything up to 10 parties registered for the elections. The idea that 120 names could be placed on the ballot paper begins to defy the logistics of printing those papers. We got round it in Northern Ireland by having the names listed in each polling booth. That is a sensible suggestion and I hope that it will be adopted. I understand that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) has now taken advice and agrees that candidates would be ordered alphabetically within party groups. The system would not make much sense otherwise. While we do not agree with the additional member system that has been proposed, for all the reasons that I mentioned yesterday, the Liberal Democrat amendment would be an improvement because it would remove pressures in parties to place candidates according to the party interest and would allow the electors some say in deciding the order of a party's candidates. Another element that bothers me about the proposals is the potential to elect individual Members on the list. That provision is common to both the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill. However, it could create not two but three categories of Member: one would be directly elected for a constituency, a second would be elected through the party system on the additional member list, and a third would be elected as an individual for the region and would, therefore, regard himself as having a mandate within the region by direct election. We must think very carefully before creating three categories of representatives in the Welsh assembly or the Scottish Parliament; otherwise, we will get a lot of crossed wires after the elections. Given my opposition to the additional member system, I am not sure that I can be persuaded to back the Liberal Democrat amendment, although I sympathise with it.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

This debate has perhaps been the best that we have had, because everyone has tried to make a constructive contribution to improving the additional member system. The Government are not minded to accept the amendments, because we believe that they would introduce a complexity to the assembly elections that would confuse the electoral process. However. we believe that it is important that the electorate are aware of the individuals that each party has selected to represent it on the party list. That is why we would be happy to accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We have had discussions about the best way to achieve that; it may be to ensure that each polling booth contains, in a prominent place, the names of all the candidates on the additional member list for voters to read. As it will be the first time that we run the system, we want to keep it as straightforward as possible. The only place where there is a totally open system is in the Bavarian state Parliament, where the ballot papers are sometimes as large as our broadsheet newspapers, such as The Guardian or The Times. That is not an appropriate way to encourage people to use their vote positively. The difficulty with the Plaid Cymru amendment is that if someone inadvertently puts crosses or numbers against the names on the ballot paper, that paper would be spoilt. We would not want that to happen. Although there is much to think about in terms of how the additional member system can best operate—

POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ELECTIONS ETC.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS TO DISQUALIFICATION

TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 12, line 39, after '(1)', insert— 'Functions in the fields specified in Schedule 2, so far as exercisable by the Secretary of State for Wales are hereby transferred to the Assembly. (1A)'.'

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

This is probably the most important part of the Bill. So far, we have discussed at length the technical ways in which the assembly will be established and elected. We now come to the part of the Bill that deals with the powers that will be given to the assembly and the functions that will be made over to the assembly, which will decide and shape the qualitative nature of the assembly in the future. We are concerned to ensure that this part of the Bill is consistent with the claim made throughout the referendum campaign that the devolution proposals for Wales would not weaken, but strengthen the position of Wales within the United Kingdom and would strengthen the United Kingdom as well. It is in that context that we shall examine the matter in detail. The Secretary of State made available to the House yesterday—and earlier to me, for which I am grateful—a copy of a draft order. It is an example of what might be put before Parliament in the run-up to the first elections of the Welsh assembly. I understand that it is not the draft order itself, but an example of the type of order that might be proposed. I hope that to avoid wasting time in Committee, the Secretary of State will say at an early stage that this is likely to be the shape of the order in the long term. I appreciate that some changes may be made, but we do not want to spend too much time debating the nature and detail of the order if it is merely an example.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the papers that I made available yesterday. I gave an undertaking on Second Reading that I would make the order available, and that is what I have done. I shall consult, both within Government and outside, on this matter. I intend to produce a further final draft, perhaps in the autumn of this year, to allow a period of discussion of some six months in which it can be subject to more detailed examination before it is put before the House in its final form in the early summer of next year.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. As he appreciates, once the draft returns to the House in order form, it is likely to be unamendable by the procedures of this House.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

