Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

House of Commons, 25 March 1998.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware that, in the regional lists set out in clause 4, the Bill provides for elections for a registered political party, defined in that clause as a party registered under any enactment providing for the registration of political parties. Hon. Members will also be aware that a Bill for the registration of political parties will shortly be introduced and that it will govern not only this Bill but the Scotland Bill, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and—if the statement that we have just heard about the White Paper is correct—the London Bill. We are to debate a clause and an amendment—amendment No. 183—about an aspect of registration on which the registration of political parties Bill could have a crucial effect, either in remedying a fundamental flaw that we have identified and raised earlier, or in failing to remedy it. To make any sense of today's debate, which is crucial to the integrity of the Bill that we are considering, it is necessary to have detailed sight of the forthcoming legislation. I have already asked for that formally. On 2 March, I said: So central is the question of registration to the proper working of the electoral roll system that it is unconscionable that the legislation could complete its passage through this place without full sight of, and discussion about, the statutory criteria by which registration will operate…I make that point very seriously at this stage in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to ensure that, when we return to the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House in due course, we shall be fully apprised of the details of the forthcoming legislation". The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), led me to believe that he had some sympathy with my view, although he qualified what he said. He said: I am not in a position to give a guarantee about when the details on registration will emerge. He could, however, assure Opposition Members that we want to see whether it will deal with these issues."—[Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 803–5.] The hon. Gentleman also accepted that the matter was crucial and central. The point is that we have not had sight of the legislation. I have made inquiries of the Table Office and the Library, but I have been told that it is not ready even in draft. It is not possible for the House to see it, although—as the Government have acknowledged—whether the fundamental flaw that I have mentioned would be remediable is central. Surely the House has a right to information that would allow it to understand the implications of a vital element of legislation such as this Bill before it completes its passage. I do not believe that today's debate on the proposed electoral process should take place until hon. Members have had a chance to give proper consideration to the details—even if only in draft—of the registration of political parties Bill. Without a sight of it, we will be asked to complete our consideration of this Bill in the dark. At the very least, we need to debate this extraordinary situation, which has been caused by the Government's failure to provide crucial information. I therefore ask whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept a motion, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I appreciate the notice he gave of his concerns and his arguments, but I have to tell him that I am not prepared to accept such a motion. However, I understand that amendment No. 183, to which he referred—which is tabled in his name and those of his hon. Friends—is broadly connected with the matter that he raised. I would be prepared to permit a separate Division on that amendment. However, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in terms of the programme motion, I will not be able to do that if the amendment cannot be moved before 11 o'clock.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling. I shall take on board what you said about amendment No. 183. On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, we are proceeding in this business on the basis of a uniquely agreed programme, which was agreed among all the parties at the beginning of the Committee stage and which settled on a given number of days for Committee and Report. As you will understand, such an agreement is based on the time that Opposition parties believe they need to do justice to important legislation being taken on the Floor of the House. In this case, it was agreed that there would be seven days for the Committee stage—now completed—and two days for Report and Third Reading. If, on Report, the Government bring forward substantial new clauses and amendments in the knowledge that they will take precedence over any other business—thereby reducing the time available to the Opposition parties to discuss matters that they wish to discuss—should there not be a duty on the Government to allow extra time, as provided for under the original business agreement? As the protector of Back-Bench rights in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will understand my concern that, unless this is resolved as a matter of principle, future agreements of this sort could be defeated by Governments effectively hijacking Report stages, in the way that the Government have sought partially to do on this occasion.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a most serious matter. I for one have long advocated the timetabling of very important Bills such as this. This is the second occasion on which we have encountered problems during devolution debates. A few weeks ago, a very important debate on the West Lothian question was seriously curtailed because the Government chose to make a very long statement—as, indeed, they have done again today. Another problem, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has not mentioned, is that, because the many amendments before us were tabled so late on Monday, it has been impossible for us to table amendments to those amendments. That is surely a very serious matter. The House is being held in contempt by the Government not allowing a proper debate on these important matters.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The Chair cannot rule on agreements made between the usual channels. If an agreement is made but then becomes unsatisfactory to one or other of the parties, that matter must be pursued through the usual channels once again. The responsibility of the Business Committee was to consider the matter, and it did so in the way laid down. Now, the House has approved the Business Committee's motion, so we are encased in that motion for our consideration of the rest of the Bill. I am sure that everyone recognises that we are on a learning process on programmed Bills. Satisfactory progress in the way the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons wants obviously relies on good will between all the parties, through the usual channels, and ensuring that adequate time is made available so that all parts of a Bill receive the scrutiny that is thought right for each of those parts—if this practice is to be applied more widely in future.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all grateful to you for those wise words, but you are the Chairman of the Business Committee. Although I fully appreciate that what you can and cannot do there is carefully circumscribed—and, as you rightly said, the House has approved the motion—we are most anxious that programming should work. We have tried to show that in every way—but today the programme has been turned into a guillotine. We find that utterly unacceptable and we cannot guarantee that, on future controversial Bills, we shall want to co-operate as we have sought to do on the Bills in question if adequate flexibility and injury time are not allowed.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Again, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are on a learning curve with such matters. I am sure that, so long as there is sufficient good will across the House, if the situations that have arisen in respect of Bills that have been programmed so far appear to one or more parties to be unsatisfactory, that will be examined. That would be in the spirit of the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. The Committee was anxious that the House should accept the idea, and an attempt has been made to use the programming system for two very complex and important Bills, which may for that reason have been more likely to throw up difficulties. I hope, however, that we can overcome those difficulties, so that what is seen as a useful initiative can still be employed in future.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take up any more of the House's time, but what my hon. Friend said relates in particular to Government new clause 31, which was, I understand, tabled late on Monday. It was starred yesterday, and we sought to amend it but, obviously, our amendment is starred today and is therefore not eligible to be considered for selection. I raise that matter because what you have just said reminded me that, on 26 February, the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary had a short interchange on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—their words are recorded at column 546 and I shall not bother the House by quoting them in full—in which they both made it clear that they felt it right for amendments and new clauses to be tabled in sufficient time for amendments to them to be tabled by Opposition parties. That has not been the case in this instance, and I hope that you can tell us that the process outlined between the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary should form the basis of good manners for such proceedings in future.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I hope that we will all learn from the experience that we now have of the Bills that have been programmed. The Business Committee has tried to foresee the difficulties and ensure that adequate time is available, but sometimes, of necessity, contingencies arise. Important Government statements may have to be made or late amendments may be tabled, and those may cut across the perfectly well-intentioned views of the participants in the Business Committee. Perhaps we will learn from that and try to ensure more flexibility in future; I hope that that aim will be pursued through the usual channels.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would allow me to make one or two brief observations in response to the points raised—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. What the right hon. Gentleman says must be expressed as a point of order. If he wishes to raise a point of order or a further point of order, he may, but this is not an opportunity for a general statement.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was about to ask whether you would allow me to make one or two points arising from the observations made by right hon. and hon. Members and from your replies. Therefore, I want to do that as a point of order. Can you confirm that the Opposition had every opportunity to discuss with the Government the terms of the time made available? Can you also confirm that the Government made available all the time requested by the Opposition to facilitate the debate that was required? Perhaps you would further confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the first three hours of today's debate will be on a subject initially raised by the Opposition, on which the Government agreed in Committee to table amendments on Report to fulfil the Opposition's request—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The Secretary of State is engaging in argument rather than making a point of order. He must know that the Chair cannot confirm those things. The Chair is not a party to discussions among the usual channels and cannot know what is agreed. The Chair will understand only what is produced in terms of resolutions and discussions in the Business Committee.

ASSEMBLY FIRST SECRETARY AND ASSEMBLY SECRETARIES

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Membership

Property

Staff

Powers

Delegation

Proceedings and business

Crown status

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I hear what he says, but the process in the House is not between the two Front Benches: it is for all hon. Members to take part in debates on legislation. When crucial areas require detail—of the kind to which I have alluded and that he has acknowledged—and that detail is not available, that is a serious matter for the whole House. That is what I am asking him to cure.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

We did.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

rose—

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

rose—

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

I am sure that it is in order, because otherwise you would soon rule it out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under this Bill, and in the Scotland Bill, people will cast two votes. Under the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, they will cast only one, so the double-ticket voting does not apply, and that is where the problem with registration is especially germane to this Bill and to the Scotland Bill in a way in which it is not so germane to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. That is why it is inadequate to proceed on the basis on which the Secretary of State has forced us to proceed by the sheer numbers—

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened in bewilderment for the past 10 minutes. In the light of what has happened, could you possibly raise with Madam Speaker exactly what the position of the rest of us is in all this? The House as a whole has some rights in these matters.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I—

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Will the important change in the structure to a Cabinet-type structure have implications for the only amendments that I and my colleagues have tabled? They relate to the Official Secrets Act 1911 in clause 79.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concerns. I do not wish to pre-empt the later debate, but I have listened carefully to the case that he and other hon. Members have made on the provisions contained in the Bill relating to the Official Secrets Act. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will have some news that the right hon. Gentleman will find welcome when we come to the matter. We have listened carefully to what has been said.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am anxious to proceed with the amendments rather than to have an extended debate at this point on the Official Secrets Act. On the understanding that my hon. Friend will use all his ingenuity to ensure that his intervention is in order, I of course give way to him.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

I do not have to use any ingenuity, because my intervention is precisely on the amendments. As there will be Cabinet government for the national assembly, and every servant of the assembly will be a member of Her Majesty's home civil service, there is now a need for the assembly to appoint staff who are independent and owe their loyalty to the assembly rather than to the Government, as the Clerks of the House and the Comptroller and Auditor General owe to this House. Amendments Nos. 231, 232 and 233 would make that possible, and there is a case for considering them carefully.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

As my hon. Friend says, such amendments have been tabled, and I understand that they have been selected. No doubt he will want to speak to them later. It would be inappropriate for me to address those amendments now. My hon. Friend has suggested that we are about to prescribe a Cabinet-style system for the assembly. We are not. We are making it easier for the assembly to have Cabinet-style government if that is what it wants. It is my expectation that the assembly will establish a Cabinet-style system from the outset.

Raymond Powell (Labour, Ogmore)

As this is an important step to take, can my right hon. Friend tell me why the matter was not referred to in the paper that we published before the referendum, and why it was not discussed in the debate on the referendum? It is an important issue.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

My hon. Friend is right. It is an important matter. It was debated extensively in the referendum campaign, and reference was made to it in the White Paper. My hon. Friend will recall having discussed the matter before the general election and subsequently. We discussed at what point on the continuum between the local government committee system and the more centralised Cabinet system the assembly should be located. It has always been the case that there is a judgment to be made as to where on that continuum the assembly should operate. We are now facilitating the opportunity for the assembly, if it so wishes, to ensure that its internal architecture is placed somewhere along the continuum closer to the Cabinet style than the local government committee style. That is what we debated at great length. It is something that my national assembly advisory group considered and recommended to me, and which was put to me by representatives of all political parties in the House. We have debated it, and I am genuinely trying to reflect the consensus that has developed around it. I deal first with new clause 23. The assembly's functions will generally be exercisable by those to whom it delegates those functions. New clause 23 sets out the possible delegations—to Committees, which can include the Executive Committee, or to the First Secretary, and then to the Assembly Secretaries. The pattern of delegation of functions will determine the assembly's decision-making style. If functions were predominantly to be delegated to subject Committees, a local government style of decision making would operate. However, if functions are predominantly delegated to the First Secretary and to the Executive Committee, something more akin to the Cabinet style will emerge. As I said, my advisory committee has recommended a Cabinet style of decision making. I have accepted that advice, and the guidance that I shall give to the Standing Orders Commissioners will reflect that. The assembly's initial Standing Orders will incorporate a substantial delegation of functions to the Executive Committee and to the First Secretary. The assembly will therefore begin life with a delegation of functions consistent with a Cabinet model of operation. It would, however, be open to the assembly subsequently, if it wished, to change those Standing Orders and instead delegate functions to subject Committees, but that would be possible only with a two-thirds vote in favour of such a move. New clauses 20 and 21 make new provision for the Executive Committee. The First Secretary is to appoint Assembly Secretaries, subject to a limit on numbers, to be prescribed in Standing Orders. I will seek advice from the advisory group on the maximum number of appointees, and I will listen to the comments that the right hon. Member for Devizes will doubtless make later this evening when he moves an amendment relating to the maximum number of Assembly Secretaries. The Assembly Secretaries will be members of the Executive Committee, and the First Secretary will allocate portfolios among them, although not necessarily to all. There is provision for a limited number of non-portfolio Assembly Secretaries. Individual Assembly Secretaries will account to the assembly for their performance of functions which the assembly has delegated. New clause 21 makes provision for the questioning of Assembly Secretaries for that purpose. The combination of an extensive delegation of functions to the Executive Committee and the First Secretary, and the appointment by the First Secretary of Assembly Secretaries and the allocation of portfolios among them, provide for the creation of a strong political centre for the assembly and meet the case made by Opposition parties. Individuals will be clearly responsible and accountable for the assembly's decisions in particular areas of its work. That reflects the points made in the House, and by my advisory group, for a process of Executive decision making. This has been the subject of intense debate in Wales, and certainly the subject of strong representations to me and my colleagues in the Welsh Office by, among others, the CBI in Wales. I have always made it clear that the Government's wish is to draw the best from both the Cabinet and local government models. The local government system allows for wide participation in the policy process. That is reflected in new clause 22, which makes new provision for subject Committees. Under new clause 22, each Assembly Secretary with functional responsibilities will be a member of a subject Committee with responsibilities in the same area. The role of the all-party subject Committees will extend well beyond that of scrutiny of the Executive on the Westminster model. Thus, they could examine draft subordinate legislation, review policy outcomes and propose policy initiatives, monitor the performance of public bodies in their spheres, and make recommendations feeding into the assembly's resource allocation process. The Committees will work in partnership with the Assembly Secretaries, and will have a distinctive and important role to play in the assembly's policy process.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

On the subject of resource allocations, in the Scottish context it is becoming clearer week by week that the proposals are vastly more expensive than anyone had imagined. What are the estimated costs of the changes in Wales? Are they all to be borne by the Welsh allocation, or do they come out of the UK allocation?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

If my hon. Friend studies the Bill, he will see that the financial memorandum, which was discussed on Second Reading, makes clear the Government's estimates. On his substantive point, I confirm that any costs incurred as a result of the running of the assembly will, of course, be met out of the existing Welsh block. I was talking about the role of the Committees in the assembly's policy process. It is a role that I believe can be achieved effectively only if, as we have provided, the Assembly Secretaries are members of the Committees and are actively involved with their work, rather than being external to them as in the classic Scrutiny Committee manner, which we see in the Select Committees in this place.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

My question follows on from that asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Is it correct that the change to the Cabinet-style structure should not mean expenditure additional to that proposed in the first Bill?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Does he have a more precise question as to where he thinks additional expenditure could arise? If so, I shall try to answer him.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is a quite clear question, as the Prime Minister might say. Will the new structure be more expensive than the first structure that the Secretary of State announced'? Is it a more expensive system of local government for Wales?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I know that the hon. Gentleman has difficulty with some of the concepts involved, but it is not a local government system. We are proposing a new form of arrangement in Wales, which is based on the principle of devolution. If the hon. Gentleman considers carefully the case that he has submitted to me, and which I have broadly accepted, he will understand that there is nothing inherent in the proposals that could possibly affect the costs of the assembly. I have repeatedly said that the costs of running the assembly will be met out of the Welsh block.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. The essence of the decision we had to take—a debate in which all parties involved themselves—was whether, in constructing the assembly, to opt for a form of decision making that was as inclusive as possible, or whether to put a premium on a decision-making process which was accountable and capable of making rapid decisions.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could contain his enthusiasm. I am trying to deal with an intervention by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Once I have done so, I shall certainly try to accommodate the hon. Gentleman. One has to decide whether to construct an assembly that is as inclusive as possible and which seeks to produce a consensus, or whether to come up with something that is less than transparent. It is my understanding, based on the strong recommendations made to me by all political parties in Wales, that the assembly should have the capacity—I stress the word "capacity"; we are not prescribing or mandating it—to go for a Cabinet style, which would ensure the accountability of individual decision makers, and that it should have the capacity to make rapid decisions.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The right hon. Gentleman must understand the thrust of the various questions, as they are perfectly straightforward. Clearly the costs will be met from the block grant, but I take it from what the Secretary of State has said that no one in the Welsh Office has suggested to him or his colleagues that the new system that is being devised will in reality be rather more expensive and take more money out of the block grant than the old. Is that so? It is the only question to which an answer is being sought, but I am bound to say that the Secretary of State did not provide one. Has anyone costed the new system?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I have already given the answer in reply to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has asked a rather more explicit question. I said that there was nothing inherent in the proposals that would lead to an increased cost.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Yes—I suspect that I shall not be moving on for some time yet.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I agree. My question relates not to the matter of cost, but to the relationship between the Assembly Secretary and the Committee itself. Given that a form of Cabinet system is being set up, am I right in interpreting that to mean that the Assembly Secretary would not be bound by a decision of the Committee; that he would be a member of the Committee and, if the Committee voted in a way that overruled his policy, that vote would not change his policy; and that only if the assembly as a whole changed the policy of the Executive as a whole would the Executive have to change their policy? Is that interpretation correct?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I understand the reason why the right hon. Gentleman raises that question; unfortunately, I cannot give him a precise answer, because it will depend in part on the Standing Orders eventually adopted by the assembly, which will in part reflect the way in practice develops in the assembly, which practice will be influenced by the existence or absence of political control within the assembly. Let us assume that one party has overall control of the assembly, although that might not be a prospect that the right hon. Gentleman views with great relish—

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Oh, but I do.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I am perfectly relaxed about that prospect, too, although we might differ on which party that should be. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that the assembly has one-party majority control. In those circumstances, one can reasonably assume that the subject Committees themselves would have one-party majority control, and that therefore there would be a majority on the Committee that was broadly supportive of the Assembly Secretary. If that was the case, or if there was a coalition, or in any other circumstances, the Assembly Secretary would have to carry the subject Committee with him or her. If he or she failed to do so on a matter of—[Interruption.] I am addressing the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I hope that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will have some regard for that. If the subject Committee found itself in conflict on a matter of principle with the Assembly Secretary who was a member of that Committee, there would a situation which presumably the First Secretary or the assembly itself would want to address, either by changing policy or by changing the Assembly Secretary. [Interruption.]

