Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

House of Commons, 22 July 1998.

New clause

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 26, 69, 126, 144, 146, 155, 169, 186, 187, 190, 192, 194, 195, 199, 201, 203, 207 and 210.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The National Assembly for Wales will be a new, open and accountable form of government for Wales. The Assembly will enable the voice of the people of Wales to be heard at last, through the representatives they elect through the ballot box next May. The creation of the office of the Welsh Administration ombudsman will ensure that that voice is not only heard, but listened to. The ombudsman will be a strong and independent figure, able to call the Assembly and other public bodies in Wales to task when needed. The ombudsman will have jurisdiction over a range of non-departmental public bodies and the Assembly. However, the functions of some bodies, such as the Environment Agency, extend both sides of the border. We are not suggesting that the ombudsman should have jurisdiction over those functions of the Environment Agency that relate to England, but only, like the Assembly, over those functions relating to Wales. The parliamentary commissioner currently has jurisdiction over certain executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales. Those will fall to the Welsh ombudsman to investigate. We are giving the Assembly powers by order to add the other bodies to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. If the Assembly is given responsibilities in new areas in which non-departmental public bodies operate, those too could be brought within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. We have also made provision to extend the jurisdiction of the health service commissioner for Wales to cover the Assembly's exercise of its health functions. Perhaps I might outline the way in which the ombudsman will operate. If an individual or body is aggrieved as a consequence of alleged maladministration, it will be open to them to make a complaint to the ombudsman, who will have effective powers to investigate such allegations. Complainants will be able to go direct to the ombudsman if they wish, rather than via their Assembly Member. That mirrors the position between the health service and local government. The outcome of the investigations will be reported to all concerned, including the complainant, any Assembly Member who assisted the complainant in submitting the allegation, and the individual against whom—or the body against which—the allegations have been made. It will also be reported to the Assembly First Secretary. If such allegations are upheld, the body must notify the ombudsman within three months of the actions that it proposes will remedy the matter. If no response, or an inadequate response, is forthcoming, the ombudsman may recommend in a further report what action is to be taken. If the Assembly is the subject of the further report, the amendments provide that the Assembly First Secretary must lay the report before the Assembly and give notice of a motion that the recommendations be approved. The amendments provide a strong and effective means for pursuing complaints against the Assembly and public bodies in Wales. I might add that the approach has the full support of the parliamentary commissioner. As I said earlier, the ombudsman's jurisdiction will extend only as far as the exercise of functions of the Assembly or a public body in Wales. The office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration already has jurisdiction over matters outside Wales, and will retain jurisdiction over matters in Wales outside the Assembly's remit. The functions of the two offices will therefore not overlap. The amendments are important, and substantially improve the Bill. The Government tabled them in response to points made by hon. Members on Report. I hope that they will be widely supported.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is good to have the Bill back from the other place. It has been so long since we have been able to speak on these measures, I was almost having withdrawal symptoms. I am sure that all hon. Members share that sentiment. We welcome the creation of the wholly separate position of the Welsh Administration ombudsman. It was requested during earlier proceedings. If anything, it proves how useful a revising chamber can be in considering what we say and giving the Government the chance to amend legislation, as they have admirably in many parts of the Bill. We welcome the fact that individuals will be able to take their complaints to the Welsh Administration ombudsman without the need to go through their Assembly Member—after, of course, ensuring that all the other avenues open to members of the public have been exhausted. We welcome the clear procedure on allowing bodies against which a complaint has been made a strict three-month time limit to respond. If the response is late or insufficient, the ombudsman has the power to make a further report. In that report, he can make recommendations on what action should be taken. Will the Minister clarify the course of action to ensure proper redress if no action, or insufficient action, is taken following the ombudsman's second report? The range of bodies over which the Welsh Administration ombudsman will be responsible is extensive. Although I welcome that, I have one or two concerns. First, the time that people will have to wait before receiving a full response to their complaint must be kept to a minimum. The area of responsibility is now wide, and one can imagine all sorts of complaints coming to the ombudsman, especially if his existence is made well known. That is not a plea for the Minister to spend a six-figure sum advertising the fact that the new position exists, so that everybody knows how to get in touch with the ombudsman. However, we are keen to see some form of information campaign to ensure that members of the public, through their local libraries and other organisations, know that the Welsh Administration ombudsman will be there, and how to use that person. I shall not prejudge the number of complaints that the Welsh Administration ombudsman will receive, but there could be many, and we need to know that he will have sufficient staff to handle them all. There is provision in the Bill to consider the staffing arrangements, but we need to know that, when the complaints start coming in, they will be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. My second concern is connected with the first. What percentage of the cost will be taken from its current budgetary position and added to the Welsh block? Will any additional costs be taken from within the current block budget? Obviously, if any of the money comes from