And incomprehensible, too.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is likely to be incomprehensible, too; it will certainly be unamendable. It is, therefore, right that we look closely at what is proposed. I am sure that my hon. Friends will want to do so during the debate on these amendments. First, may I outline the position of the official Opposition? We regard this matter as the test of devolution within the Union. We want to be certain that, within these provisions and within what is transferred under these provisions, we are not creating a slippery slope to the future break-up of the UK or to further devolution that will weaken the bonds that tie together the various elements of the UK. We want to ensure that there is flexibility, which will allow the interests of Wales within the UK to be met as and when the need occurs. On the latter point, we want to ensure that there is no ratchet that will, over time, move in only one direction. Having spent some time negotiating texts in my previous incarnation as a Northern Ireland Minister, I am extremely conscious of the fact that, when we use words such as "dynamic", which suggest that there will be movement, and when we tie that dynamism within a ratchet that moves in only one direction, we create a situation that is far from stable and which can act in the interest of only one group of people—those who want to see the United Kingdom broken up. As the clause stands, the elements of the slippery slope and the one-way ratchet are present. The amendments, which we tabled in all seriousness, are intended to try to correct that. Their effect is simple. They will ensure that future transfers, after the first tranche of transfers under the order, will be by primary legislation so that this House decides whether the degree of devolution is to be increased in future. If the matter is left to the dynamics of an assembly, it is highly likely, if not inevitable, that there will be pressure constantly to take more and more power to that body. If that is done merely by unamendable order, the inability of this House to do other than exercise a simple and straightforward veto, which would create tensions within the relationship between Cardiff or Swansea and London, will be seen. We want future transfers of functions to be carried out by primary legislation within this House. They would be major issues and we should take cognisance of the effect that such transfers would have on the integrity of the UK.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I appreciate the thoughtful and considered way in which the right hon. Gentleman is approaching this matter. He suggests that he would want a major transfer of powers to be achieved by means of primary legislation but, if he reflects for a moment, he will find that that principle is perfectly compatible with the clause as it stands. A major act of devolution would require primary legislation that conferred powers to the Secretary of State or any other Minister and, in addition, enabled those powers to be subsequently transferred to the assembly by order. If there were to be such a major event, primary legislation would be required. In that context, we should not only concern ourselves with major transfers of power, but recognise that devolution—even under the Conservative Government—was a rolling process. There were many acts of devolution and transfers of functions to territorial Departments. Now that we are to have a democratic assembly in Cardiff, there is no reason why a mechanism should not be available to transfer those powers by order.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

In what the Secretary of State has just said lies the fundamental difference between our view and his view. He is essentially saying that, because it is currently possible to transfer power and devolve administration within the United Kingdom under a unitary Government, there should be no difference when making transfers of functions and administrative power under what is no longer a unitary Government, but a devolved set of Governments. However, there is a fundamental difference because, when a transfer is made under the present set-up in Westminster, he, as the Secretary of State for Scot—Wales. I nearly made the mistake that I suspect I shall make more than once over the next few weeks. He, as Secretary of State for Wales, remains accountable to Parliament and to the Government here for what is done with those devolved or transferred administrative functions or powers because they remain within his purview. Under the proposals whereby a Welsh assembly is set up, there is a devolving of functional power away from this House—this Parliament—and his responsibility and that accountability no longer exist. Therefore, there is a fundamental distinction to be made. It is for that reason that we regard the danger of the slippery slope with a careful eye, because we believe that if that danger exists, it will be exercised by those in whose interest it is to do so. The Secretary of State and I may have different views on what is a substantial or significant transfer, but my colleagues and I see in the way in which powers and functions can be transferred an inability for Parliament to exercise the sovereignty and degree of scrutiny that is necessary in those circumstances.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

I should probably have looked at the clauses before now; I see some confusion in them, but perhaps I am not reading them correctly. Clause 21 states that the assembly shall exercise only functions passed to it by an Act of Parliament, be that this Act or any future Act. If clause 21 is all there is, the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to worry about. However, clause 22 states that transfers can be made by order. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman intends to address that point.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who makes my point in a different way. If there was only clause 21, I would feel more reassured, because it suggests that transfers can be made only by Act of Parliament. Clause 21, however, refers to "this Act"—