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can now get back to the point that I was making some time ago, which is the way in which the Assembly Secretaries will sit on subject Committees.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am sorry to detain the Secretary of State longer, but I want to follow up the line of questioning raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Will the Secretary of State carry his clarification just one step further? If the subject Committee in question had already delegated functions to the Assembly Secretary, even if the Assembly Secretary was sitting on the subject Committee, and the subject Committee came to a conclusion contrary to the policy established under that delegated authority by the Assembly Secretary, presumably that decision would be matter of academic interest only. Is that correct?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Yes, it is certainly a matter of academic interest. What we are doing is providing for a strong political centre to emerge in the assembly. We are also making effective provision for all parties in the assembly to make their own distinctive contributions to its work through the subject Committees. Finally, I refer to new clause 24. It was explained during Committee stage that we needed to make specific provision in the Bill for delegation of functions to staff, as it was not clear that the Carltona principle would apply in the context of the Assembly. New clause 24 simply makes it clear that any such delegation to staff will operate in accordance with the established principle that it is for the permanent secretary of the Department to manage departmental staff, and that he or she will decide which of the staff are actually to discharge any functions so delegated. New clause 24 therefore provides a worthwhile reinforcement of the position of assembly staff as civil servants, free from political interference. New clauses 20 to 24 are important amendments that will have a major and beneficial effect on the business style of the Assembly and I commend them to the House.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

May I start, perhaps rather surprisingly in view of my earlier remarks, by welcoming the new clauses tabled by the Secretary of State? I do so because they are an attempt to meet some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members earlier in the debate. I call them an attempt, because I am not yet certain that he has delivered what we were asking for. Some of us tabled amendments earlier to create a Cabinet structure, because we believe that a Cabinet structure creates a clear line of accountability in a way that is not possible under a Committee structure. We believe also that it gives the electorate a clearer view of what they are actually electing than is possible under a Committee structure. To summarise our arguments, we believe also that a Committee structure is more prone to being run by officials than is a Cabinet structure. When we heard last week that the Secretary of State was tabling new clauses in order to achieve a Cabinet structure, we welcomed that. I did so publicly and I do so again today, but only in so far as the right hon. Gentleman has gone. I am little concerned that one of the concerns I expressed in an earlier debate has not been met. When we last debated this issue, I said: I am surprised that the Government seem to have set about creating what I can only describe as a constitutional mule—it is neither one thing nor the other, neither local government nor the type of cabinet structure to which we are accustomed."—[Official Report, 2 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 750.] The Secretary of State appears to have achieved the removal of that total ambiguity, but he has created two choices, so that we are still not certain whether what we end up with will be a Cabinet structure, or one based on the Committee structure that was originally in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the amendments do not prescribe, but allow the assembly to decide. He went on to say, which I found even more puzzling, that it would not be a question of a clear decision being taken on whether there would be either a Cabinet structure or a Committee structure, but that it would depend on the decisions of the assembly as to whether there would be predominantly a Cabinet structure or predominantly a Committee structure. Only after those various decisions on what functions to delegate in which directions had been taken would we be able to say, "That is a Cabinet structure," or, "That is a Committee structure." We are certainly not able to say at this distance, in the words of the former President Bush, that, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck. In this case, it is going to be allowed to quack and bark at the same time, so we will not know whether the structure is a duck or a dog until the assembly has taken those decisions.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

If it quacks and barks, it will obviously be the product of a Ministry of Agriculture experimental farm. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the Standing Orders under which the assembly will meet initially will prescribe a Cabinet system; however, it will subsequently be open to the assembly, if the two-thirds majority requirement is met, to change its method of operation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that is not unreasonable to allow the assembly to review and modernise its own internal procedures.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am grateful for that explanation, but it is precisely because the provision appears to be the product of an experimental farm that I am questioning it a little more closely. I am not sure that the product of an experimental farm is what the right hon. Gentleman intended in terms of devolution for Wales. Perhaps the Secretary of State can enlighten me, or tell me whether I am wrong, but my understanding of new clause 23 is that it allows the assembly to delegate functions in a number of different directions, and it is on the basis of how those functions are delegated and in terms of the primary legislation allowing the assembly to so delegate, not on the basis of the Standing Orders by means of which they may be delegated, that the decision will be taken whether there will be a Cabinet structure or a Committee structure. That appears to be what new clause 23 provides, so it leaves the whole question still to be resolved. What is does not do is create the clear position that we sought of a Cabinet structure of the sort that we find, for example, within the Scotland Bill. It is worth reminding the House that "The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Science" defines a Cabinet as A form of government in which a group of ministers, usually drawn from the majority party or parties of a parliament, combine to make collective decisions about the country's Policies … Two points are central to the concept. First, the decisions of a cabinet are meant to be collective, not those of a single person; ministers are bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility publicly to support all the decisions taken by cabinet. Second, the cabinet acts as a political link between the executive and the parliament because ministers are answerable to the parliament. If I read that right, one either has a Cabinet structure or one does not. One cannot have a series of functions being moved in different directions, which do not clearly meet those two points which are described as being central, and say, "On the balance of probabilities, this is a Cabinet." However, that seems to be what new clause 23 would achieve. I should like to hear the Minister's response on the ambiguity and doubt that could be created.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up some of his own ambiguity and doubt? When he made these proposals to the Government, did he have any clear idea, for example, to whom the civil servants would be responsible? Are they to be responsible to the Welsh Cabinet structure, or to the home civil service? What was his view on that?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The hon. Gentleman knows that we asked that question in connection with the structure of the Scottish Parliament. It does not arise from new clause 23, however. We are now considering whether the civil service in Wales will be responsible to the assembly as a whole, as was the case under the original legislation, or whether it will now be responsible to a Cabinet. In fact, that makes may point rather well, because, if I read new clause 23 aright, we may end up with it being responsible for some functions to the assembly as a whole, and for other functions to members of what would be, effectively, a Cabinet. That lack of clarity, which the hon. Gentleman rightly points out is inherent anyway in the Bill, is exacerbated by the new clause. I wish to hear a response from the Secretary of State on that.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no lack of clarity there. The assembly is a corporate body, and the functions that will be transferred will be transferred to it as a corporate body. It is then for the assembly to decide how it wishes those functions to be exercised.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Intentionally or not, the right hon. Gentleman is again missing my point. I am saying that, if the assembly follows the route of new clause 23, and of what I understood him to say in his speech, it will not be a question of deciding whether there is a Cabinet; it will be a question of giving some functions to the Executive Committee, which would be along the lines of a Cabinet, and giving others to the subject Committees of the assembly, forming a Committee structure. I say in all seriousness to the Secretary of State that that could be the undoing of the way the assembly works in future unless there is some more clarity on it.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman several times that I intend that the Standing Orders under the which the assembly meets for the first time will provide for a Cabinet system. It will be open, however, to the assembly, if it subsequently wishes, to revert to a different system. Nevertheless, I intend that, when the assembly meets for the first time, it will meet with a Cabinet system; that will be provided for in the standing orders.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

In that case, I ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. In new clause 23, which will be part of primary legislation, not the Standing Orders, does that mean that new clause 23(1)(a), which says: The Assembly may delegate functions of the Assembly … to any committee of the Assembly", will be operable only if the Standing Orders have been changed by a two-thirds majority at that time? Is he saying that that provision, which will be in primary legislation, is already qualified and pre-empted by non-primary legislative decisions that he will have taken in relation to the original standing orders? That places a very serious question mark over the meaning of the new clause. Either it is there to provide powers, or it is not.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

New clause 23 is perfectly clear, and new clause subsection (1)(a) provides for the assembly to delegate its functions to any Committee of the assembly if it so wishes. That provision will be allowed for in the Standing Orders.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

In that case, this argument goes round and round. My original suggestion that we might have a bit of this and a bit of that and not know whether it was a duck or a dog is likely to come true. I say to the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness, because I believe he is moving in the right direction, that he has left things dangerously open. I am afraid that it creates another area of uncertainty. I do not want to be unduly unkind to him, but we are becoming used to the non-decisions of this Secretary of State. Will it be Swansea or Cardiff? Will it be Pier head or Bute square? Will it be a Cabinet or a Committee? We do not know. If the people of Wales are to have confidence in the devolution proposals, they should have a clearer idea of the answers to all those questions.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can relieve us both of our concerns, because I understand that, if the assembly is to operate as a business in this regard, it will first need a two-thirds majority to overcome the Standing Orders that he has said will direct it in a particular—what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) would call "old-fashioned"—way. We need to know the answers to those questions. That is one reason—I shall not trespass on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—why I was worried that we did not have enough time in which to discuss this group of amendments. These are not minor or straightforward—

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The right hon. Gentleman is going round and round.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am going round and round because the new clause is circular, and it will take us round and round in circles.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a further confusion, which illustrates this point, inherent in new clause 22, on the system of subject Committees? For the past two decades, Cabinet government in this House has been balanced by accountability to cross-party Select Committees, usually acting unanimously. The subject Committees can hardly operate in that way if the person whom they are scrutinising is sitting on that Committee, asking questions with them and scrutinising the same evidence as them. Is that not another example of a quacking dog?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example. He is absolutely right. He will notice that the amendments that we have tabled to new clause 22—amendments (a) to (j)—seek to meet that objection by renaming the subject Committees "Select Committees", so that they will operate as a Committee should operate under a Cabinet structure, like the Select Committees of the House. We are trying to bring clarity to what we consider to be a move in the right direction, which is not achieving what it set out to achieve. Having made those points, on which I hope that we shall receive clarification from the Secretary of State because they are important, I shall briefly explain the amendments in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. Our amendment (a) to new clause 20 would require the First Secretary to appoint one person as Financial Secretary and another as Business Manager. Our amendment (d) to new clause 21 would provide that neither be given responsibility for a specific field of policy. That is another constructive attempt to make more sense of the Cabinet structure, because we believe that, if a Cabinet is to work, there should be Ministers in the Cabinet who are not departmental Ministers but can look after the financial side. We know that a large sum of money—about £7 billion—is likely to be within the purview of the assembly. We believe that one Minister should be responsible for that. We believe that there should be a Business Manager—a post along the lines of the Leader of the House—to ensure that business is properly pursued. That will make clear sense in the Cabinet structure, which is why we favour a Cabinet structure. Amendment (b) to new clause 20 would prevent the First Secretary from appointing more than eight other Secretaries, including those two. The Secretary of State said that he looked forward to hearing me explain why we chose that number. There is no magic formula. There are 60 Members of the assembly. It seems to us that six departmental Ministers—a tenth of them—is generous. Ministers currently on the Treasury Bench are carrying out all the functions that the six Secretaries plus the First Secretary will carry out. If the Secretary of State is in the place of the First Secretary at the moment, there are two hard-worked Ministers sitting next to him on the Front Bench whose work will now be undertaken by three Ministers each. That seems to be quite generous. Although we know the skill and hard-working capabilities of the hon. Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), we believe that three other Welsh men or women should be able to undertake the work that they currently undertake. Therefore, it seems to us that the number six is about correct. I have referred already to amendments (a) and (c) to (j) to Government new clause 22. They are designed genuinely to make sense of the Cabinet structure by having the Committees as Select Committees—

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

What happens to the rest of the Welsh Office structure upon the appointments that we are discussing? It is implicit in the Bill that there will be a Secretary of State. Will there be junior Ministers supporting the Secretary of State, as well as the structure within the assembly?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

It is my understanding that, unless they apply for P45s fairly soon, they will find themselves without work once the Bill has passed through Parliament. We are told that the Secretary of State will continue in office. We have not been told that personally; we await the end of what might be called the right hon. Gentleman's coy period, when he will tell us whether he will stand for the assembly or remain with us in the House. I find it difficult to believe one story I read—that the right hon. Gentleman would try to do both things. That would make nonsense of devolution. The right hon. Gentleman would be bound by the collective responsibility of the Cabinet in Westminster, which he would have to apply to the collective responsibility of the assembly's Cabinet. I think that we would all agree that that would be constitutional nonsense. I fear that the role of Secretary of State will be severely downgraded by the nature of devolution. We have discussed that previously, and I am sure that the issue will be raised again in another place when these matters are further discussed. Amendments (a) and (c) to (m) to Government new clause 21, and amendment No. 198 to clause 149, are designed simply to rename the Executive Committee the assembly Cabinet. I believe in calling a duck a duck or a dog a dog. When the Secretary of State makes up his mind—that is, if he does so in the direction that I hope he will—the amendments will make total sense. I therefore hope that he will be prepared to accept them.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

I shall make a quick intervention or, perhaps, a short speech. I did not intend to do so but earlier I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the amendments that I have tabled on the responsibilities and loyalty of the civil service. I would not say that he brushed off my intervention, but he said that I could make my own points. I now propose to do so. On those matters, I have considerable sympathy with the Opposition Front Bench. It would seem that they have not been thought through very carefully. For me, the problem is deciding where civil servants owe their loyalty. We know that civil servants, including permanent secretaries, meet all the time. They probably meet regularly once a week. The head of the National Assembly of Wales civil service will continue, I am sure, to meet heads of the civil service in the different Departments in Westminster. I am sure also that he or she will continue to do so once a week. Furthermore, if there are problems within the civil service—I do not know the code in detail but there are procedures whereby problems are raised at a higher and higher level—at the end of the day, the person who carries the can is the secretary to the Cabinet, the head of the home civil service. That is the head of the Cabinet here for the Westminster Government, not for the assembly. I happen to believe that, if a body has servants, those servants should owe loyalty to that body. Under a system of Committee government, that could have worked. The home civil service could have staffed the entire assembly. However, when we move to a Cabinet form of government, surely there must be servants whose primary duty is not to the Executive Committee or to the Westminster Government. There must be servants of the assembly whose loyalty is to non-executive members of that assembly, in much the same way as we have Clerks of Select Committees. We have also Clerks to the House of Commons. Until a few years ago, the Comptroller and Auditor General was a Government employee, but the previous Administration rightly changed the nature of that employment so that the Comptroller and Auditor General is paid for out of House of Commons voted money and owes his or her loyalty—in this instance, his—to the House. I do not think that we can set up a system where a Back-Bench Member of the assembly will have no servants of that assembly to whom he or she can turn. It is an important issue, and I do not think that the Government have thought it through. There should be officers of the assembly and my amendments—no doubt they are imperfect, and there is no need for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say that that is the position, if he comments upon those matters before the guillotine comes down at 7.30 pm—Nos. 231 to 233 illustrate the point. I hope that they will be taken up in another place if Members there see that there is merit in them. Codes of practice are dealt with in new clause 29, which I tabled. It must be right that further consideration is given to codes of practice. Let us suppose that there is a difference of opinion between the national assembly and its Executive, the Executive Committee and the Cabinet in Westminster. How will that issue be resolved if the loyalty and codes of practice of civil servants—Her Majesty's home civil service—rest ultimately with the head of that civil service, who is Secretary to the Cabinet and the senior civil servant here in Westminster, whose loyalty is to the Westminster Government? 5.45 pm I do not think that the issue has been thought through. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may try to brush it away or under the carpet. I am not being rude to him, but I ask him to consider the matter. It is an important matter that needs to be clarified. It is important that officers of the national assembly should be servants of the national assembly in just the same way as the Clerks and officers of the House of Commons are servants of Westminster Back-Bench Members. I do not want to speak for a long time because I appreciate that this will be a short debate. I have said what I wanted to say and I do not intend to amplify my remarks. As I have said, we are discussing an important matter.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The hon. Gentleman's modesty knows no bounds.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As a constitutional guru, how would the hon. Gentleman answer the charge that, despite what he said about talented and bright individuals, the purpose of a constitution is to put in place institutions, conventions and rules that will control the excesses of individuals? A constitutional guru would surely recognise that. Perhaps he will point to a serious organisation, a state or a system of government where the constitution does not put in place such safeguards.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way twice. He has replied to my first question by referring to businesses. I do not know whether he has a background in business or industry, but I spent a long time in that sector. Companies do not have constitutions, because they are not subject to the pressures that I described. Business institutions do not have to have public safeguards in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is a totally inappropriate analogy.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We do not want to leave Westminster.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman intend to stand for the assembly?