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

Or any other Act.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Yes, or any other Act. "This Act", which is the primary legislation before us now, goes on to say that under "this Act", functions can be transferred by order. That is why I seek to amend not clause 21, but clause 22, so as to ensure that where the provisions in "this Act" are exercised to transfer functions or powers, that is done not by an order, which is unamendable and largely undebatable, but by primary legislation dealt with in the House so that the full scrutiny of luminaries such as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) can be brought to bear.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Let us not strain unnecessarily on this matter. It is true that clause 21, which now stands part of the Bill, refers to the transfer of functions under "this Act" and that clause 22 refers to orders made under Acts. It is the case that every order transferring powers will have its own originating Act. It was for that purpose that, in the draft order I have tabled, I list the many Acts that currently empower the Secretary of State to lay orders. Clauses 21 and 22 are therefore perfectly compatible.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am not saying that the clauses are incompatible. It is because they are compatible that they are dangerous. What purports in clause 21 to create a requirement for primary legislation turns out, in clause 22, to require much less. That is what I am trying to cure with the amendments. The second area, which is of equal concern, is what I earlier described as the ratchet effect. It is my view and that of my colleagues that where devolution takes place within the United Kingdom, that devolution must be capable of being amended in either direction, as circumstances require, in order to maintain the stability of devolution within the United Kingdom. The Bill, however, effectively creates a one-way ratchet. I see nothing in the legislation—I look nervously at the right hon. Member for Llanelli in case he sees something—to allow any functions or powers to be transferred back from the Welsh assembly, either to Parliament or to the Government, should circumstances arise that require that to be done. For example, the Secretary of State, who is certainly not infallible, may make a mistake in transferring certain powers or functions. My reading of the Bill is that there is no power and no means by which those powers or functions could be transferred back to him or to any other Secretary of State.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The right hon. Gentleman is rerunning last night's debate, when the Opposition attempted unsuccessfully to insert an otiose amendment asserting the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament is supreme and if, at any time, it is perceived that there is any difficulty or that powers have been vested in the assembly inadvertently, improperly or against the wishes of the Government of the day, the Government or Parliament can reverse that error.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The Secretary of State suggests that we should seek confrontation in such cases and that is precisely what makes me nervous. He is saying that, if the House believes that the Welsh assembly has too many functions or if the Welsh assembly believes that it needs more, we should have a stand-up fight, albeit in the knowledge that this House will win. That sort of behaviour seems designed to generate friction and to create frustration in Wales directed against this House. I am proposing in a serious amendment a means to establish a simple and clear way in which to transfer back powers when that is in the interests of Wales, the assembly and this House. That would avoid what at the moment is a one-way ratchet.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

indicated dissent.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The Secretary of State cannot deny which there is a one-way ratchet in the Bill. We have tabled a series of simple amendments which would cure the two defects in what the Secretary of State would claim is a measure of devolution within the United Kingdom. Returning to a point I made last night, if the Secretary of State is sincere in what he says about the relationship between the assembly and Parliament, he need fear nothing in our amendments because they are consistent with that view. If he resists the amendments, as he resisted the amendment last night, that can only leave us with the suspicion that he does indeed see devolution as being not an event, but a process—more than that, a process that is travelling in one direction only, towards the eventual break-up of the United Kingdom.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that, in these amendments and in his efforts yesterday in respect of the name of the assembly and the declaratory statement about the supremacy of Parliament, he is displaying a very niggling spirit. With his constant references to the dangers, the thin end of the wedge and the slippery slope, he is trying to strangle the Welsh assembly and give it no room to breathe even before it starts work. That is the wrong spirit and, now that the referendum and Second Reading are over, he should get rid of that attitude of mental denial towards the existence of the Welsh assembly. He should accept that the assembly is going to happen. He should not try to diminish it, and reduce its stability and the scope within which it will operate before its first meeting.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I accept that the assembly will be established. I have made that clear, but, as the official spokesman for the Opposition, not for the Government, it is not my job to be dewy-eyed and to say what will happen in a perfect world. It is my job to test the legislation against not the best-case scenarios, but the days when there are problems and difficulties, and when there is confrontation. Let us face it: there will be times when there will be arguments between the Welsh assembly and the House. There have already been arguments between Cardiff county council and the Secretary of State. We know that arguments can happen. I am trying to ensure that when such situations arise, we have in statute the means by which they can be controlled. Perhaps, as a Scottish lawyer, I am trained to look closely at the small print because it is normally in the detail that one finds the devil. I am doing so on this occasion because I want to see a Welsh assembly established in a way that is secure within the United Kingdom. It worries me more and more that every time I bring up what I believe are essentially safeguards for the position of Wales within the United Kingdom, I am accused of speaking heresy. The concept that it is heresy ever to consider within devolution that power could come back from the devolved assemblies to the centre also worries me because that is the mentality of the one-way street away from the United Kingdom. I have tabled the amendments in all seriousness because I believe that they improve the legislation. They secure the claims that were made for it by the Secretary of State during the referendum. I hope that for the first time during the Bill's consideration, the Secretary of State will accept that the amendments have been tabled in good faith and will agree to them.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