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

I agree entirely that the national assembly should be able to see its way forward. However, it is written in primary legislation that every civil servant must be a member of the home civil service. Therefore, the assembly will not be able to feel its way in that area if anything goes wrong.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Taking up that thread, the hon. Gentleman may recall that the legislation that came before the House in the 1970s—which became the Wales Act 1978 and was defeated in a referendum—proposed an integrated public service in Wales. The Government have moved away from that position. It might be interesting to know the logic behind that decision, as the proposal would have created an embryo civil service in Wales that was answerable to Wales.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

The hon. Gentleman is a keen advocate of the Cabinet system, but the Cabinet is not inclusive, either.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That may be an expression of hope, and surely that is all that it can be. Representation and such matters will be decided by the assembly. Conservative Members strongly suspect that the inclusivity and the holistics about which we have heard a great deal may be rather more absent than present. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is not much point in Conservative Members going on about representation in the assembly, because the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Where is the hon. Gentleman?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I must tell the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) that I have not managed to call my nation or my constituency a company in 30 years in Parliament. I do not believe in using that term in such a way, and I do not believe in the values associated with it. The management-speak that poured from the hon. Gentleman is not appropriate to arguments about how we shall be governed under the new arrangements in the Welsh assembly. Over the past 20 years, too many of our services have been gripped by management-speak. Some people believe that it can be crudely applied to the concept of service. That is a worthy concept, which is worth standing up and fighting for. It is a privilege to represent people. Management-speak books do not contain such words, but I hope that we find them in politics and in the Welsh assembly.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Many features of multinational corporations are unlikely to exemplify those virtues. No, the hon. Gentleman's assumption is not right. I shall address most of my remarks to amendment (c), but shall first speak to new clause 20. The Bill and I are not destined to get on. I vigorously defended the original clause on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, only to find that the persuasive qualities of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists—clearly not those of Labour Members—brought about a change. I am grappling with the changes, and am trying to understand and appreciate them. The alteration of the wording caused me a bit of a problem. Will there be a Cabinet-style approach, which was mentioned in a press release; a Cabinet-style process of decision making, to use my right hon. Friend's words; or a Cabinet system, which was mentioned in debate? The Opposition amendments propose a straightforward Cabinet. We have had a great deal of time to think in the past 12 or 14 hours, especially in the small hours. I am at sea on those issues, so I went not to management-speak, but to Walter Bagehot's classic definition of the constitution. He said: A cabinet is a combining committee—a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens the legislative part of the state to the Executive part of the state. If that is a valid description of a Cabinet, I cannot for the life of me see why the Opposition are pressing so vigorously for a Cabinet structure in the Welsh assembly, especially as they do not support a formal legislative function. The definition is old-fashioned and beautifully written; it also has an authentic feel. If the assembly is not to be a legislative body, why try vigorously to implant or impose on that new democratic institution a Cabinet structure of the sort that would be provided by the Opposition amendments? New clause 20 also moves some way towards such a structure.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman says that the assembly will not be a legislative body. Did I hear him correctly? Will not the assembly be legislative, albeit through passing secondary legislation?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

The assembly will have a subordinate legislative function, but we should not get sidetracked because the issue has been debated at considerable length. Throughout the debates and throughout the referendum campaign, the point was sturdily made that we are not constructing a Welsh assembly with the power to pass primary legislation of the kind and character to which Bagehot referred when talking of the legislative state. We fail to remind ourselves of what the Welsh assembly is supposed to do. Its fundamental function is to allocate a block grant of £7 billion—a large sum of money—according to what it decides are the priorities and needs of the Welsh people. Distribution of expenditure does not necessarily have to be decided under a Cabinet system. The nature of the Welsh assembly's fundamental function means that secret, closed Cabinet decision-making is unnecessary. The whole idea of devolution and the setting up of a Welsh assembly was to introduce openness and to have all the options up and running, not closed down, one by one, by Cabinet Ministers and Executive Committees that would filter decision making. I thought that the idea of the new politics of devolution was to move away from that process, but there is a hankering to return to the old-style Westminster system of Cabinet decision making.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman's speech is compelling and lucid. He says that the Cabinet binds the Executive and the legislature. He has made it clear that the assembly will have a legislative role, albeit a reduced one, and that the Executive will also have a role. Without the structure that Cabinet provides, how would he link those two roles?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

The buckle that joins the assembly to Westminster and Whitehall has nothing to do with the internal decision-making process in the assembly. That link is supposed to be through the Secretary of State and concordats. If we manage to debate the concordats, I hope that that will be brought out. Sadly, we shall not debate the role of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman's point is irrelevant in this context, because there are other instruments for the function that he describes. Whether they can do it is another matter. I did not want the assembly to have an old-fashioned local government structure. Equally, I do not want an old-fashioned Cabinet structure. I do not know whether the new clauses have created a hybrid or a hydra, but it seems that a third way is being sought. It has been found for economic policy and it is now to be in constitutional policy. Unfortunately, at the moment it is a rather convoluted and confused way to decide where we are going. Nowhere in the White Paper or in the first draft of the Bill is there a reference to a permanent secretary. Why has one suddenly emerged in new clause 24? Oddly enough, the new clause states: (whether or not that person is known by the title of Permanent Secretary to the Assembly). Has the term been introduced to try to give the assembly the smack of old Westminster to satisfy those who have been pressing for a Welsh Government? Above all, I question the Minister's reason for the change. In the press release and, I think, in his opening speech, he said: People want decision-making arrangements which provide for identified individuals to be clearly accountable to the public for particular decisions. The new structure is supposed to provide that. Cabinet-style Government is much more collective in its decision-making process, and a permanent secretary who derives his authority from the role that he may claim in a subject committee is likely to have a perfectly identical profile. I cannot envisage many wallflowers in Welsh politics. I am not sure what the Minister meant or why he thinks that his alternative system will make people more identifiable. They will be identifiable when the First Secretary hires or fires them. That will raise their profiles. 6.15 pm Why are we slavishly trying to return to tight, collective decision making? When one person is given the right to hire and fire, sooner or later a collective system of government will emerge. Instead of following a career in the assembly and in working with the Committees, people will follow the patronage system with which we are familiar. I have been a beneficiary of that, and understand it as well as anybody. There will be a plethora of Secretaries, the equivalent of Ministers, and there will be shadow Secretaries. When that happens, the new assembly will have returned to the world of personal patronage. I thought that devolution was more and better than that.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I sympathise with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. He spoke about a hybrid or hydra. Has not the Secretary of State engaged in hype? The assembly will be toothless in relation to its officials. We face a dilemma. The early system seemed to offer no government for Wales, but the system that has been adopted could be criticised for not being much different from the Westminster one, which would allow the assembly to control officials. Without that, there is no control.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I do not think that it is hype. It has more substance, I would not spend time making my case. It is a significant and important change. It shifts the nature and balance of the assembly's chemistry, and its politics will be altered by the changes. That is clear from an examination of the first secretary's role. He will have power to hire and fire. In the press release and in other statements, the Minister was at pains to explain that the Assembly Secretaries will have an important role in the Committees and that that will in no way lead to a downgrading of the Committees. It is stated that each Assembly Secretary will have to work in partnership with the all-party subject Committee of which he or she is the leader. If one of a Secretary's major functions is to relate to an all-party subject Committee, surely our amendment (c) should apply. If the First Secretary seeks to sack that person, the Committee on which he sits should be asked to approve the dismissal. We should at least slightly temper what is otherwise a good old-fashioned return to a full-scale system of patronage in the hands of the First Secretary, who will rapidly become the Prime Minister or Premier. I understand the difficulties of finding the third way, but we must develop institutional structures that will reflect what we hope will be the new politics of devolution and not the old-fashioned politics to which so many of the clauses and Opposition amendments would like to return.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am glad of the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He described the Westminster Cabinet system, which is the type of system that generally operates in most central Governments, comparing it with the local government system and speaking about old-style local government. As he knows, I was a councillor on just such an old-style authority in Merthyr Tydfil. Anyone who says that that was an open, inclusive system of government is talking through their hat. Those in opposition—and, I suspect, sometimes Labour members of that authority—were kept in the dark most of the time about what was going on. Therefore, I do not think that the argument is between local government and central Government-type systems. The argument is how we achieve the most effective system from the proposals that are before the House, which will, I hope, serve Wales well. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, I approach the subject from the view that we should take more power from Westminster and have a central Government-type system in Wales, so I welcome the Government's move. Not only have we been pressing for it, but, in strategic terms, it is important: it gives better coherence. I accept that getting quick decisions is a managerial consideration, but we must consider what sometimes happens in local government and the delays in decision making even in new local government, which can be astronomical, hampering leaders' ability to take decisions. The proposal will facilitate quicker decision taking. Provided that there is proper answerability, this system can be made to work. I intervened earlier on the question of answerability. What is the relationship between the Secretary and the Committee on which he or she serves as a member? I do not think that we have properly thought that through. Perhaps that was the Government's intention—to leave flexibility for the assembly itself to think it through—but the Committee needs at least some initial guidelines, so that both the commission that is working at present and the assembly know the framework within which the Committee will initially work. I am a little at a loss to know how exactly the Secretary will relate to the Committee. He or she may be a member of the Committee and sit on it. It may behave similarly to a Select Committee, before which a Minister appears from time to time to answer for the policies being pursued. To start with, Select Committee members sit around in private to discuss the questioning of the Minister—who will say what the main points to be followed are. That will be difficult in the Welsh assembly if the Minister is a member of the Committee that will do the cross-questioning. Will the Committee draw up the strategy and priorities within that Department's remit? If so, will the Minister be obliged to argue that case from the bottom up, as it were, in what will effectively be the Cabinet—the Executive Committee—or will he impose the policies from the centre down and have only to answer before the Committee? If that is the case, it is difficult to see that the Secretary will genuinely be a member of the Committee. He or she will come to the Committee—and certainly relate to it—but will not necessarily answer to it and be a member of a body that has developed the policy. There is the question of the Committee's sanction against the Secretary. If the Committee feels that the priorities which it has determined, and which it believes the Secretary has been espousing and advocating within Cabinet, have not been genuinely put forward—perhaps the Secretary has deliberately not followed the Committee's line—does the Committee have the sanction of removing the Secretary? I understand that one could argue that that should be a matter for the entire House. I should like to take up the point on which the Secretary of State intervened. Although the governing party may have an overall majority in the assembly—and although that majority will be reflected in the membership of the working Committees—that does not mean that every member of a Committee does not have his or her own opinion. The balance of feeling within a Committee may be different from the balance of feeling in the Cabinet and assembly as a whole. The Committee may therefore want to follow a different line from that being pursued by the Cabinet. It may concentrate on one issue and not relate it to the other issues that the Cabinet or Executive Committee has to consider in parallel, not least in terms of resources. I am not sure whether we have fully understood the balance between answerability and being inter pares—advocating what the Committee wants in the Executive Committee. There is the question of the balance within the Committees themselves. I accept that the balance in the Committees can be only that within the assembly; it could not be anything else. That is as good as anything that we, as a minority party, could want, although we, like other parties, aspire to being a majority party some time in the Welsh assembly. The Chairs of the Committees could be powerful people, as those who chair Select Committees sometimes are: one thinks of the tremendous work of Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. A Chair can be almost as powerful as a Minister—at least in terms of scrutiny, he or she is powerful. There will be an interesting relationship between the Chair and the Secretary, but they may not be of the same party; presumably, there will be a sharing of the Chairs. If they are not of the same party, do problems arise in terms of proper answerability and the working relationship that is necessary to allow quick and effective decision making? There could be a conflict between the two. I welcome the new clauses. More work will need to be done on them. As we are on Report, this is clearly a matter for another place. I would much rather that it had happened here, but questions still need to be answered before we can say what amendments need to be tabled. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Secretary of State will deal with some of them.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

I was saddened, although not critical of the fact, that, in the face of the weight of the establishment forces in Wales ranged against him—the advisory committee, which is taken from the great and the good in Wales, the Conservative party, the nationalist party and the Liberal Democrats—the Secretary of State has moved away from what was in the Bill originally. Various people criticised what was in the Bill, saying that it contained a local government model, as if that were wholly bad. In fact, it was not a local government model. I thought that the draftsman, or whoever instructed the draftsman, drew up an elegant model in the Bill, which lay somewhere between the local government model and a type of Cabinet system. I thought that it was well done, but my right hon. Friend has no doubt been pressurised. Whether he is actually happy with the direction in which he is moving, I do not know, but he certainly has moved. I took a note of what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech. He said that it was a "Cabinet-style process of decision-making." By the time he had concluded, it was going to be a Cabinet. Indeed, he made it clear that, once the procedures were drawn up, it would be a Cabinet. Let us make no bones about it: it will be a Cabinet and it will meet in secret. Ministers of the Cabinet, whether they have portfolios or not, will have red boxes or perhaps red and green boxes—I am not sure what the appropriate colour might be for this inclusivity or hybridity. They will have motor cars. Just as years ago the National Union of Mineworkers sometimes mirrored the coal owners and the coal owners sometimes mirrored the NUM, so the Welsh assembly will mirror Westminster in almost every form. We are to have at least one permanent secretary. I am sure that there will be more than one. There will be a second permanent secretary. Indeed, when I was at the Treasury, there were four second permanent secretaries and, beneath them, there were deputy permanent secretaries. no doubt there will be deputy permanent secretaries and second permanent secretaries and they will each talk to the next layer up. We will have the whole system. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) told us about multinational companies and his great experience of them. When it came to money, he was very cavalier— far more cavalier than a treasurer of a multinational company would be—and said that the Cabinet-type system might cost a little more. Of course it will, but we must remember that that money comes out of the budget: it comes out of money for hospitals and schools, so he had no right to be cavalier about it. It is not additional money that can come from somewhere else, wherever it can be found. So a Westminster structure will cost more money. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has succumbed to pressure to take that route. We are talking partly about secrecy. Those of us who have been round the course before—in 1978–79—felt that one reason for having a Welsh assembly was that the Welsh budget or allocation of money to Wales could never be debated on the Floor of the House as time did not allow for it. It was debated within the Welsh Office by civil servants and Ministers and, in most cases, proper decisions were reached. I make no criticism of that. However, there was no open debate of the allocation of funds to Wales; it was all done behind closed doors. Once we have moved to the black cars, the red boxes, the permanent secretaries, the Cabinets, the Premiers, the Chief Ministers and the First Secretaries, we will replicate exactly the same procedure. 6.30 pm Matters related to the allocation of funds will not be discussed in public because of commercial confidentiality or because there will be too many pressures. So it will all be decided by Ministers, with or without portfolio, sitting in Cardiff or wherever, making decisions behind closed doors.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

As always, the right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. Does he agree that the result to which he is alluding will arise because the concomitant of Cabinet Government—procedures for debating money Bills, budgets and so on—is not proposed for the Welsh assembly? So we have only half the package.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

Yes, but I am addressing my remarks to what we have—Executive devolution. Although I appreciate that there may be secondary legislation, the basic intention was to establish a body that would distribute the money that the Treasury allocates to the Welsh Office—mainly in secret. I make no criticism of Ministers, as that is the process. The money is then distributed to various sectors. The rate support grant is decided partly in public and allocated to housing and education. That is the nature of the beast. My hope was that at least that debate would take place in the open. I hope that I am wrong and that that will still happen, but I suspect that it will not once the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has his trappings of power. Indeed—who knows?—Perhaps the Ministers without portfolio will become Privy Councillors. Perhaps they will all be kissing hands and generally acquiring all the trappings of Westminster power. However, once that is set in motion, the nature of Government being what it is, everything will be decided in secret. All the other members of the assembly will be sitting around without very much to do. Like Government Back Benchers, they will be expected to approve the third way or whatever. We are here to facilitate—to make sure that, once the third way has been decided on, it will be carried out.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

My right hon. Friend could have fooled me.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

My right hon. Friend is amused. He should not take me too far on this issue, as he knows that we all subscribe 100 per cent. to the third way, despite the fact that occasionally we like to please ourselves and debate a few of the commas and full stops. Basically, we are all here to ensure that the third way proceeds easily. Most members of the assembly will be there to do the bidding of the Chief Minister, the First Secretary, the permanent secretaries and all the trappings of Westminster Government that, sadly, we are now transplanting or adding to the Welsh assembly. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who likes to appear as a moderniser, is in the vanguard with the traditionalists. He wants a Westminster model, as do the Welsh nationalists. I understand the purpose of the nationalists. They want to create the trappings of a state. It is a state that does not raise enough money to keep itself going, but we shall discuss that in other debates. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has succumbed, but even a man of his iron will sometimes has to bend and, on this occasion, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is bending.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I very much agree with what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has just said. The longer the debate proceeds, the more worried people should become. The Secretary of State's opening speech was very short. The proposal has appeared somewhat late in the day. I understand the reason for it—to create a clear sense of responsibility. I can see where it is coming from.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