I should like to discuss the interaction of the amendment with clause 21. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could deal with the point when he replies to the debate. As I read that clause—at least now, because I read it differently a minute ago—it requires an Act of Parliament to confer or impose functions upon the assembly. The Bill, once enacted, will confer functions and if more functions have to be conferred, that will have to be done through a future Act. The mechanics of the transfer of those functions are set out in clause 22, which states that that transfer can be done by order. The explanatory note does not say that, but, as I read the Bill now, in future an Act will be required to transfer such functions because clause 21 states: The Assembly shall have the functions which are … conferred or imposed on the Assembly under an Act. An Act is, therefore, required to confer those functions. Under clause 22(1)(a), however, the transfer of those functions, to some extent a mechanistic matter, can be done by order. I may be completely wrong and perhaps my right hon. Friend will clarify the matter because it is important. There appears to be a contradiction between clauses 21 and 22.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

First, I should like to respond briefly to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I believe that it is at least the case that there is a clarity of intention that runs counter to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The statements made by the Secretary of State, the notes on clauses and other statements that have been made about the Bill make it entirely clear that the articulation is at least meant to be—in view of his legal knowledge, I certainly give way to the right hon. Gentleman about the statutory construction of the Bill—that the assembly shall have functions that are granted by whichever Act may have granted powers to the Secretary of State, which under this Bill, once enacted, or any subsequent Act can be transferred by Order in Council. I therefore take it that the articulation is intended to allow whichever powers are already possessed by any Secretary of State in relation to Wales to be granted to the assembly in due course by Order in Council. If that is a fallacious interpretation of at least the intention of the Bill, I, too, would be grateful if the Secretary of State could make that plain. I am basing my remarks on that assumption, which is at least coherent with what we have been told about the Bill as opposed to the construction placed upon it by the right hon. Member for Llanelli. I should like to explain why I believe amendments Nos. 45 to 47, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and other colleagues, go to the essence of the Bill and are by no means merely incidental to its purposes. The first point is whether any legislative stability is granted by the Bill, construed at any rate in the fashion that I have just described. That is important for a reason that the Bill makes clear. It provides for the possibility of devolution issues—I believe that that is the phrase that is used—being resolved through a series of quite lugubrious legal mechanics and ultimately by the traditional Committee of the Privy Council. It so provides because it envisages a situation or a series of situations in which there is genuine doubt about whether a power has been devolved. It is a matter of potentially the gravest significance if there is an apparent conflict of laws or jurisdictions. In those circumstances, and given the great scope for such apparent conflicts, it is of the utmost concern that a body of precedents should be built up by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and other subsidiary courts that gradually clarifies the area of devolution and reduces the scope for discussion and debate. I imagine that that must be common ground between the Conservative Benches and the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers. If that is the case, it must be of the greatest importance that there should be legal stability and not a continuous legislative flow or ratchet of the kind to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes alluded. It would be difficult to build up a solid body of precedent if on each occasion the Judicial Committee arrived at its final conclusion and offered a judgment, hey presto, the Secretary of State or another Secretary of State devolved a further power. By doing so, they would re-create an area of confusion that had apparently been clarified. The amendments are of the utmost importance in the strict constitutional sense because they create stability. They provide for a defined series of powers to be devolved under the proposed Act and avoid the creation of a situation in which there could be legal flux. I should have thought that that aim was common ground. That is of particular importance in connection with the Bill because it provides for a wide and indeterminate set of powers to be devolved. Clause 22(1)(a) provides for the transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown"— unspecified— in relation to Wales". There is no one in the Chamber, and I suspect no lawyer in England or, indeed, in Wales probably who can guess how the phrase "in relation to Wales" will be taken by the courts over the years, and in particular by the Judicial Committee. Does it refer, for example, to the police in Wales, the prisons in Wales or military bases in Wales? All those topics are currently covered by Acts under which Secretaries of State of one kind or another have order-making and regulation-making powers. As I and my right hon. Friend have construed the clauses, and as the Secretary of State has asked us to construe them, all those powers could be gradually devolved by order to the assembly. In those circumstances, the opportunities for apparent conflicts of law and therefore a need for resolution by the Judicial Committee—hence the necessity of stability—are much greater than would have been the case had that process been limited, as my right hon. Friend's amendments would have made the case, to a specified and clear list of pre-defined powers.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

The third paragraph of the explanatory note—I realise that it is not in the Bill, but let us borrow it for the moment—states: The Bill allows for further orders to be made, to transfer other Ministerial functions to the Assembly in due course. This gives the opportunity for future Governments to transfer more powers to the Assembly, with Parliament's approval. Other functions can be given to the Assembly directly by Acts of Parliament". It would seem that there are two routes by which powers can be devolved: by individual Acts of Parliament and by the order-making process specified in the Bill. We could do with clarity when it comes to which route will be used and which function will go down which route.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman is right about what we are told in the notes on clauses. To offer further support to that view, having studied the Secretary of State's statements over the past few months—and those of the Under-Secretary of State—it is abundantly clear that the hon. Gentleman is echoing the interpretation that has been placed upon the matter by the Welsh Office. It is clear also that there is a distinction between those powers that may be devolved by order and those that will require an Act. I think that the distinction—no doubt the Secretary of State will explain this in his reply—is between those Acts that already confer an order-making power upon a Secretary of State in relation to Wales and situations in which there is no such pre-existing order-making power for any Secretary of State, where therefore the transfer of powers would require a new Act. It is to the first group to which we are addressing the amendment. The problem is that there is such wide scope in English law. We on the Opposition Benches, alas, must take some of the responsibility for that, as must some on the Government Benches. In my view, there has been a regrettable tendency over the past 50 years for Governments to create wide discretion for Secretaries of State to make orders in an increasing range of affairs. The result is that many of the powers—I have so far been able to identify 461—relate to Wales in some dimension. The scope that will be available under the Act for the transfer of powers by order will be not unlimited but enormously wide. That being so, the necessity to return to Parliament for primary legislation—the second route to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred—is accordingly limited. I move on to what is, in my mind, an even more important consideration. Throughout the Bill there are bases, almost as if they had been included on purpose, though I suspect by oversight, for amplifying the chances of a conflict of laws. I shall give one example. Section 147 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—one of the items referred to specifically in the Secretary of State's draft order—provides that the Secretary of State may at any time by order make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the general purposes or any particular purposes of the Act. The provision continues: An order under this section may in particular make provision for amending, repealing or revoking … any provision of an Act passed before or in the same session as this Act. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to this point because I very much doubt whether he or his draftsmen have attended to it to date. We have an Act—regrettably a Conservative Act—that enables a Secretary of State to make orders, some of them definitely in relation to Wales because the 1988 Act had application to Wales. It provides that an order can amend or change a piece of primary legislation passed by the House. It is not a unique example. Indeed, there are many others. Power could be devolved, through the Bill, to the assembly to make orders to amend or repeal Acts enacted by the House of Commons. If ever I have heard the basis for a conflict of laws, that is it. It accentuates the necessity for legal stability so that the grave question of what we are to do about such a conflict can be governed by gradually accumulating precedent in the Judicial Committee. I fear that the situation is far worse than that. There is a severe—