It is coming from the Opposition Front Bench.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Yes, but I am also entitled to speak for myself. That may be a strange concept to the Labour party, but I am not put up against the wall by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and told what to say. We have had a loose discussion about the Cabinet style of Government. However, it is a term of art that has developed over many centuries. It originally grew out of the King's Privy Council. The Cabinet was a fundamentally secretive body, a function of Executive government because it had to be. It was concerned with the King's business and issues of war and peace. However, I thought that in the Welsh assembly we sought to create something very different. That is why I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Llanelli who spoke from the Back Benches, not the Front Bench. I am concerned that, sadly, in our own Chamber, because the Executive is drawn out of the legislature, people's primary ambition is to join the Executive. Therefore, more often than not, they will follow the party line on pretty well every occasion. The process has developed to a sophisticated degree. When the Americans were trying to organise their new constitution, they wisely decided that the Executive should be entirely separate from the legislature. Therefore, Congressmen are entirely independent. I am concerned that we are now replicating in the Welsh assembly the worst aspects of what happens in the House.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am following my hon. Friend's line of logic. Does he not agree that something much worse is being done? The very safeguards that we have in the House—my hon. Friend may regard them as too slight, but they exist none the less—in the form of positive debate of legislation and money Bills are precisely what is not being offered by the Secretary of State in respect of the Welsh assembly.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Therefore, the concentration of power in the Welsh Assembly may be much more serious than what has developed in the Westminster Parliament in the past 200 years. Anyone who approaches the matter with any seriousness should be extremely worried about that. Let us consider what is likely to happen. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Labour party becomes the governing party in the assembly and has an overall majority. Let us assume that the current Secretary of State becomes the First Secretary. He would have enormous power, so it is not surprising that he is considering carefully whether to take up that position. He would appoint his own Cabinet. Members of the Cabinet will not be separated from the Parliament or the legislature as they are here. They will not have to persuade the Parliament from a separate point of view; they will be embedded in its structure and sit on the Committees. Surely any self-respecting member of the majority party in the assembly will want to be a Secretary or a Minister and want to join the First Secretary's team. The First Secretary will appoint the Secretaries and they will be embedded into the Committee structure. Where will be the honest, open debate? As the right hon. Member for Llanelli said, speaking from the Back Benches, the assembly will develop a culture of secrecy and rule by a single party. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that, when he was on Merthyr Tydfil council, he felt that there was some secrecy on that body. I quite understand. Most of us were involved in local government before being elected to Parliament. The advantage of local government is that, because it is an administrative body, councillors sit on committees and elect a chairman. There is more sense of audience—member—participation in local government committees than there is in our governmental structures in this place, where ordinary Back Benchers exercise very little power. What worries me, therefore, is that we are embedding in the new assembly—we hoped that it would develop a third way—all the worst aspects of our centralised government structures. We should think twice before setting off down that road.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Several speeches this evening have highlighted the fact that there is now a problem with the legislation. We need to resolve it or to gain an undertaking that it will be resolved in another place. The problem is that, in moving away from the proposals of the referendum and the White Paper—at the request of the three Opposition parties and on the advice of the advisory committee—the Secretary of State has opted for a Cabinet-oriented system of government as his preferred choice. He has said, subject to the legislation proceeding in the Government's desired manner, that the Welsh Assembly will open using a Cabinet-style model—but that it will not have to follow that model. It can, in fact, revert to the original proposals in the first draft of the Bill as it reached the House a few months ago. That model was a Committee-style model, subject to two-thirds majorities and so on. The problem with commencing with a Cabinet-style model but allowing the assembly to opt for a Committee-style model later is that other consequential changes will need to be made to the Bill to make it consistent from day one. Had the Secretary of State done things the other way round, there would have been fewer problems. Starting with a Committee-style model would not necessitate so many consequential changes. The real problem is that the Secretary of State has expressed a preference for a Cabinet-style model from day one, but without the consequential changes. If we start by making a distinction between Front and Back Benchers, certain consequences will flow from that. Indeed, they lie behind my new clause 32 and new schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has pointed out, an assembly separate from the Executive will need a Clerk and a separate staff to protect the interests of Back Benchers and to give them advice on drafting amendments and obtaining information not supplied by the Government or the civil service. That is the reasoning behind new clause 33, which has the same purpose as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. Amendment no. 250 would amend clause 1 of the Bill, to drop the expression The Assembly shall be a body corporate". No such reference is to be found in the Bill setting up the Scottish Parliament, which is referred to simply as the Scottish Parliament. The Welsh assembly, however, is referred to as a body corporate. That is fine if we follow the Committee model but not if we follow the Cabinet model, which would give rise to a distinction between the Executive, run by the Cabinet, and the legislature—the quasi-parliamentary body which is to challenge, and occasionally change, what Front Benchers want to do. That is the whole point of Back Benchers, after all. We do not need the expression "a body corporate", any more than the Scottish Bill needs it. The Scotland Bill does not define the legal status of the Scottish Parliament. In a sense, all parliaments are sui generis, so it is pointless defining their legal status. If the Executive and the legislature are to be separated, there is no need to call the legislature a body corporate. I would argue that the expression should be omitted from the Bill.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman makes his points with great force. Does he agree that there is at least one further issue of equal magnitude: the question of clause 66, which would permit the so-called Cabinet to arrogate to itself the power to legislate, leaving the assembly only the ability to pray a negative resolution? So on the first day of meeting, the assembly could delegate all powers of legislation to the Cabinet and never reconvene, provided that it never prayed a negative resolution.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am grateful for that intervention. I cannot say that I had intended to cover the subject later in my speech, because I had not. Indeed, I had not spotted the significance that the hon. Gentleman discerns in the clause. Then there is the problem, if we adopt a Cabinet model, of the Official Secrets Act 1989, referred to in clause 79, which I suspect we will discuss later. It appears that it would be deemed to apply only to Front Benchers—the Executive Committee—and would thus need to be amended. We shall discuss that later, too, I suspect. Then we need to consider the departmental staff—the people who do the conventional civil service work. If BSE continues to be a problem, a vet from the state veterinary service in Scotland who visits a sick cow will be employed by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department, under the Scottish Parliament. In England, a cow suspected of having BSE will be visited by a vet employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In Wales, however, a sick cow will be visited by a Welsh assembly vet, not a vet from the Agriculture Department, because civil servants carrying out usual departmental work will belong not to Departments but to the Welsh assembly. Here, too, consequential changes are called for. We need to think seriously about two further changes, although they may seem optional. The first concerns the vote of confidence procedure that can trigger elections. We need to debate—I am not convinced of it myself—whether fixed-term elections can be sustained with a Cabinet system. What happens if the First Secretary or the Cabinet loses the confidence of the assembly? Could they stagger on for another four years after losing the confidence of the assembly, perhaps by replacing the First Secretary and the members of the Executive Committee? Would there be a right to ask for a dissolution, in the same way as the Scottish Parliament could? Finally, under a Cabinet system, would each party be required to elect its leader in advance of the elections? We know of the problems that the Tory party is experiencing in its consideration of the various voting systems—

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

indicated dissent.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am not making a party political point; I am simply saying that the Conservative party is considering the one member, one vote, system of electing its leader. Will that need to be done in Wales as well by changing the Welsh Labour party rules, as the Scottish Labour party did some 10 days ago when it said that the putative Scottish First Minister will need to be given a democratic mandate in the party political sense? If we are to adopt the Cabinet model, we must think about changing the rules in the Welsh Labour party. We could then have a Prime Minister designate, selected by one member, one vote. The alternative approach is to use the local government model, whereby the leader of the assembly is selected the day after the election from the 20 or so—or however many is required to have a majority—of the 35 Members elected. The minimum number of votes with which one could win a majority in the Welsh assembly is 31. If someone is voted for by 31 Members of the Assembly, as Labour might hope to achieve, 16 will constitute a majority. If a person can get 16 votes on the day after the election, he or she will be the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. Although those 16 people will have been voted in by the people of Wales, theirs will not constitute a big democratic mandate as compared with that of the British Prime Minister or the Scottish First Minister. That may not be a matter for this House, but it is a matter for all the parties represented in this House which will contest the election. They are concerned with the quality of the democratic mandate that flows from having a Cabinet system. The points that I have made follow the same line as those made by the vast majority of Labour Members who have spoken. If we adopt a Cabinet system, at least initially, we need to follow through the changes logically so that we have a consistent package. If we do not—many Labour Members think that we should not—that is fine, because we will not need to make those consequential changes until we opt for a Cabinet model. However, if we adopt the Cabinet model first, we need to make the consequential changes that go with that so that we have a coherent whole. If we do it the other way around, there will be less of a problem, provided that permission is included in the Bill. I am inclined to think that we should not have gone down this road, in spite of the pressing and blandishments of all three Opposition parties and of the advisory committee. It is far too easy to make the fundamental mistake of choosing a Westminster solution to a Welsh problem and Welsh political circumstances. We have not yet reached the stage where we need to opt for the kind of recommendations that have been made by all three Opposition parties because they are far too liable to "Westminsterise" the new Welsh democratic creation which we have spent so much time and trouble trying to get right.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said. We are almost always on opposite sides of the argument in this Chamber, but he made some good points. I agree that the Bill must be logical. However, I support the changes proposed by the Government because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, a Cabinet system would be better because it recognises what will inevitably happen: after an election, the party with a majority will hold a meeting to elect who it wants to run the Committees. The proposed change makes that more explicit than it would be if we adopted the local government model. The whole tenor of the Bill is that a further tier of government is required in Wales, so it is right to recognise it in this form. A Cabinet system would clearly delineate who is running the assembly and who is on the Opposition side. Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member said that we would have shadow Secretaries next. In many respects, that could be a good thing. I believe that an Administration, an Opposition and some debate are what democratic structures are about. We have heard a great deal about inclusivity and the new politics, but once we get an assembly I suspect that it will be politics as we have always known them, with parties competing, arguing, debating and putting forward their points. The key point about a Cabinet system is that it allows a party to stand on a platform before the electorate. At the end of an election, if that party commands a majority within the assembly, it will have the mechanisms to carry out its mandate. That provides some accountability, which the more general and diffuse local government model does not provide. I support my right hon. Friend's amendment to limit the number of Assembly Secretaries to eight. Under the Bill as it stands, their number could be unlimited. The idea of a non-portfolio Secretary is interesting. I am surprised that 20 Members will be elected on the alternative member system without constituencies and they could have non-jobs and be Ministers, although, thinking about it more carefully, a "non-portfolio Secretary" sounds like a Chief Whip. In this new politics, I am sure that Whips will run the political structure. Patronage is part of the system and clearly goes with the alternative member system. After all, parties will appoint placemen on those lists. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made a good point about the home civil service. Civil servants will sometimes have divided loyalties, particularly when they represent this country in European institutions. That reveals a more difficult problem—the question of political appointees. If Cabinet members feel that they do not have the whole-hearted loyalty of home civil servants, they may fill that vacuum by making more political appointments. Nothing in the Bill stops them doing that. Most political parties would think that it is perfectly sensible to have political advisers, but it is probably inevitable that, if we have a First Secretary, we shall have a First Secretary's policy unit, press secretary and other appointments. The Government should think a little more about that. If they do not make it clear to whom people are responsible, the vacuum may be filled by political appointees from a political party, who may start to play a larger role within the assembly's political affairs than would be the case in the British political system. Despite criticism by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, the British system has few political appointees or special advisers to Prime Ministers or Ministers. Most advisers are career civil servants, which is how it should be. If the assembly is not in control of its own civil servants because they form part of the home civil service, it will be tempted to make political appointments. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke about votes of confidence, which would become an important concept. There would no doubt be a vote of confidence in the First Secretary, but the fact that there are fixed four-year terms would be a problem. Elections are not always a problem, but they can solve problems if there is a logjam in a legislative assembly.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Will my hon. Friend expand the point which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) did not quite make, and my hon. Friend has not quite made? Will he go on to say that, in this case, a strange situation could arise in respect of the Committee that had delegated authority to the Secretary in the first place? If its political position altered, for example by movement across the Floor of one person, the Committee could reabsorb and de-delegate the power, thereby causing a crisis not just of confidence but of legislative authority.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

My hon. Friend raises a good point. The issue of hon. Members leaving parties brings us back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes about the registration of political parties. That forms part of the Bill—or the cake—that we have not seen, and is relevant to the way in which political parties operate. The ability to dissolve is an important part of the political process. A vote of confidence may sometimes be moved and carried, and the party concerned may be unable to assemble sufficient forces to produce an alternative to run the assembly; chaos would ensue. The assembly will dispose of a good deal of money, and will provide important services for the people of Wales. We therefore need to be clear about what will happen under the new arrangements. That brings us to the question of concordats, in their broadest sense. Will a concordat be concluded with a First Secretary—in effect, the Cabinet—and, if that First Secretary is removed, will the concordat become null and void? Or can the system involving the First Secretary and the Cabinet change, while the concordat remains for the four-year period that may have been agreed with the assembly? That is a grey area, and I think that we should hear a bit more about how the system will work. Surely it is sensible for an administration involving a First Secretary, Assembly Secretaries and a Cabinet system to agree a concordat with the United Kingdom Government. If that administration were removed, perhaps the terms of the concordat should also go, and should not be inherited by any successor body. 7 pm Many parts of the Bill may well need tidying up because of proposed changes, but I broadly welcome the change to a Cabinet system. It will make the assembly more accountable, and, as I said at the outset, it will provide a platform, in that the manifesto presented to the electorate will have to be pushed through an assembly explicitly rather than behind closed doors. In local government, there is a pretence that there is a committee system in which everyone has a say, but, having served in local government for many years, I know that, in practice, the most important decisions are made in group meetings rather than in debates in the chamber. I served on authorities that the Liberal Democrats ran for many years, and theirs was not the most inclusive, democratic, open way of doing things. They had group meetings and drummed measures through, very much like everyone else. I welcome the changes overall, but there are certain problems. We must look at the question of concordats, and at votes of confidence and how First Secretaries are removed. There is also the question of civil servants' loyalty. My sympathies are not particularly with the assembly, but, if it is to exist, it is logical for it to employ—directly or otherwise—a certain number of civil servants, even in senior posts, rather than people being seconded or working for the home civil service.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I firmly believe that the Government have no reason to be apologetic or defensive about new clauses 20 to 24. Their commitment to the new clauses reflects their willingness to listen to everyone who is genuinely committed to the idea of a successful assembly—and a successful assembly, which will deliver in terms of the expectations that have arisen in Wales, will need a strong executive wing. The Bill does not refer to a Cabinet as such; it refers to an Executive Committee. I cannot see for the life of me what all the fuss is about. In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) pointed out that, in local government, decisions are normally made behind the scenes, by the ruling group. I agree, and I speak as one who served in local government before becoming a Member of Parliament. The new clauses and amendments would introduce three important changes that would make the assembly more effective. First, they would make executive decision making more accountable, and would increase the focus—and, for that matter, political control—that can be brought to bear on civil servants. That is essential. Secondly, they would increase the efficiency and speed of decision making. That, too, is essential. One of the criticisms of the local government system in its purest form was that it was unwieldy, and incapable of responding speedily when quick decisions were required. Is it not significant that the present Administration are embarking on a reform of local government? After all, it is generally felt that the Committee system tends to be too slow, and that it lacks transparency. The third important aspect of the proposed changes is that the assembly's status would be enhanced. We must be careful not to ascribe too many of the trappings of power to the assembly, because this Parliament is sovereign; but, in my view, it is essential for the public to see who is responsible for each area of responsibility. There is a tension between the roles of Back Benchers and executive Assembly Secretaries. I saw force in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We cannot allow the assembly to adopt the worst practices of Westminster, where the power of the Executive has at times been far too great. There must be a balance between the scrutinising work of Back Benchers and the role of those with executive functions. The Bill proposes the establishment of a council in partnership with local government, a voting system, the establishment of various advisory bodies and various other measures which, I am sure, will result from greater input into the work of drawing up Standing Orders. There will have to be a proper and fair balance between the Executive and Back Benchers. There will have to be steps to safeguard the role of Back Benchers and allow them to perform independently, but I welcome the new clauses. They give the assembly the tools that it needs to complete an important job.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I want to pick up the business analogy made by my temporary. hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), which I found completely bizarre. No one else has suggested that we are making a major constitutional change along the lines of a change made by business. For one thing, the prospectus on the basis of which we set out back in the summer had the support of only 25 per cent. of the population. I know that Labour Members do not like that, but it is something to think about. They might also remember that management consultants like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will go for downsizing and clearness of decision making. I am afraid that that is being lost in the whole devolution process. Overheads and over-management are a subject on which management consultants like the hon. Gentleman concentrate. Once devolution has happened, all Ministers will be without jobs. More important, however, is the fact that the new clauses go halfway towards improving what was set out in the original Bill. There is no doubt—as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said so eloquently—that there are serious doubts about the attempt to turn the assembly into a local government-style institution. We have gone halfway; the problem is that the semi-Cabinet proposed by the new clauses and amendment is almost autonomous. It constitutes yet another layer. We have a Secretary of State, we will have a mini-Cabinet, and we will have the assembly. Once power has been devolved to the mini-Cabinet, I see no mechanism whereby the assembly can claw it back and make the Cabinet accountable. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would answer that point. We are going all the way to devolving power to the assembly. We are told that the problem of the democratic deficit will be resolved, and that all will be green in the new Wales. I fear, however, that we shall hand power to a small group of people in the assembly, after which we shall be trapped. I see no mechanism in the new clauses and amendments, or in the Bill, whereby the power can be returned. All that Opposition Members are trying to achieve will be lost. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that we have gone halfway from a semi-local government system to a Cabinet system, but not all the way. I ask Labour Members not to keep knocking the Cabinet system. It has evolved over many centuries, and it works well. What are their criticisms of such a system, when it is set up properly? They are right to criticise the new clauses and amendments, because they do not go far enough. The Cabinet will not be accountable to the assembly.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the fact that hon. Members have started from different positions in respect of what they would prefer, it has been remarkable that, to all intents and purposes, there has been a cross-party tripartite agreement between almost all the Secretary of State's Back Benchers—with one notable exception—the leader of Plaid Cymru and the Conservative party, that, if the new clauses are to be accepted, there also need to be some checks? The one party that takes a different view is the Liberal Democrat party, which is left stranded on an island with the Secretary of State.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The Liberal Democrats are basically giving management advice. They are concerned about transport systems and the railway. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is now virtual cross-party unanimity that the matter should be looked at again, possibly in another place. Of course, given the way that the Secretary of State has been behaving this week, perhaps he will bounce us with yet more amendments tomorrow. I do not think that the new clauses and amendments in this group will work. The right hon. Gentleman is on the right track, but, when he replies to the debate, I want him to give me a quick answer on how the mini-Cabinet will be accountable back to the assembly, and whether he has any further plans in this regard.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I want to speak to amendment (d), in my name. Most of the points that I wanted to make have already been made. My main purpose in tabling the amendment was to draw attention to the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of one person, by allowing the First Secretary to appoint the Secretaries who will be members of the Executive Committee without reference to the rest of the assembly. During the devolution campaign, we campaigned on open government and transparency in decision making. There is a danger that the public could perceive power to have shifted to a selected group chosen by the First Secretary, rather than being vested in the assembly. It is the system that operates in Westminster, but that system has built up over many centuries. It is not what we want slavishly to follow in the Welsh assembly. We are starting with a blank sheet, so we should have something unique to Wales, not something that apes another system. I strongly believe that there should be as little patronage as possible, because we all know that patronage often leads to the abuse of patronage. We have seen that in the development of the quango state in Wales over the past 18 years. The power to hire and fire should not be uncontrolled. There must be constraints so that the Executive—the quasi-Cabinet—will not be dependent on and built around just one person. Allowing the assembly to endorse the Secretaries—the members of the Executive Committee—would ensure that a concentration of power would not be given to one person. He or she should not be allowed to choose those members. There may be a danger that too much power will be concentrated in the Executive, which may result in Back-Bench Members of the Assembly being dependent on the good will of the First Secretary and the Secretaries, which would be unsatisfactory. It is important that the Committees are involved in policy making, and I welcome the discretion that the assembly is being given. We want as inclusive a system as possible. There is an issue surrounding Cabinet systems operating in secret. There should be as little divide as possible between the Secretaries and the Members. Only 60 Members make a small group to operate a Cabinet system. It is important how the system will appear to the outside world. We are trying to develop a new model, and having a partnership council with local government, business and the voluntary sector will help the assembly to be open and accountable. However, many voluntary organisations are uneasy about the delegation of considerable power to the Secretaries over the heads of the Committees. It is important that the Committees and the Secretaries work together in an effective way. As has been said, it is possible that some members of the Executive may not be linked to the subject Committees. In that case, it is even more important that they are endorsed and accepted by the whole assembly. Obviously, the Assembly Secretaries will have some delegated authority, but accountability to their respective Committees should be built in. I welcome the fact that the assembly will be given the discretion to work that out. There may be some suspicion about the move to a Cabinet system because, in some ways, that runs counter to the spirit of accountable democracy. Having a democratic layer, such as that suggested in my amendment, would be more in the spirit of the new politics that we hope to achieve in Wales.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak so soon after my last piece of spellbinding oratory at 6.15 this morning, when I had the Adjournment debate. One piece of advice that I will give the Secretary of State is that, if the assembly decides to have Adjournment debates, they should start the day, not end it. [Interruption.] It is another piece of constructive advice from the Conservative party. That is how we want to continue. We welcome the Government new clauses. We were not trying to be destructive in our attempt to get more time to debate all the new clauses and amendments. However, we are not being given that opportunity, so we will try to improve the Bill as much as we can in the two days at our disposal, before it goes to the other place. We feel that the Secretary of State has listened to us. [Interruption.] Perhaps only a little bit, but that is a start—late in the day though it may be. We are debating changes that we and other political parties have been seeking and on which the right hon. Gentleman's advisory group gave him guidance. There is a lot of popular support for the changes, although we have heard some reservations expressed in the Chamber today. The fact that there has been such unanimity across the parties is sufficient reason for us to question some of the consequences of the new clauses, which involve major changes.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but is it not a most depressing state of affairs? However suspicious we Conservatives may be of the whole proposal for Welsh devolution, at least it has been possible for us to share, albeit in a mild way and with some cynicism, the Utopianism of some of the proposals. Yet we are now being asked to consider amendments that will reverse all that and, in its place, we are being asked to accept something that will be far worse.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The debate has shown that there will be a great deal of theorising about what will constitute the workings of the assembly. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said earlier, the assembly will start to devise its own trappings and systems, for good or for ill. It will start to mirror Westminster or somewhere else—but I suspect Westminster. I was reading in the business section of The Western Mail the view that one of the plagues of Westminster is the lobby system—yet a new lobbying group is being launched in Wales, led by Leighton Andrews and Andrew Davies, who are known to the Secretary of State. The newspaper quotes Leighton Andrews as saying: There are some good generalist PR companies in Wales but they neither have the contacts nor the experience of the new Welsh political situation to be able to advise on public affairs. We are already seeing in Wales something that many people in Westminster deride. They think that the lobby groups have too much power. A group is starting up in Wales before the first brick of the assembly is laid.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

It will be more worth while to lobby the Welsh assembly, because the people being lobbied will have money to distribute.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am sure that that has not been lost on Leighton Andrews and Andrew Davies. I suspect that it is one of the reasons why they have not only set themselves up but managed to secure positive coverage on the front page of the Western Mail business section. We asked about the financial aspects of the changes, and I rather regretted the fact that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that it did not really matter whether the figure was a couple of per cent. below or a couple of per cent. above. We are talking large sums of money, and we want to seek good value for the people of Wales in the setting up of the assembly, as well as in its running costs, to ensure that money is not being diverted away from front-line services and lost in bureaucracy. We want to get all that as right as we can. I know that the Secretary of State will want to answer some of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about how the new Cabinet-style system will work. The analogy with a barking duck or a quacking dog was used, and we should like to know exactly what the system will be like, although we acknowledge the fact that it will evolve. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned a Whip system. I am sure that, although that is not on the face of the Bill, such a system will come about, and that persuasion and patronage will be exercised by the Whips. We have tabled several amendments about the number of Assembly Secretaries. As the assembly will consist of only 60 Members, we think that eight Secretaries is the right number. With the First Secretary, that will mean that, with 60 Members, there will be nine Secretaries altogether. I hope that the Secretary of State will look favourably on that idea, although we accept that the assembly will be able to make changes if a two-thirds majority can be secured. Before I finish, I must ask the Secretary of State one or two questions. One is about the relationship between the First Secretary, the Assembly Secretaries and the assembly itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman say more about that, and also about the relationship between those three and the Secretary of State—unless, of course, the Secretary of State and the First Secretary will be the same person. The right hon. Gentleman need not worry; I shall not ask whether he will stand for the assembly. I understand that, after the way in which he performed over the siting of the assembly, he has not made up his mind.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

No, I cannot, because I must bring my speech to an end. Will the Secretary of State say something about our amendments on the relationships involving the Select Committees, and tell us whether we can go down the route suggested? I have served on three Select Committees since becoming a Member of Parliament, and they are powerful bodies. We want to ensure that the parallel organisations in Wales grow up, serve the assembly well and become a powerful influence for good. Will the Secretary of State accept the fact that our suggestions, both now and in the past, have been right for the assembly, but also that there are great reservations about the changes that he has made? We want to be clear about what will happen when the assembly adopts the changes—although we know that they may not represent the final format, and that the assembly may want to make its own improvements. The Secretary of State has started to listen, and he still has another day and a half to accept some of our amendments.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

If I had to listen to many more speeches like that, I could be persuaded not to spend my time listening. However, I welcome the strong support that has been shown for our proposals by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and by the Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat spokesmen. I shall make clear at the outset a point that I tried to develop in the opening part of the debate: we are not talking about a choice between either a local government system or a Cabinet system, but about a new political institution that must be built by drawing the best from both local government and central Government practices. We shall have the best of a Cabinet system and a Westminster system, as well as the best of a local government system. I believe that the new political institution that we are creating will be able to establish the principles of inclusivity and collective decision making, while maintaining clear lines of accountability and effective decision making. That is what we are trying to achieve, and I have no doubt that our amendments will achieve it. Many separate and sometimes conflicting amendments have been tabled, and I shall try to deal with as many as I can during the limited time left to me. Three separate sets of amendments were tabled to new clause 20. Amendment (c) would make the First Secretary's appointments of individual Assembly Secretaries subject to the approval of the subject Committees of which they will become members. Amendment (d) would make each appointment of an Assembly Secretary subject to ratification by the assembly as a whole. Amendments (a) and (b) would remove the ability of the First Secretary to appoint a limited number of non-portfolio members of the Executive Committee, and require him or her to appoint a financial secretary and a business manager. They would also place on the face of the Bill a limit of eight on the maximum number of Assembly Secretaries whom the First Secretary could appoint. I understand the motivation behind amendments (c) and (d). I am not, however, persuaded to accept them. The concern is that, under the Government's amendments, there would be excessive powers of patronage for the First Secretary in respect of appointments to the Executive Committee. However, I remind the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), that the First Secretary's power is not unconstrained. The assembly elects the First Secretary, and it will always be open to it to replace the First Secretary with another appointee if it is clear that the First Secretary's proposed appointments or other actions are inappropriate. Amendment (c) may reveal a concern that it will not be easy for a subject Committee to work with a particular individual who has been appointed as the Assembly Secretary for that policy area. I understand that argument, but I do not accept it. It will be incumbent on the First Secretary to make appointments which will command general respect in the assembly, and it will be incumbent on those appointed to work with their subject committees in a constructive and positive way. That will form an important part of the accountability pressures to which they will be subject. That point was raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Clearly, if an individual Assembly Secretary's working relationship with his or her subject committee breaks down, that would be likely to constitute good grounds for replacing that Secretary with someone more capable of establishing a proper partnership with the Committee. The precise nature of the relationship between the Assembly Secretary and the subject Committee will have to develop as the assembly is elected and its internal procedures develop. The Government are not persuaded that it would be sensible to accept amendments (a) and (b). In fact, we are surprised at the proposal that the First Secretary should be put under a legal duty to make two specific appointments, of a financial secretary and a business manager, when those roles are not defined, which makes the amendments defective. I accept that there may be a case for such appointments—but it is hardly consistent with the concept of a Cabinet system that the First Secretary's choice of offices to be filled should be constrained in that way as a matter of law. We are not persuaded by that idea. The amendments tabled to new clauses 21 and 22 are concerned with the names of the Executive Committee and the subject Committees. As far as nomenclature is concerned, it will already be possible under the Government's proposals for the assembly to designate the Executive Committee as the assembly Cabinet, and call the subject Committees Select Committees, if it wishes to do so; those names can appear in Standing Orders. The more important point, however, is what the Committees will do and how they will operate, which I have already dealt with in introducing new clauses 20 to 24. New clause 24 makes provision for the delegation of functions to the assembly's staff. It therefore extends to the assembly the application of the Carltona principle, in accordance with which it is legally permissible for a duly authorised civil servant in a central Government Department to act on behalf of his or her Minister in the performance of statutory functions. Decisions made by planning inspectors provide one example of functions being performed by officials on behalf of Ministers; another example is the confirmation of byelaws. Amendments (a) to (h) to new clause 24 would prevent the assembly from delegating any "functions" to staff, but would limit delegation to "administrative duties"—a point that was made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

I have too many points to reply to. The Government believe that the assembly should be able to take advantage of the Carltona principle if it wishes, and new clause 24 as drafted permits that. The clause is purely facilitative—there is no requirement to delegate any function to staff—and its main purpose is to ensure that, if such delegation does take place, it is done in a manner compatible with the permanent secretary's overall responsibilities for the management of the staff. New clause 25 proposes three categories of assembly staff—parliamentary staff, political staff and executive staff. All, it appears, would be civil servants. New clause 29 would require the Minister responsible for the civil service to consult the assembly on codes of practice and procedure applicable to assembly staff who are civil servants. Amendments Nos. 231 to 233 envisage the appointment of not more than 10 assembly officers, whose functions are not described in the amendments but who certainly would not be civil servants. Finally, new clauses 32 and 33 and new schedule 1 envisage the creation of a Welsh Assembly Corporate Body with the powers to hold property, employ staff and enter into contracts. To make room for that, the assembly would be deprived by amendment No. 250 of its Corporate Body status and its legal status allowed to float in the void. Therefore, that makes the amendment unacceptable. The amendments and new clauses have a common theme—the position of the assembly staff. Under the Bill, they are to be civil servants. That follows logically from the executive character of the assembly and the fact that it will perform its functions on behalf of the Crown. The position of assembly staff, and the support which will be provided for Assembly Members, is being considered by my assembly advisory group. The statutory assembly's staff will be civil servants, operating to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and political impartiality which apply throughout the United Kingdom. They will have to be organised to support Assembly Members in the carrying out of their various and different roles. Most of the staff will work in support of the Assembly Secretaries— It being half-past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SUBJECT COMMITTEES

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS

EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY ASSEMBLY STAFF

STATUS OF WELSH PUBLIC RECORDS

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 17—Transfer of responsibility. Government new clause 18—Meaning of "Welsh public records". Government Amendments Nos. 113 to 115, 118 and 99 to 102.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

We said on Second Reading that we would bring forward amendments to make new provision for Welsh public records. I am pleased to present the new clauses and amendments now, and the House will wish me to explain their effect in a little detail. There are three new clauses and a number of consequential amendments. The broad effect of the new clauses is as follows. First, we propose that there should be created a new category of Welsh public records. As the House may know, there is no separate record office for Wales at present and most public records relating to Wales are held in the Public Record Office at Kew. That is very different from the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where national record offices hold records relating to those countries. The proposal, therefore, is that, simultaneously with the establishment of the assembly, a new category of Welsh public record will be created and, in the fulness of time, responsibility for them will be transferred by order to the assembly. I shall explain what records will fall within the new category—they are set out in new clause 18. The first will be those of the assembly itself. The Public Record Office does not, as a matter of principle, hold records of any elected bodies. It follows that, without the provision that we are making, there would not be proper provision for the assembly's records. The second category will be records of the Welsh Office. That is particularly appropriate because the Department's records have now to become available under the 30-year rule. Third will be the records of other bodies with responsibilities in Wales in areas in which the assembly has responsibilities—health bodies, a number of listed public bodies and the records of bodies that may, at a later date, be made subject to the new provisions by order. The idea is to be able to extend, where that is considered appropriate, the category of Welsh public records to a wider range of non-departmental public bodies than the 1958 Act currently applies to, but that power would not be exercisable without the assembly formally resolving to request the Lord Chancellor to do so. In such circumstances, the assembly would want, first, to consult the affected bodies. The new category of Welsh public records will have no operational significance unless and until my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has departmental responsibility for public records, makes a transfer of responsibility order under new clause 17. The effect of such an order, which can be made only after consultation with the assembly, would be to transfer to the assembly responsibility for the preservation of Welsh public records covered by the order and responsibility for making them available for public inspection.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's excellent decision. I have perhaps spent too much of my time at the Public Record Office at Kew searching among Welsh Office or Welsh documents of one kind or another, and the new clause will give students and research assistants much better access than was possible at Kew, with the additional cost that spending time there entailed. The BD category at Kew applies to Welsh documents, some of which go back to 1945–46, with the old Board of Trade documents. Will they also be available for transfer, as opposed to those post-1964? They are extremely valuable and many reflect the evolution of Welsh administrative life before the establishment of the Welsh Office. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