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

What a ray of sunshine.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I apologise for not being able to offer much sunshine. I fear that the clouds are gathering. When I come to the end of my remarks, I fear that there will be a rainstorm.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am following closely the arguments that the hon. Gentleman is developing. I appreciate the clarity with which he is arguing his case. He is fundamentally wrong, however, if he thinks that clause 22 would allow the Welsh assembly in any way to exercise powers conferred on it by means of secondary legislation to repeal or amend existing primary legislation. His interpretation is wrong.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

It would be extremely helpful to hear from the Secretary of State how the following articulation does not apply. Clause 22(1)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to convey powers to the Welsh assembly where, as I understand it, the Secretary of State, or another Secretary of State, already has regulation-making powers. I do not think that that is a matter of contention between the Secretary of State and my right hon. and hon. Friends, although the construction of the right hon. Member for Llanelli would alter the matter. I have cited an example of a particular order-making power that already exists in an Act and gives a Secretary of State—astonishingly to my mind, but factually—the right to amend Acts preceding the Act under which such power is given. That being so, I cannot understand how it would not follow that power currently exercisable by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions could not be transferred by order to the Assembly. It falls on the Secretary of State not merely to deny that but to explain what in the Act would stop that happening. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do that when he replies. Unfortunately, the situation is far worse than I have described. We are faced with a severe democratic deficit. It has been a principle—I, for one, acknowledge it—much espoused by Labour Members that we should adhere to the broad format that has been approved, albeit by a narrow majority, by the people of Wales in a referendum. Surely that format should include adhering to the broad scope of powers that the people, at the time that they voted in the referendum, imagined would be accorded to the assembly. If it merely refers to legislative powers in the widest sense and therefore merely constrains the Government, for example, from providing tax-varying powers, that would be odd. It is surely consistent with the general thesis that, on the contrary, there should be some symmetry between what the Bill permits in respect of the transfer of powers and what the people, when they voted in the referendum, thought would be the case. Surely there ought also to be some symmetry between what the people who first elect the Members of the Assembly think will be the relevant powers and what subsequently transpire to be the powers. The problem is that that is not the case. If we consider the articulation of clauses 22(1)(a), 22(2) and 23 and schedule 2, it is clear that—I half believe that this must be a matter of mis-drafting—before the Bill becomes an Act it is mandated that the Secretary of State should produce a draft order similar to that already produced, and hence specify what he currently intends to transfer. It is clear that after the Bill becomes an Act it will be no longer necessary for the Secretary of State's list of powers subsequently to be transferred to bear any relation to schedule 2. That is the articulation as I construct it. It is the articulation that is verified by the notes on clauses so far as I can make out. I have heard nothing said by the Secretary of State that would deny that. The situation is, however, worse than that. We discovered that yesterday in what I thought was an intensely revealing moment of honesty. In an unusual parliamentary occasion we were vouchsafed by Labour Members an explanation of what they had been saying on the doorsteps during the referendum campaign about what the Bill would achieve. We were told in so many words—I think twice but certainly once—by Labour Members that they had told the electorate, and had heard many people say, that the Bill would achieve the end of the possibility of measures such as the poll tax in Wales. It was said that it would not have been possible to bring about the poll tax in Wales had the Bill before us been an Act at that time. When the Minister summed up, I asked him whether the example that he was using—he said that banding would have been possible in Wales in a different fashion from that in England—demonstrated that he knew what he was talking about, because there was no banding in terms of the poll tax. The Minister then seemed slightly uncomfortable and moved on to another topic, but he failed to note the deep malaise and deep democratic deficit that the exchange revealed. The powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the poll tax Act, under which Secretaries of State, before the Act was amended by the more recent Local Government Finance Acts, were able to make orders—hence the powers that, in principle under clause 22(1)(a), could be transferred—are extraordinarily limited and could by no means have prevented the poll tax. To be precise, so far as I can determine, the Welsh assembly would have had the following magnificent powers. It would have been able to decide how to treat houses that crossed borders between local government boundaries. Probably only one house per 100,000 is seriously in that position because of the way in which building regulations work. The assembly would have been able to decide how to treat students in part-time—not full-time—education. It would have been able to deal with co-ownership—a rare phenomenon. Finally and most magnificently, it would have been able to deal with how to treat the poll tax for the dead. Among the living, at a rough estimate, 95 per cent. of the population would not have been in the slightest way affected by the assembly. At this stage of the argument, we have established that the Bill creates a flux that will prevent a stable body of precedent law to solve serious disputes about overlapping and potentially conflicting laws. We have established that the Bill has a hugely wide effect that will, over time, transfer an unknown series of powers that were not announced at the time of the referendum and will not be known to the electors even when they first elect the Members of the Assembly. Furthermore, it would not have done the major thing Labour Members tell us they announced to the people of Wales at the referendum as an advantage—solving a problem such as the poll tax.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I do not know how much campaigning the hon. Gentleman undertook in Wales during the referendum campaign, but I assure him that one of the accusations that the nationalist party levelled at the Labour party was that the assembly would not prevent things such as the poll tax. That is at variance with what he has said.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