As always I am grateful for my hon. Friend's vigorous and wholehearted support. I am only sorry that during the previous debate, when he expressed full and vigorous support for Government policy, we had to change the policy. On this occasion, I assure him that his support is welcome and it will ensure that my determination to proceed with the proposal as it stands is set even deeper in concrete. I hope to be able to give my hon. Friend a specific answer by the usual method before the end of the debate. If I cannot do that, I shall write to him. It may well be that the answer is yes. I am having some difficulty with the calligraphy. A transfer of responsibility order will also contain provisions based on the Public Records Act 1958 on requirements for preservation, so there is no question that a lower standard of preservation of the records will follow from the making of such an order. Furthermore, such an order will designate a place within Wales to which Welsh public records may be transferred from the Public Record Office. No decision has yet been made about where that should be, and there will be no need to reach such a decision for some time yet. In due course, a study will be undertaken of the options. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make in that regard, I shall listen carefully.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I understand that at the moment most Welsh Office records are in the Embankment building—an old munitions building that is the least advisable building for such a purpose. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not go out to massive tendering of the kind that we had for the new assembly, and that we have a public record office in which Welsh records will fit.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter further, and I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend's observations. We have also had to amend clause 148 to ensure that it covers a transfer of responsibility order made by the Lord Chancellor, who is not a Secretary of State. That is the reasoning behind amendment No. 99. I should make clear that all the clauses simply facilitate a process of, in effect, establishing a location in Wales for the preservation and public inspection of records relating to Wales. They do not require that to happen. The assembly will clearly need from the outset to preserve its records in accordance with the 1958 Act, but there is no reason necessarily to suppose that an early transfer of responsibility order will be made.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I support the idea of Welsh records going to Wales, but how far back will they go? There will come a point when extricating English and Welsh records will be difficult. We might have to wait for a more detailed presentation, but there might be objections if certain hybrid records were transferred.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The matter can obviously be sensitive. The hon. Gentleman's point is fair and will be taken into consideration when we consider the nature of the records that will be held in Wales. The new clauses will facilitate the provision of a record office rather than require it. The assembly will have to consider the options and the costs, in consultation with the Public Record Office and the Lord Chancellor, to see whether and when the powers should be exercised. Nevertheless, the new clauses represent a major step forward in identifying a discrete category of records specifically relating to Welsh public administration. They hold out the prospect of such records being held and made available for public inspection in Wales.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I shall be brief. I intervened a couple of times in my right hon. Friend's speech because I feared that there would not be enough time for me to speak. I should like to underline my support for and appreciation of the proposals. It may not have been the easiest of battles to obtain the powers in the new clauses. The Public Record Office is a jealous guardian of its powers and responsibilities and I imagine that the Lord Chancellor's Office is, too. If there has been a bit of an argument, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on winning it. It is a significant one. Welsh historical research has suffered considerably from the fact that records are held at Kew. It is an expensive business for a 22 or 23-year-old to come up to Kew and spend time at the Public Record Office to work through the available documents. Photocopying costs are enormous. I have the great fortune that I am here and can sneak out for an hour or two to do my research. A great deal of important research into Welsh public administration during the past 40 or 50 years has been made more difficult by the location of records at Kew. I hope that the Lord Chancellor's office will take the most generous attitude to the matter. I understand the sensitivities that have been mentioned, but there are discrete categories of documents such as the BD documents. The BD documents do not belong to the Welsh Office because they belonged to the regional division of the Board of Trade after 1945, but that was the time of the birth of a distinctive Welsh administration. It was born out of the war. The records from the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Production and various Departments that survived the war and led to the regeneration of communities such as mine ought to come home. I do not want to over-egg the matter, but the documents are the equivalent of our Elgin marbles. I welcome them home and I hope that they will find a fitting and proper home. I hope that, unlike what has happened on other aspects of our debates, we do not have a quarrel or squabble about where and in what way we shall have our records at home. I thank my right hon. Friend for winning whatever battle he has won to achieve this result.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman for Mertyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has said. The categories of documents about which he is concerned cause me no concern at all. I stand to be corrected by the Secretary of State, but it seems to me that the powers could extend to documents from many years before those to which the hon. Gentleman referred—from a time when Wales had not become a separate administrative unit. People studying that time rather than Wales's development as a separate administrative unit might wish to study those documents. That would cause problems, but if I understand correctly what the Secretary of State said, that is not the category of document about which he is concerned. I understand that it is not the sort of document about which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is concerned, either. I simply raise a flag to say that we will come to a point at which we will come across sensitive documents.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I do not think that we should concede what the hon. Gentleman says. If documents from before 1536 and the Act of Union—I am not a mediaeval historian, so I do not know what the records look like—are available, why should they not be moved to Wales, except for the reason that we get into the amazing world of preservation? Let us concentrate on more recent documents that would be helpful in developing our contemporary Welsh history.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

On that, the hon. Gentleman and I can agree. I should only say that if we go back to the council of the marches we are dealing with matters that pertain to both sides of the border. I imagine that it is likely that there will be some objection from people dealing with records relating to Shropshire and Herefordshire if the documents are moved to a new depot in Wales. These are matters of some sensitivity, but I am prepared to accept that we should not labour them too much. I simply register the point that we have a common history and splitting archives is a complex matter. It being a quarter to Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY

MEANING OF "WELSH PUBLIC RECORDS"

CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESS

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

This new clause discharges the undertaking that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 2 March, when we debated her amendment about a scheme to sustain and promote business in Wales. It is right that the Bill should require consultation between representatives of business and the assembly, but it should do so in a flexible way. Business will be affected by many aspects of the assembly's work, so a scheme or more rigid form of consultation would not have been practical or desirable in our view. The new clause leaves it to the assembly to judge which representatives of business it is appropriate to consult, the frequency of consultation and the matters about which there should be consultation.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

I have no objection to the assembly consulting business. We have to extend the process of consultation to every aspect of our lives. What worries me is that the assembly should consult not only the shareholders but people on the shop floor or on building sites who are not generally regarded as part of the business community. I should have liked the new clause to refer to the need to consult not only business but the trade unions—the very organisations that gave birth to the Labour party that allowed the Minister to be in the privileged position that he is in today. If the trade unions are not consulted, the assembly will be consulting some business people such as the firm in my community—

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I welcome my hon. Friend's unequivocal support for the Government's position. He will know that, in keeping with best modern European practice, the term "business" is used to describe both sides of business. To give him the assurance he seeks, the expectation is that the assembly will be required to consult both employers and the trade union movement. I was going to come to that very point, but now that my hon. Friend has raised it with me, I can delete it from my introductory remarks. Another important flexibility is that the assembly would be able to consult business representatives not only about the prospective exercise of functions but about measures that have already been adopted by the assembly and which have had an impact on business interests. For example, having operated a particular policy for a time, the assembly could choose to review with business or trade union representatives what effect it had had, and consult them on possible changes to the policy. I welcome the support that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and his colleagues have given to the Government's proposal by putting their names to new clause 19. Amendment No. 204 would remove the explicit reference in clause 64 to consultation with representatives of business about regulatory appraisals. The Government cannot accept the amendment. If its purpose is to prevent consultation with representatives of business under clause 64, it will fail. The clause would still require the subordinate legislation procedures to include provision for "appropriate consultation", and the standing orders could include consultation with representatives of business as part of that. If the amendment's purpose is to make the point that there is no need to include a specific reference to consultation with representatives of business in clause 64, given the general nature of the duty in new clause 19, I have to disagree with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The specific requirement for the subordinate legislation procedures to include provision for consultation with business representatives is not limited by the general duty in the new clause. We want it to be clear that the assembly cannot avoid consulting business representatives about regulatory appraisals under clause 64 by carrying out more general consultation under new clause 19. I am sure that new clause 19 will be warmly welcomed by business in Wales as proof of our commitment to a positive partnership between the assembly and the business sector. I ask the House to agree that the new clause be added to the Bill.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

I had hoped for a grudging acknowledgement of our contribution to the new clause—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State acknowledged a contribution from a Labour Member, but I seem to remember that we had a constructive debate about appliance cost assessments and the need for the Welsh assembly to produce them when legislating. There were exchanges in Committee about whether it was necessary to include in the Bill a requirement for compliance cost assessments. The Minister replying at the time said that legislation always provided for them, so it was not necessary to mention them specifically in the Bill. However, plenty of legislation does not provide for them because they were not in vogue when that particular legislation was passed, although a reference to them would have been a useful addition. To some extent, consultation with business is a mild substitute for the requirement to carry out compliance cost assessments.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am sorry if I inadvertently offended the hon. Gentleman—had I done it deliberately, it would have been another matter. I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) because it was her amendment that gave rise to the debate, but I fully acknowledge the support that came from all parts of the Chamber, including from those on the Opposition Front Bench, when we debated the matter.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

It was extremely gracious of the Secretary of State to acknowledge that. Having said that, I shall now sour the atmosphere again with a few acidic remarks. The problem with a new clause of this nature is that it is so general that, as we saw from the Secretary of State's exchanges with the hon. Member for Llanelli, it could be interpreted so widely.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

Blaenau Gwent.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

You had better apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

I am in a hole, but I shall not dig any deeper. The Secretary of State serenaded the new clause and said that it was not "rigid", but that leaves a bit to be desired. Not only does it not specify the business representatives who should be consulted—every quarter of the House will have its own ideas about who those representatives should be, thus rendering the new clause almost meaningless—but the Secretary of State compounded the error by going on to talk about "both sides of business". In fact, the modem idea is that we do not divide business into sides. Employers and shareholders should be treated as a single unit, working harmoniously and co-operatively together for the benefit of the business, its customers and the community as a whole. However, it would be churlish of us not to welcome the new clause. As I said, it is not a proper substitute for compliance cost assessments, which is what business really wants. Business wants a clear explanation of the costs and benefits of particular legislation and how it will impact on its affairs in particular, and on business in general. It is too easy for legislators—we are setting up another body of legislators—to have good ideas which can prove hugely costly to the people on the ground who have to implement them. We are already living in an over-regulated society, and I fear that new clause 19 will not protect business from the tendency of legislators to over-regulate. As for amendment No. 204 tabled by Plaid Cymru, I am at a loss to know why that party wishes to delete any obligation to consult businesses on the particular issue of subordinate legislation, because it seems that that is the very point at which an input from business should be most valuable. After all, it is business that ultimately generates the wealth that will pay the taxes that will fund the activities of the Welsh assembly. If the assembly cannot even curtsey in the direction of business when it is legislating, there ain't much hope for the way the assembly is going to function for the benefit of Wales. One would hope that such invocations would not be necessary if the assembly were doing its job properly. I wonder whether the new clause is really an expression of faith in the assembly, or an anticipation by the Secretary of State of the assembly's shortcomings.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for telling the House the purpose of amendment No. 204 before we had even spoken to it. I can now deal with their opposition to it, instead of putting my positive arguments. Let me make it clear at the outset that it is not our intention specifically to remove the assembly's obligation to consult business. It is a probing amendment. Under clause 64, there is an obligation on the assembly to consult business but no one else. It refers to "appropriate consultation" being carried out, but what does that mean? Consultation with whom, and with what sorts of organisations? The only clarity in the clause is that business must be consulted; there is no obligation to consult anyone else. The amendment aims to probe what sort of organisations it is expected that the assembly will consult. For example, will it consult voluntary organisations? If the assembly is considering subordinate legislation that affects nursery education, would it have to consult, let us say, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin—the Pre-school Playgroups Association Wales—or not? One might read the Bill and say it might do so, "if appropriate", but the assembly might consider it not appropriate to do so. However, even on nursery education, it would have to consult business. With the amendment, we are seeking clarity. Unfortunately, the Bill as it stands provides clarity in respect of one particular section of society, but not others. That is not to say, as the Secretary of State has stressed, that business would not be consulted; but we want to know what other organisations should be consulted. The danger in legislation is always that, if we begin to list, we either list the lot or we list nobody. That is why we tabled the amendment. 8 pm The hon. Member for North Essex knows perfectly well that we support new clause 19 as drafted. I put it on record that there is no question of Plaid Cymru saying that business should not be consulted. However, let me make a point that even the hon. Gentleman did not make. The Secretary of State has said that business in the modern sense includes both business organisations in the traditional sense and trade unions. We welcome that assurance, but I hope that business in Wales does not simply mean the CBI, either. We want an assurance that business in that sense means business in the widest sense. The vast majority of employers in my constituency are self-employed people who run small businesses, and it has been announced in the past few weeks that an organisation that represents such businesses—the Federation of Smal Businesses—is, in preparation for the setting up of the assembly, establishing a Welsh organisation; it is to be congratulated on that creditable action. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that there will be an obligation under the terms of the new clause for the assembly to consult the Federation of Small Businesses?

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already stated that he is willing to include trade unions in his definition of business, but let us assume that the assembly takes some initiative in relation to the environment, and that it decides that it is necessary to consult business. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the assembly should also be under an obligation to consult the local community, who may be affected by business or believe that their area has been polluted by business? They may feel that they have no voice if their role is not specified in the legislation.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I must confess that I strongly agree with those sentiments. The assembly should consult to the widest possible extent—hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree on that point. We are asking the Secretary of State, in a probing way, to give an assurance that, through clauses 64 and new clause 19, there will be an obligation on the assembly to consult. If he gives that assurance, we will be satisfied; otherwise, the questions marks will remain.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

Perhaps to his surprise, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) says. I welcome the new clause as far as it goes, although I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State overturn 500 years of case law by suggesting that "business" included trade unions. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor will want to have a word with him tomorrow about that legal interpretation, but we shall leave that point for now. I understand business to mean business, but there is nothing wrong with the new clause for that. We tend to be rather romantic about the Welsh assembly, so by all means let us consult business. Business is important, because the main challenge facing the assembly will be to try to raise the level of gross domestic product in Wales, which has fallen dangerously low, especially in the western part of Wales, both north-west and south-west. Perhaps the challenge will not be to raise, but merely to sustain, the abysmally low level of GDP, given the pressures that may be exerted on the Welsh economy over the next few years. However, the assembly is not about business—it is about doling out money. The assembly is about spending £7 billion, almost all of which will not go to business or anywhere near it. About £200 million gross will be the budget of the new-style Welsh Development Agency, but the net figure will probably be less, because the agency will have to find some of its budget from its internal organisation. Therefore, we are not talking about large sums of money. The assembly is there to distribute money for social purposes, which has to be done—we need a health service and education—so the larger part of the work of the assembly will not be about business. The new clause is welcome for that reason, because it can make it clear to the assembly that business exists, and that business is as important as handing out money. What worries me is that the whole orientation of the Bill is not in that direction. One of the clauses not debated—clause 112, which has already been mentioned—deals with voluntary organisations in Wales and enables the assembly to set up a scheme to assist voluntary organisations. Such organisations are defined extremely strangely as organisations that do not have to make a profit, but exist to benefit the whole or any part of Wales". I cannot think of any definition wider, more diffuse or more dangerous in some ways than that. The whole thrust of the legislation is that money is to be spent on non-business matters and on organisations that will not create wealth. Trade unions and employees are part of the wealth-creating process. I rose to speak in this debate because a constituent who has a master's in business administration wrote to me enclosing the Labour party's person specification for candidates for the assembly. I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) will jump, because understands the magical language that includes such phrases. The person specification I was sent seeks, rightly, "Labour party experience". In another phrase that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it also seeks "life experiences".

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

From what I know of management consultants, that is a great relief. The person specification calls for "Other life experience". I am not quite sure how one is to read those words—whether the experience desired is of the other life or of another life outside the Labour party, although I suspect it is the latter. I am concerned because, during the referendum campaign, great emphasis was placed, quite rightly, on the fact that the assembly would be an assembly for business as well as for the rather old-fashioned councillors from south Wales; but when I read the person specification's suggestions of what constitutes other life experience, I saw no mention of business at all. We note that Family and other caring responsibilities are considered to be other life experience for the purposes of sitting in the Welsh assembly. I suppose one could consider "work/professional" to mean business, but the suggestions go on to cover "educational" experience and "Voluntary sector experience", neither of which involves business—quite the opposite. Appearing next are "tenants groups", which are certainly not business; "youthwork", which might possibly be related to business; and community involvement, PTA, charity work", which are not. Those are followed by "campaigning experience", whatever that may mean. Then there is Public service experience … local government, trade union". My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) will be pleased to learn that the trade unions come under the heading of "Other life experience", but there is nothing about business. The category ends with "magistrate, school governorship", which again have nothing to do with business. No doubt the Liberals have a similar classification, taken from a similar management consultancy booklet or whatever. However, I am sorry to say that there is nothing in the Labour party person specification about business. No suggestion is made that part of the "Other life experience" should be business. I welcome the new clause, because at least it tries to make it clear that the £7 billion ultimately comes from business. I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, so I shall define business in the novel way used by the Secretary of State, including trade unions, shareholders and employees. All those people create the wealth. I hope that the assembly will pay attention to a clause such as new clause 19, because, if we do not have that wealth creation in Wales, however much money or subsidy comes to Wales from the United Kingdom Treasury, or from Europe—there will probably be less of it in the next few years—the other activities will suffer. We must place an emphasis on business. I am sorry that the Labour party appears to have ignored business completely in its person specification, but at least we are making up for that to some extent in the new clause.

Jackie Lawrence (Labour, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

Because it was I who requested that the business issue be raised in the context of the assembly, I was stunned by the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who first tried to claim credit for raising the issue and then said that he regarded the new clause as almost useless. There is considerable confusion on the Conservative Benches as to how the Opposition stand on that issue. I very much welcome the fact that the Secretary of State wishes new clause 19 to be incorporated in the Bill, because it is a sign of a determination in the assembly to have a framework of wholesale co-operation between all sectors of society and all the people of Wales. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) asked, "Why just business?" but the Bill already contains a system for consultation of the voluntary sector. We also have a system, through the Partnership Council for Wales, for consultation on educational matters. It was for that reason that I first raised the issue of consultation with business. At that stage, although there was an innovative approach for a reactive consultation with business, I felt that it should be proactive, not only to obtain benefits on compliance costs, as the Opposition said, but to give the assembly the very positive and pragmatic benefits of business sector expertise. It is vital that small businesses are represented in the consultative process, especially in the light of the fact that a recent European Commission report says that new jobs are most likely to come from small businesses. Those businesses need the means to communicate effectively with the assembly to maximise job creation. 8.15 pm It is important to consult business. I have just returned from Catalonia, which has a 20-year record of devolution. The enthusiasm demonstrated there, the co-operation between all sectors in the region, and the confidence arising from that, which has enabled people to portray what their area has to offer, were very welcome. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said something about the assembly doing little more than doling out money. My vision, and the reason that I wanted business to be consulted, is that the purpose of the assembly is to give the Welsh people democratic control of things that affect their everyday lives. That goes for everyone in Wales—and for the businesses in Wales, to which we look for our economic future.

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

I shall speak briefly but warmly in support of new clause 19. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on presenting the new clause, because it strikes exactly the right note in terms of the relationship between the new assembly and business in Wales. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on bringing the matter to the notice of the House by tabling her new clause 14 in Committee. She rightly withdrew that new clause for what is now a better clause and a better piece of legislation. I spoke in support of new clause 14 in Committee, but with a note of caution, based on my experience of more than five years, from 1992 to 1997, working with one of the biggest partnerships between private business, Government and Government agencies in Wales. It was one of the most successful partnerships in contributing to, and attracting, inward investment to Wales. We attracted a higher proportion of inward investment to that part of Wales during that period than any other region and, by and large, it was due to that relationship. However, one cannot legislate a formula, which is why new clause 19 is so good. One cannot embody in law what that partnership with business should be. It is my passionate belief that the secret of a successful relationship between Government and business is to evolve an innovative relationship, which does not try to get either partner to do what it cannot do. It allows each partner to do what it does best, without interference. That was the secret of our experience, and I think that it is the secret for future success in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is right when he says that the greatest problem facing the new assembly will be gross domestic product per capita in Wales, which is in relative decline when compared to GDP in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we do not address that problem by working in partnership with the wealth creators, with business in Wales, we shall certainly have a problem.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a need to include the word "business" in the Bill, in the sense that there is a need to consult business? Does he accept also that, within the proposed legislation, we should have included a reference to local communities, which may have been adversely affected as a result of the activities of business? For example, if a firm is set up in a community and as a result that community is polluted, the assembly would have an obligation to consult the firm, or the polluter, but not the local community that has been polluted by the activities of the firm. Should we not extend the list of those who should be consulted?

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

I understand that there is a commitment to sustainable development. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must consult and we must protect people, but that should be done under a separate mechanism. The challenge facing us is the future success of Welsh business. Those who cast doubts on the ability of the Welsh people and the Welsh assembly to work in partnership with business should re-examine the track record of local government in Wales and its success in partnership with business. Local government and business worked together as a team. We in Wales are better able and better prepared than others, partly because of our co-operative values, to work closely in partnership with business and to make a damned good success of that approach. We have done so in the past despite, on occasions, the activities of some Tory Secretaries of State for Wales over the past 10 years, who have done business in Wales no favours. Local government in partnership with business has been responsible for our success in attracting foreign investment, I stress, into Wales.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

I accept that the proposed legislation may be committed to sustainable development, but will my hon. Friend accept that, even allowing for that, it is likely that some firms in Wales will continue to pollute communities? Perhaps there should be written into the Bill an obligation that consultation should take place with those who are being polluted by particular firms.

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

I think that that should be covered generally by environmental protection legislation. I think also that my hon. Friend's argument detracts slightly from the new clause, which I wish to address.

Jackie Lawrence (Labour, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has been an advocate of strong local government. Do we not agree that the avenue for tackling issues such as the pollution of communities where such communities have a direct input is through strong local government? The assembly will strengthen local government to allow that to happen.

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Finally, the clause is exactly what we want to see. The answer is to have a broad framework of bodies to consult and to have a dialogue with business in Wales. In the end, the secret will be for business to make its own contribution to the success of the Welsh economy by forming private sector-led partnerships that are broadly coterminous with the new regional committees that will be set up by the Welsh assembly. I welcome the new clause.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I thank all those who have expressed their support for the new clause. I shall concentrate on the points raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). I ask for his forgiveness if he thinks that I was rather precipitate in explaining his new clause before he introduced it. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions and I shall respond to them. That will give me the opportunity to respond also to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). First, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn raised the problem that is inherent in a new clause of the sort that is before us. The hon. Gentleman described it as the problem of listing. It is true that, once we start to place an obligation on a body such as the assembly to consult one group, it may well be asked why it should not consult other groups. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the voluntary sector. I draw his attention to clauses 111 and 112, which set out the mechanism by which the assembly can establish good relations both with local government and the voluntary sector. Clause 112 refers specifically to a relationship with voluntary organizations. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on introducing her amendment in Committee. My hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent was absolutely correct. It is local government that will—

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

No, I am sorry. I have to put my case. I cannot give way at the moment. If I have time, I shall give way. My hon. Friend raised a fair point, and I understand his argument. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire was right when she said that it is for local government to represent communities. We have set out in clause 111 how we see relations with local government developing. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the Federation of Small Businesses, and asked whether our definitions would include the federation. He will be interested to know that the federation, along with the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry, made a formal submission to the Welsh Office. They are content with the form of words that we have used. As I said in my opening remarks, we believe that it is right to leave it to the assembly to judge which representatives of business it is appropriate for it to consult. No doubt there will be changes over time, and I certainly do not want to be too prescriptive at this moment and place a legal obligation on the assembly which might cause it difficulties in future. It is right, therefore, to place a duty but to give maximum discretion to the assembly to develop the duty as it thinks best. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the provisions that are set out in clause 64, which deals with consultation on regulatory appraisals. The clause provides that there should be procedures for "appropriate consultation" where the costs … of complying with the assembly's subordinate legislation are likely to be significant". The consultation that will be appropriate in those circumstances will vary from case to case. It could include, under clause 64, consultation with, for example, the voluntary sector, charities, local authorities and environmental groups. That is providing some redress in terms of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. It must be right that the assembly tailors its consultation to meet the prevailing circumstances. The circumstances will obviously change from case to case. If the assembly failed to consult in a way that would be reasonable, that would increase the risk that it might be subject to challenge by way of judicial review for failing to comply with its duty under clause 64. I hope that hon. Members are reassured, and that the new clause will not be pressed to a vote. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

POWER TO PROMOTE AND OPPOSE PRIVATE BILLS

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The clause fulfils the undertaking that 1 gave to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 2 March in response to an amendment that he had moved. The new clause clarifies that the assembly will have power to promote or oppose private Bills in Parliament, but the clause does not confer on the assembly the power to make primary legislation. It will be able to promote only a private Bill in Parliament. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides for a decision by the assembly to promote or oppose a private Bill in Parliament to require a two-thirds majority. That is appropriate in order to ensure that the decision by the assembly to promote or oppose a Bill is not taken lightly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that explanation. As I said in Committee, we have looked further at the interaction between an explicit power for the assembly and the Transport and Works Act 1992. Subsection (3) deals with that. It provides that the new clause does not cause the assembly to have power to apply for orders under section 103 of the 1992 Act by virtue of section 20 of that Act, because that would, in effect, give the assembly primary powers—and I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to do that.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has answered one of the two points that we raised. The other point was whether we could dispose of private legislation within the assembly. I hope that we may be able to do that at some time in the future. However, I am grateful for small mercies.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way that we can discuss new clause 31 before we move on? It is a completely new clause that introduces a completely new—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. He must know that the programme was approved by the House and that this is not the first day upon which we have dealt with the legislation. There is no way that new clause 31 may be discussed under the terms of the motion that the House has agreed. It being half-past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

POLLS FOR ASCERTAINING VIEW OF THE PUBLIC

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss new clause 2 and new clause 6 even if we did not have the opportunity to discuss new clause 31—a clause that we never debated and did not have the opportunity to amend. I think that that demonstrates clearly the need for the extra day that we requested. The proposed new clauses present another opportunity to improve the Bill. Although they are relatively short, they are none the less important, because they refer to the relationship between the assembly and Westminster. We must recognise that such a relationship must exist, even though powers are being devolved through the Secretary of State to the new body. While recognising the supremacy of Westminster, we must ensure that there is a real partnership between the assembly and this Parliament. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) referred to partnership time and again. Consideration of the new clauses provides another opportunity to examination the checks and balances that will be necessary within the new assembly. There is an on-going debate in this place about what should happen to the other place. Despite that debate, no one disputes the fact that there should be a second Chamber—we all believe that another body should revise the legislation that passes through this place, and hopefully improve it. Perhaps the other place will improve the legislation that we are considering today. In new clause 2, we have attempted to introduce a check and balance within the assembly while trying to ensure that the partnership between Westminster and the assembly continues. It appears that most Labour Members of Parliament at Westminster will remain here—there may be one exception—and not go to the new assembly. Therefore, we must ensure that they have a proper role. We are not sure what will happen to the Welsh Grand Committee; we do not know whether it will continue and whether it will have any real role.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Not for you.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

We already know that. The Conservative party, which received 317,000 votes in Wales, has no voice on the Welsh Grand Committee. New clause 2 does not refer to the Welsh Grand Committee as such because we know that, in the past, hon. Members representing constituencies outside Wales have served on the Committee. We have said that all 40 Members of Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies at Westminster and who have a real stake and a real interest in what occurs in Wales will also have more than a passing interest in what happens in the Welsh assembly. Some hon. Members may have a dual mandate—we do not know. However, the vast majority of Labour Members representing Welsh constituencies will remain in Westminster. New clause 2 provides a real opportunity for secondary or subordinate legislation in the assembly to come to a Committee of the House consisting solely of Welsh Members of Parliament. They may then scrutinise the legislation and approve or not approve it within a reasonable time. As far as we are concerned, it is a very reasonable new clause. We do not propose that the body should delay subordinate legislation needlessly for months on end. We want to ensure that such legislation is passed as quickly as possible.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

What would happen if Welsh Members in Westminster disapproved of such legislation?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Because of the supremacy of Parliament, the Welsh assembly would have to reconsider its decisions and change its mind. In the final instance, Westminster would be supreme. [Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) says from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State for Wales admits that Westminster will remain the supreme body, even after devolution. We are simply formalising the arrangement to ensure that the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire has something to do other than sit behind the Secretary of State—whether it is the present Secretary of State or a new one—and offer advice from a sedentary position.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I wish to record that, judging by his expression, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) does not agree.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

That comes as no surprise to me. The journey on devolved Government that I am making is completely different from that of the right hon. Gentleman. He is following a route to independence that has no exit lanes. Therefore, I am not surprised by his reaction—in fact, I would be surprised if he had done anything other than look rather concerned about this suggestion. New clause 6 concerns the relationship between Westminster and the new assembly. Part IV deals with financial matters, including grants and loans to the assembly, expenditure, remuneration expenses, accounts, examinations into the use of resources and Audit Committee reports. It goes from the famous clause 80, under which the Secretary of State will, from time to time, give money to the assembly, down to clause 104. The new clause would ensure that statements are laid before Parliament for scrutiny. Parliament remains the sovereign political body in the United Kingdom, and should have access to the details of public expenditure for scrutiny, particularly as they originate from this Parliament and are devolved to the assembly. The Treasury is responsible for allocating the budget to the assembly and should be accountable to Parliament for such matters. It is a basic democratic demand that information on the assembly's expenditure should be available for debate in Parliament. Our two new clauses would ensure that the assembly will be a greater success, and that the partnership between Westminster and the assembly will be assured into the future.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

New clause 2 would place new procedural burdens on the assembly in respect of its order-making powers. Under the new clause, no order could be made by the assembly without its first having secured the approval of a Committee of Members of Parliament from Welsh constituencies. Since we first debated the subordinate legislation procedures, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council has submitted a lengthy and detailed memorandum to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on both the Scottish Parliament's and the Welsh assembly's order-making powers. It summarises the provisions in the Government of Wales Bill related to the making of assembly orders. It also explains that my advisory group will consult widely in Wales after Easter about the detailed Standing Orders that the assembly should have for the exercise of its order-making powers. The group is anxious that there should be greater public involvement in the making of subordinate legislation in Wales, and wants the Standing Orders to reflect that approach. I am minded to accept the group's advice on these matters. I hope that hon. Members present will find the Joint Committee report interesting, and I trust that the Joint Committee will find the memorandum helpful. Unfortunately, I do not find new clause 2 at all helpful. I see no case for requiring the assembly's draft orders to be submitted to a special Committee of the House for approval. That proposition is entirely inconsistent with the most basic assumptions behind devolution: that the assembly will be a responsible, democratic body and will be well able to exercise its powers sensibly without constant supervision from the centre. Given the number of orders that the assembly will have to make, the proposal is wholly impractical. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will withdraw the new clause. New clause 6 provides that any statement under part IV must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Its effect is not altogether certain, because the term "statement" may not include accounts and reports, although I assume that that was the intention. It is unnecessary in most circumstances. Clauses 83 and 88 already provide for the Secretary of State's accounts to be laid before each House of Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I appreciate that they may not have been the main target of the proposal. The Secretary of State will be accountable to the House for the grant that he or she pays to the assembly each year under clause 80. He or she will seek approval for that grant through a supply estimate, in the same way as at present. Those accounts will continue to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. We must recognise that the role of the House in approving public expenditure for Wales will change as a result of devolution, and the same holds true for Scotland. The House will no longer approve detailed financial allocations for the Secretary of State for Wales, because the grant to the assembly will be a single, unhypothecated sum. The way in which the assembly decides to use the money that it receives from the Secretary of State will be a matter for it alone. It will be accountable to the electorate in Wales for its decisions. Its accounts will be audited by the independent Auditor General for Wales, laid before the assembly and published. Providing for the assembly's accounts to be laid at Westminster would tend to undermine the change in responsibilities, and would blur accountability. Although only the Auditor General for Wales will have responsibility for auditing the accounts of the assembly and its public bodies, the Bill provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have access for the purposes of value-for-money examinations and financial investigations. That is dealt with in clauses 100 and 101. The Bill acknowledges that the Public Accounts Committee will also have a role. Clause 98 provides for the assembly's accounting officer to have responsibilities to the Public Accounts Committee. Similar responsibilities will be placed on accounting officers of other public bodies in Wales by Government amendments Nos. 109, 177 and 180, which we shall debate later. Part IV provides appropriate mechanisms for accountability to Parliament that nevertheless reflect the fundamental changes in democratic accountability inherent in the process of devolution. I appreciate that new clause 15 may be an attempt to draw out the Government's thinking on how the assembly could influence the content of legislation at Westminster.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I hope to finish shortly so that the right hon. Gentleman can make his speech on new clause 15.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I was going to invite the Secretary of State to leave his speech at this point, so that I can explain the reasons for new clause 15 before he puts the arguments against it.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

rose

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I appreciate that new clause 15 may be an attempt to draw out the Government's thinking on how the assembly would influence the content of legislation at Westminster. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate any further until I have heard the right hon. Gentleman.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for interrupting his speech. I dare say that his notes will be just as relevant when he has heard what I have to say because I realise that responses are written before speeches are made. I am glad of the opportunity to speak to new clause 15 because it addresses a material question. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was concerned about the role of Welsh Members at Westminster on matters arising from the assembly. The new clause sets out an excellent work load that can be passed on constructively. It deals with Bills that have had their Second Reading at Westminster and which affect matters that have been devolved to the assembly for executive and secondary legislative purposes. The assembly may take a view on the impact of legislation that is going through this place and, from its experience of executive responsibilities, especially for Welsh local government, for the Welsh language and for education in Wales, on all of which we have our own agenda, it may want to table amendments to the primary legislation. However, it does not have a vehicle to do that directly, because it cannot undertake primary legislation. The new clause contains a mechanism by which, after Second Reading of a Bill, it will be possible for the assembly to present draft amendments for consideration here. They can be debated by Welsh Members and by Members from elsewhere. Unless the Bill contains such a provision, there will be great frustration, because members of the assembly will deal daily with such matters and with the implications of legislation in a different way from Welsh Members at Westminster. The absence of a mechanism to allow amendments or to close a loophole in primary legislation affecting Wales would cause difficulties. The Secretary of State has almost accepted the principle. In an earlier debate, I was glad to be able to thank him for the way in which he is to enable private legislation to be brought from the assembly to Westminster. Private legislation may affect only a few square miles of Wales, and it is much more important for legislation affecting the whole of Wales on local government, education or the Welsh language to be treated in the same way. The wording of the new clause may not be appropriate, but I urge the Secretary of State to consider between now and the Bill reaching the other place whether there should be some formal mechanism to enable the assembly to have its wishes brought here. We should bear in mind that the political colour of an administration in the assembly may be different from the colour of the Government at Westminster. The assembly may want action that the Government do not want to facilitate, and there should at least be an opportunity for the assembly's voice to be heard, although it would finally have to accept Parliament's determination on the primary legislation. The proposal is modest, and I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's considered response.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