That is an interesting point and I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman says is nothing but the truth. It shows that one set of people were trying to sell the proposal as perfect because it would achieve something—which it will not achieve as so drafted—and that another set of people correctly accused the Bill, as it would have been about to be, of not achieving that result. However, some people must have listened to the Labour party because, as we know, there were far more Labour voters in Wales than Plaid Cymru voters.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made in the debate yesterday is that the poll tax Act could not have been passed in the way that it was if there had been a Welsh assembly. If the power to implement that Act had been vested in the Welsh assembly at the time, the Act would have had to be different. Implementation would have had to be provided for in the Act itself and it would have had to be passed through this Parliament in its entirety, not relying on the Welsh assembly to implement it by means of secondary legislation.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Thank you, Mr. Lord, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I want to speak on the transfer of ministerial functions to the assembly. I believe that it was the overcentralisation of those functions during the past 18 years that led to the growth of a movement for devolution in Wales. The Tory phenomenon of centralising all power affected not only Wales but the entire United Kingdom. Mrs. Thatcher sat, like an octopus, in London, her tentacles stretched to every corner of the land, searching out alternative power bases. When they were detected, they were mercilessly squeezed and drained of all power. That power was taken to the centre. That happened to the Greater London council, the municipal councils and many functions of local government. Those powers remained at the centre and indeed were enhanced under the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). However, it was in Wales that overcentralisation hit the hardest, and it is in Wales that, after 18 years of Tory rule, we have the worst housing and health, and the lowest pay, in Britain. The key decision makers who presided over that process were not affected by their decisions. They did not use public housing or the national health service. They were cocooned on fat salaries. But the ordinary people in Wales—those who were waiting for hospital treatment, those living in slum conditions in houses in multiple occupation, and those on poverty pay—felt, and still feel, the legacy of bad decision making. The transfer of the powers outlined in the Bill will allow us to tackle those Welsh problems at the grass roots. The philosophy of devolving power or transferring powers away from the centre and possibly out of one's control—out of Labour control, in this case—is alien to many Conservative Members. They cannot even devolve power and decision making to the grass roots in their party.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