As a United Kingdom MP, I can contain myself no longer from intruding on Welsh affairs. Having listened to the debate, I am certain that this arrangement cannot endure into the next Parliament or the one after that. In view of the Government's majority, it will probably endure quite easily in this Parliament. It is quite clear to an outsider that both sides are saying, "Get your tanks off my lawn." What was equally clear in that good-tempered exchange of bonhomie was that the Opposition Front-Bench team has a completely different interpretation of what we are discussing from the Government Front-Bench team and indeed from the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). They cannot all be right. It was clear from the passionate intervention sotto voce by my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) that he thought that there was absolutely no question of Westminster telling the Welsh assembly what to do in matters that pertain to it, but there is a little problem of pipers and tunes and who pays the money for all this. The time will come, sooner rather than later, when Westminster will say, "Hey, we're a bit strapped for cash," and look hard at the aspirations of the Welsh assembly. Therein lies a source of considerable trouble. I do not want to intrude any further, but I say here and now that it is fanciful to believe that this situation can endure in a Parliament where the political arithmetic is different, especially when the votes of Welsh and Scottish Members could determine the shape, colour and policies of a Government of England.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I will not follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) down the path of tanks and so on, which is rather emotive. I understand why he uses those similes, but I do not think that things will go that way. New clause 2 sabotages the assembly's ability to have a proper say even in the few legislative powers that it has in relation to draft statutory instruments. As we know, the new clause says: before a draft of a statutory instrument containing Assembly general subordinate legislation is laid before the Assembly, the draft is— (a) submitted to a committee consisting of all Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies in Wales". It also says: the committee shall report within a reasonable period as to whether it approves the draft. Being a reasonable man, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) used sweet reason in trying to persuade us that all would be well, but the interpretation of what is a reasonable period is as long as my arm and his combined. It could be any period. The new clause could be used as a delaying mechanism to frustrate the Welsh assembly. We do not see the point of going down that path. On new clause 6 and scrutiny, as has been said, in any case, those accounts are laid before both the assembly and the House. Indeed, if it so wished, the Public Accounts Committee could probably examine the Welsh assembly's accounts as audited at any particular moment. We therefore feel that the safeguards are already there and that there is no need to accept new clause 6. We agree that new clause 15 is useful. It allows the Welsh assembly to propose draft amendments to Bills. Obviously, if it so wishes, the House could reject those drafts; it could exercise that power. In any case, the new clause proposes draft amendments to Bills that directly affect only Wales. We support the new clause.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I should like to address my remarks to new clause 2 and new clause 15—the latter is the reverse of the former. The debate—and particularly the speech by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—has been interesting. It appears to me that we have been labouring under a delusion that subordinate legislation is in some way different from primary legislation in terms of its impact on people. It is not. It creates criminal offences and, if it is not properly drafted, it can create enormous problems. There is ample evidence to suggest that it is often not properly drafted. The new clauses are about the desire of Westminster to retain some measure of control over the way in which subordinate legislation goes through. Not surprisingly, new clause 15 expresses the desire of the Welsh nationalists that, when the assembly is set up, they should have some input into the primary legislation from which the subordinate legislation will be derived. The Secretary of State mentioned the report produced by the President of the Council to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is abundantly clear that, unless some mechanism is set up—admittedly, it would not go as far as new clause 2—to allow some input into the way in which the statutory instruments are drafted in Wales, we will be in a difficult position. Last week there was a meeting between the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and representatives of the European Parliament to discuss the problem of subordinate legislation. It is quite apparent that, at the European level, there is no control over subordinate legislation, and that is a cause for concern. It was a topic that we discussed at some length. It emerged powerfully from the representations by Speaker's Counsel on the issue that, although the Joint Committee has no power to alter statutory instruments, its ability to report on them at least ensures a measure of conformity and that, on the whole, Government Departments listen to what we have to say. The Secretary of State said that the Welsh assembly would have its own Speaker's Counsel and Department and that there was no reason why it should not do the job just as well as we do it here, although I have always thought that the job that we do here is thoroughly imperfect because we are not given the proper tools with which to do it. However, the fact remains that we live in a United Kingdom, and Wales and England share a common legal system. Although some statutory instruments are exclusive to Wales, a large number will be common to both. In those circumstances, will statutory instruments be drafted differently as a result of exercises in semantics which may have profound implications if they are every challenged in the courts? What will we do when people in Wales tell their Members of Parliament that they are having regulations foisted upon them through statutory instruments which are imperfect compared with those that were passed for the same purpose here? The Secretary of State has never answered that question, and on the last occasion on which it was raised, he simply dismissed it. I am taking the opportunity offered by new clause 2—perhaps slightly tendentiously—to ask him to reconsider it even in that most narrow ambit. I accept that new clause 2 goes far further, but it points up the enormous difficulty that results from splitting subordinate from primary legislation. We are not dealing with executive matters. The extent and range of subordinate legislation is so great that in many ways it affects people far more than the primary legislation. Unless that difficulty is resolved, we shall continue to have problems. To some extent I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), because I am concerned that the matter must be addressed.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) is having difficulty in coming to terms with the principle of devolution, and I am afraid that he has completely overstated his case. I want to talk briefly about new clause 15. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that we had accepted that the assembly could be involved in the promotion of private legislation, therefore that could be extended to public legislation. I do not accept that because there is such a fundamental difference between the two. Paragraph 3.38 of the White Paper states: The Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Assembly about the Government's programme for legislation after it has been announced in the Queen's Speech. Clause 32 delivers on that commitment. The consultation under it is one way in which the assembly can influence the content of primary legislation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that, relying on the powers in clause 34, the assembly could make appropriate representations to whomever it chose about any Bill before Parliament that affected Wales, whether or not that Bill related to the areas covered in schedule 2. Those representations might include suggested amendments; they could be published or sent to the appropriate Minister, or to any Member of this House or of the House of Lords. Obviously, it will be for the Government or Parliament, as the case may be, to decide what, if anything, they want to do in the light of the assembly's representations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that point. It would not be right for the Bill to require the Secretary of State to table the proposed amendments and to require this House to provide for them to be considered. The only restriction in new clause 15 is that the amendments would have to conform with the rules of the House—the new clause is somewhat impractical in that respect. Let us assume that the assembly wished to propose an amendment to a Government Bill which directly contradicted the policy— It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

POWER TO ENTER INTO CONCORDAT

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

There is a saying about a house divided against itself. The Government may have to learn from recent experience. The new clause has a simple purpose: it is to say that we are still here. So much of the legislation seems to concern moving responsibilities away from this House; the new clause is designed to bring those responsibilities back, especially as they relate to concordats. I hope that the new clause will be regarded as innocuous enough, and that the Government will accept it. It goes to the very heart of the Government's attempts, ever since 1 May, increasingly to bypass Parliament. I was interested to watch the Secretary of State's impatience as the clock ticked towards the time when the last debate was supposed to end. I remind him that it was he who set the time limits, against the wishes of the Opposition. He should not, therefore, look impatient—

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

That—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it—is a complete travesty of the truth. It was the Opposition who suggested that these matters be taken on the Floor of the House, a principle which I readily conceded. The Opposition have been party to the agreement all the way through, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government generously allowed two hours of additional time today in view of the brief statement at the end of Question Time. The only reason I was impatient was that I was anxious to reply to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was preventing me from doing so.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

That was not the first time this evening that the right hon. Gentleman has appeared impatient. Had he accepted our suggestions about the timetabling of these parts of the Bill, he would have had rather more time to make his case. The Government's attempts to bypass Parliament really know no bounds. One of the few Divisions in which the Prime Minister has voted since 1 May was earlier today, on the business motion governing today's debates. That is yet another example of the Government's disdain for the House. Concordats may sound friendly, but when we begin to examine what they are and what they will do, we find them rather sinister. Earlier this year, we were helped by a Government written answer which had attached guidance setting out their view of the purpose and nature of these concordats. I have looked at that guidance with some care; rather than reassuring me, it has filled me with even deeper foreboding. It states: Their purpose is not to create legal obligations or restrictions on any party; rather, they will set the ground rules for administrative co-operation and exchange of information. Setting "the ground rules" sounds wonderful—as if the Government are setting the rules by which the game will be played. However, when we asked previously what the concordats were for, we were led to believe that they were not for administrative co-operation and exchange of information but for important matters like deciding how much money the Welsh assembly will get and how the voice of Wales will be heard in the European Council of Ministers. Those are not administrative, co-operative matters or exchanges of information; they are matters of fundamental importance to Wales and to this Parliament. The next paragraph says: Concordats are not necessarily the only way to regulate these relationships in future. Good, say I—something better. Not at all. We are told: Other, less formal, arrangements will be appropriate in many cases, and in others there will be no need for any standing arrangement at all. We suddenly begin to see something that is highly alien to our democratic principles: the introduction of what have become known in America as "Executive agreements"—agreements not between legislatures, Parliaments or countries but between Administrations so that they can bypass democratic procedures. The concordats will be used for exchange of information and arrangements for liaison on EU and international matters". By what right does a concordat that does not come before this House decide on matters of liaison within the European Union, or on other international matters? Are not those of concern to this House and to elected Members of the Welsh Assembly? How can they be dealt with on the same basis as the concordats? The document also refers to "any financial arrangements", but are those the financial arrangements under clause 80? Do they relate to the Barnett formula? Will they all now be regulated by non-statutory, non-legally enforceable documents, which will become known as concordats? Those are the reasons why, earlier in our proceedings, I tried to explore what the concordats were about. The document tells us firmly that they are non-statutory and not intended to be legally enforceable. That is interesting, because it gives rise to all sorts of questions. The document also says that they are not intended to impose duties and liabilities.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Will my right hon. Friend speculate, given his knowledge of these matters, whether the statement that the concordats are not intended to be legally enforceable is of the slightest legal interest? Does he agree that, over time, the courts might come to think that they are justiciable and perhaps even enforceable?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that, because it is one of the questions that I was going to ask the Secretary of State to respond to when he replies to the debate. Without having seen a concordat, 1 cannot take a view, but it might well found an action for judicial review, for instance. In a sense, that would then bring into question whether it was creating obligations or liabilities and whether it might at some stage become legally enforceable. These concordats have no status whatever. We are surprised that, although they will deal with major matters, they will normally be signed by a senior official. Only if they are politically sensitive will they be signed by Ministers and Assembly Secretaries. Thus, they will not be regarded as sufficiently important for a Minister to be involved in their negotiation and signing, but will be signed by officials within Departments. We need to ask a number of fundamental questions about the concordats. First, what status will they have? I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an answer for the first time. Are they like Executive agreements in the United States, which are deliberate ways of bypassing the legislature, and thus matters of considerable constitutional interest and challenge in the United States? If they are, we should be told. Secondly, will they found actions for judicial review? Has the Secretary of State taken advice on whether he is correct in saying that they are not intended to create or impose duties and liabilities? Is he secure in his expectation that that will not happen? Who will decide who signs the concordats? What are the criteria for deciding whether they will be signed by a Minister or an official? That may appear a semantic question, but it is not. We know that Ministers come and go, and that Governments come and go, but that officials, by their nature, tend to stay. We need to know whether a concordat signed by a Minister will end with the departure of that Minister, and whether a concordat signed by a Minister on behalf of a Government will end with the departure of that Government. It seems that a concordat signed by an official might last, because the officials will still be there, and the interests in which they signed will remain. That will create not just one category of concordat, but a series of categories.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Has not an early example of what might be described as a concordat in British history come to have considerable significance over time, although it is rather different from some of the examples that my right hon. Friend is describing? I refer to magna carta.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the subject of that particular concordat, although I think that I could give him examples of some rather more modern and ecclesiastical concordats. At least we knew the basis of those concordats, and the way in which they could ultimately be enforced in constitutional terms. What we have here are documents—I call them documents, but I do not even know whether they will be documents. In any event, they will be constitutional eccentricities which, at present, have no status, and no basis that we know of on which they can be enforced. Are the concordats unilaterally breachable? If one side decides that a concordat is no longer a concordat, will that be the end of the matter? If so, is any remedy available to the other side? Will there be financial implications? I understand that the concordats could well be used to decide matters such as the resourcing of the assembly under clause 80 or, indeed, the workings of the Barnett formula. If they have financial implications, will they be open to inspection by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons—and, if so, on what basis, if they are not born of the House of Commons? Let us come to the nub of the issue. How can someone who is not a representative of the United Kingdom be delegated, on the basis of an informal agreement, as a representative of the United Kingdom in the Council of Ministers? We are told that that will be one of the purposes of the concordats. How can that be done on the basis of, if necessary, no more than the signature of an official? Will there be two types of concordat? Will there be concordats that are essentially between officials and, therefore, theoretically, under the terms of the Bill, between members of the same civil service, and concordats which, being between separate Administrations, constitute a very different animal? That, too, will arise in relation to Europe. I understand that concordats will be drawn up between two Administrations in order to allow one to be represented on the delegation of the other, which will be based on the advice of civil servants common to both—civil servants who, I believe, will move between their offices in Cardiff and the Cabinet Office in London in order to formulate the policy that will be taken to the Council of Ministers. A series of strange, sinister beings called concordats are being introduced— [Horn. MEMBERS: "Sinister?"] Hon. Members may smile, but it takes only one mouse to begin to chew away the rope that holds a building together. I see the beginnings of a deliberate attempt to bypass the House of Commons increasingly. We are starting with a few small concordats; five years later, we shall find that more and more is being done by concordat. In the absence of answers, there is only one way in which the House can continue to control what is happening here: requiring all concordats to being brought to both Houses in draft form for approval. If that is done, we shall have a chance of protecting the interests of the House.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

New clause 9, which is grouped with the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, would have the same effect, so I share the right hon. Gentleman's objective. However, I intend to employ a different argument because I thought that he rather over-egged his argument. To return to my Bagehot, two buckles will link the assembly to Whitehall and Westminster. One is the Secretary of State and the other is the concordats. Those are the two instruments which will be used to achieve a relationship. They will deal with—if I can borrow a phrase from a different situation—the three areas of cohabitation that will have to be worked out. 9.15 pm I am referring to the cohabitation between the Secretary of State and the assembly; the cohabitation between the Secretary of State and Whitehall and the powers that he might have; and the cohabitation between the assembly and Whitehall. The concordats deal mainly with the third category of cohabitation—the relationship between assembly officials and Whitehall officials. If the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) had bothered to read column 745 of Hansard on 2 March, he would have seen that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out rather well the reason why we have to have concordats. He described a series of relationships between Welsh Office officials and Whitehall officials on a host of issues. Those officials regularly meet in a working relationship within a common political structure. I was rather surprised that my right hon. Friend described the relationship as harmonious. If it is, it has changed a great deal since my time in office 20 years ago, when there was a great deal of tension. Quite often, Whitehall would either try to pull a fast one or simply ignore the Welsh Office. I gather that everything is now sweetness, light and harmony, although I find it a little difficult to believe. My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there is a meaningful basis to the relationship—that the officials work in a common political administrative-executive structure. When Welsh Office officials go to Whitehall, they work under the same rules, with the same common purpose, and bound by the same set of relationships. Therefore, many of the points made by the right hon. Member for Devizes were off target. The fundamental issue is not that there is something sinister about the relationship or that we do not need concordats. I understand why we need them—to establish the sort of relationships that exist now and which were well described by my right hon. Friend on 2 March. The problem is that we are in a wholly different political environment with different sets of loyalties. The officials coming to Whitehall from the Welsh Office or the assembly will not have a common political administrative-executive allegiance; they will be separate people with separate relationships and separate loyalties—not to a Minister who is part of the collective system of Westminster, Whitehall and Cabinet, but to the First Secretary and other Secretaries who will have different priorities and different political instincts.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

In theory, a civil servant could be on both ends of a concordat, acting in his two capacities. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that civil servant acting for two bodies which could have a contractual or legal relationship?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

It is not a legal relationship at present; it is an administrative-executive arrangement between two sets of officials, but within a common system. I was saying that one of the questions that we need to ask is what happens when we break that up and the officials turn up in Whitehall from the assembly, with different political masters, different priorities and different remits. I tried to read the document that, according to my right hon. Friend on 2 March, could not be classified as a ripping good yarn, but … is worth reading" — [Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 745.] The right hon. Member for Devizes quoted from it earlier—but I did not find that it answered the one basic question that I would like answered.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Let me make my point first. The hon. Gentleman can intervene later. The best way to get through all the constitutional theorising is to imagine a situation, to have a case study—or perhaps a scenario; that word would please the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Let us imagine a scenario in which assembly officials turn up at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss one of the sensitive issues concerning animal welfare, meat on the bone or something similar. At the moment, such subjects may be all hush-hush, with confidential discussions taking place within MAFF about what it intends to do about an issue of considerable difficulty—meat hygiene, for example. Yet when the assembly officials turn up at the meeting, they may find that the thinking within MAFF is political dynamite for Welsh hillside farmers. What do the officials do? At present, they would report back to their Ministers, and those Ministers would meet. That would all take place within a common system. What would a concordat say about such a situation? Having been up to Whitehall, the assembly officials will go back to base and report. The first question is: to whom will they report? Do they say to the First Secretary, "We have to tell you that what we heard in the MAFF discussions is political dynamite"? What is the status of that information? How is to be transmitted to the assembly as a whole, or to the subject Committee dealing with the issue? That is a central question about how well the buckle, or hyphen, representing the concord linking the two will be tested. I have not found out from anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, delivered to the Library or explained to us in any shape or form, how we would deal with such a situation. My scenario is not fanciful. Such things happened in my day, and I am sure they are happening now. Priorities, opinions, emphasis in policy and decision making—at operational level as well as at the grand strategic level—reveal lots of potential tensions between the needs and priorities of the assembly and its officials, and those of Whitehall and its Ministers. Of course, the Secretary of State for Wales will have to play a vital part in bridging the gap. Sadly, I share with the right hon. Member for Devizes the idea that there are two things about which we know little more than we did at the beginning of our debates. The first is the meaningful content of the concordats dealing with such issues. Secondly, the shadowiest figure in the Bill is the Secretary of State for Wales after devolution— [Laughter.] I mean a Secretary of State, not necessarily the present Secretary of State. The last thing that I would describe my right hon. Friend as is a shadow.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

He is a sunny chap.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

He may cast a shadow over some of us occasionally. What I have described are two vital elements, which even after all this time we have not managed to flush out. Our new clause, like that of the right hon. Member for Devizes, says that, if we are to make devolution work, we at Westminster must have a profound interest in ensuring that the two hyphens, or buckles, hold, and can sustain the pressure. I hope that, even if my right hon. Friend does not concede on our new clauses, he will come up with something more in the way of a substantive view. Before the Bill passes through both Houses of Parliament, we should have a better understanding of how concordats will work in the situations that I have described.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

New clauses 10 and 11 are about the publication of concordats and amendments to them. I listened with great care to the case advanced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and to that put forward by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I shall give another reason why we think greater thought should be given to the way in which the concordats are to operate. I listened with care to the scenario postulated by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney about Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials and beef on the bone, but I should have thought that the Welsh assembly could decide differently. I say that because such a measure would have to be introduced through secondary legislation. The regulation banning beef on the bone was, I understand, introduced by statutory instrument. It would have been possible for the Welsh assembly not to introduce it.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.