I shall give way in a moment. In complete contrast, we have a Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has worked tirelessly for many years to divest himself of the power that he now has as Secretary of State for Wales. These actions are taken from a position of political strength. We have one of the largest parliamentary majorities that the country has ever had. The Tories have been wiped off the political map of Wales at council and parliamentary level. Even the Tory pundits say that we shall be in power for another 10 years and yet we have chosen as one of our first pieces of legislation the establishment of an assembly for Wales. I have reservations about proportional representation, but using a PR system in the assembly elections will mean that Labour may not even control that assembly. The transfer of ministerial functions to the assembly as outlined in the Government of Wales Bill will, I believe, make for better, more democratic, more accountable government in Wales.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I want to make a few points about amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. As I interpret it, amendment No. 45 specifies that functions may be transferred to the Welsh assembly only as far as they are exercisable by the Secretary of State—as opposed to functions of Ministers as far as exercisable in relation to Wales, as the Bill states. Amendment No. 46 seems to allow Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to transfer powers back from the assembly to Ministers of the Crown. Amendment No. 47 removes the requirement for orders varying or revoking powers of the assembly to be approved by the assembly. Those amendments seem to the Liberal Democrats to weaken the powers of the assembly, and we shall not support them. The amendments seek to limit the powers of the assembly to those exercisable by the Secretary of State. Surely the aim of the Welsh assembly is to devolve to Wales decision-making powers on matters that affect Wales. Those powers are not always exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales. All fields listed in schedule 2 should be transferred, regardless of whether they come under the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales or other Ministers. The amendments would weaken the assembly. If the assembly's powers were limited, the confidence of the Welsh people in the assembly's work would be reduced. Amendment No. 46 allows functions to be transferred back from the assembly to Westminster by Order in Council. If the assembly existed under the constant threat of having its powers withdrawn, its credibility to take decisions would be damaged. The assembly must have the courage to make tough choices and should not feel hindered by threats from central Government that might be made if we had a Government who did not support devolution. Amendment No. 47 weakens the assembly by removing the right to consider Orders in Council that vary or revoke its powers. For those of us who support devolution, the assembly is a long-term project. To be successful, it must feel sure that it has a long-term future. In his erudite speech, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) spoke about a democratic deficit, but surely the amendments would weaken the assembly's powers. I believe that the democratic deficit lies in the amendments and that the democratic deficit is actually remedied in the assembly.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I want to expand, briefly, on the remarks I made when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) when he originally spoke. The amendments seek to destabilise devolution before it starts, and it would be unhealthy for a new assembly to feel that at any stage its powers could be reversed. Because of the supremacy of Parliament, the assembly's powers can be reversed, just as in 1972 Stormont was suspended—brought to an end—for 25 years. The supremacy of Parliament ensures that that process can, in theory, take place, but any amendment that injects it into the Bill at this stage seems a deliberate attempt to destabilise the Bill and is, therefore, a destructive amendment—a wrecking amendment, I think it is fair to say—in the psychology of passing the Bill. I strongly oppose amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 because they simply seek to downplay the significance and stability of the corpus of power that will be transferred. I believe we are all agreed that the Bill would not bring about a large measure of devolution. By the standards of devolution of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, or of the Scotland Bill that we are considering for the next few weeks, this is a moderate measure of devolution. I believe that is common ground between all hon. Members.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Does the hon. Gentleman envisage, or could he ever envisage, circumstances in which a power or function transferred to the assembly might require to be passed back to the House or to the Secretary of State?

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Of course—in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As was described by the enormous inverted pyramid created by the long speech by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), things can be done in error and may require to be reversed. In so far as this Parliament is supreme, that can be done, and I do not doubt that it is conceivable to construct circumstances in which that could be done. However, the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes follow the pattern of the amendments that he tabled last night. 8 pm The idea is to destabilise devolution before it has even started and not to give it a fair chance. Devolution requires a fair wind from this House. This is not a large measure of devolution, but we do want it to work—with the united support of the House of Commons. Once we accept that it is going to happen—witness the majorities in the referendum and on Second Reading—there is no point in the continual attempts by the Tories to chip away at it. Why not be constructive once in a while? The hon. Member for West Dorset spoke of powers being transferred by Order in Council going beyond the powers listed in schedule 2. When the right hon. Member for Devizes was asked for an example of the dangers to which he keeps referring, all he could do was repeat phrases such as "one-way ratchet", "slippery slope", and "thin end of the wedge". All these words have been used since time immemorial to argue against change of any kind—universal suffrage, women's votes, the Great Reform Act 1832. Of course, there is no substance to the argument whatever—

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider clause 22(1)(a), which provides for the transfer to the assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales". How is that circumscribed? I would then ask the hon. Gentleman to look at clause 23(2), a related clause not covered by the amendments: Subject to subsection (3), an Order in Council under section 22 may make provision about any function of a Minister of the Crown (including a function conferred or imposed after the passing of this Act)". I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman reconciles that with his assertion that there is no evidence of a wide discretion going well beyond the powers specified in schedule 2.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

In his speech, the hon. Gentleman contented himself with a general reference to the notes on clauses—

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.