within the block, that money will not be available to spend elsewhere. I know that discussions are now taking place with the Welsh Office about where the money will come from. We understand that the ombudsman will have the power to repay, from time to time, money spent by a complainant—expenses and so on. It is difficult to estimate now how much money that will entail, but we need some assurance from the Minister that sufficient money will be made available from elsewhere and added to the Welsh block, so that none of it has to come from front-line services. The health service commissioner will be able to look into a failure in a service provided by the Assembly in the exercise of a function of the Assembly relating to the National Health Service and also a failure by the Assembly to provide a service the provision of which is an Assembly health service function". He could therefore be extremely busy looking into the areas of the NHS relevant to the powers of the Assembly. Many complaints may be related, through the health service commissioner, to action taken before the Assembly came into being. I am looking for clarification of that, too. We know that the Minister is involved in an enormous consultation process about the reorganisation of the trusts. We heard about that during Welsh Questions today. Adjournment debates have also been held about it, and many questions have been tabled. My question, therefore, is: is it not rather unfair to rush all that through? After all, the Minister's party believes that devolution is its Government's flagship legislation. Labour Members have trumpeted it all—so is it not right that the Assembly should have an opportunity to consider the proposals, especially if the health service commissioner will thereafter have questions and complaints put to him? Why does the Minister have to rush everything through and get it on the statute book by 1 April, a few weeks before the Assembly comes into being? Has he considered—if not, I ask him to do so—carrying on with his investigations, but passing all the information to the Assembly, so that its members can make the recommendations? If the Government believe in devolution, surely it is up to the Assembly members to examine health provision in Wales and make the recommendations. I have asked the Minister a few questions, and I hope that he will be able to reassure me about at least some of the points that I have raised.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I welcome the changes to the Bill. The Minister was kind enough to say that the Government were responding to representations made on Report, and Plaid Cymru's new clause about an ombudsman for Wales was relevant in that context, so we are glad that the Government have moved in that direction. However, there are one or two areas of uncertainty concerning how things will work out, especially with regard to the possible overlap between the functions of the ombudsman relating to the National Assembly for Wales and those of the central Government ombudsman. When the Minister opened the debate, he tried to reassure the House that there should be no overlap, but I wonder what the position will be when there are orders that can be exercised either by a Secretary of State in London, who is a member of the British Government, or by the Assembly. If people have a grievance because neither the Secretary of State nor the Assembly has fulfilled their responsibilities, which either of them may exercise, for undertaking actions by order—we shall hear examples of those later—where should they seek redress? Will the Minister respond to that question when he closes this short debate? Secondly, there is a general question as to the seriousness with which the National Assembly will regard the work and reports of the ombudsmen. The complaints that constituents frequently make, whether they relate to the local government ombudsmen—which are, perhaps, more common—or the central Government ombudsman, are that, although their case was investigated, nothing happened. They sought redress and changes in policy following an investigation, and sometimes a positive report by an ombudsman, but there was not an adequate mechanism to ensure that such changes took place. Thirdly, I hope that there will be a regular debate in the National Assembly, not only about specific complaints but about the general patterns of complaints in the ombudsman's reports. The National Assembly must take those on board regularly, not only when it is kicked hard enough to make it sit up and take notice. Having made those three points, I welcome the change to the Bill. It builds in an additional safeguard for citizens, and I am glad to support the amendment.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I shall deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Welsh ombudsman will not have formal enforcement powers, but if the Assembly fails to comply, that will be because it has formally and publicly rejected a motion put down by the First Secretary to approve the ombudsman's recommendations. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). The Assembly will have publicly to reject the motion. Ever the optimist, I do not think it likely that the Welsh Assembly would reject a motion relating to the recommendations of the Welsh ombudsman. There will be a transfer from the Cabinet Office vote to the Welsh block to cover the costs of the office; but if the Welsh ombudsman is the same person as the parliamentary ombudsman, no salary will be payable—not that I would want that to influence the way in which we make progress. Once the office has been created, all NHS complaints will go to the Welsh ombudsman. Up to that point, they will have been dealt with by the health service ombudsman. Therefore, we do not want to muddy the waters; it is the date that will make the difference. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley may think that the Government have rushed the NHS reconfiguration, but considering that the process will have taken almost two years to complete, during which there has been wide consultation in Wales, it would be inappropriate to hold up the possibility of saving some £7 million a year, which will go from administration into health care, to await decisions from the Assembly. The Assembly will thank us for going ahead with these changes, so that it has additional money to allocate to the health service in Wales.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Lack of speed is not one of the allegations that I would throw at the Welsh Office, but we are talking about only a few weeks. I understand what the Minister says about the savings that may occur as a result of the reconfiguration, but the Administration may not welcome the changes that the Minister may then be making, and it would have to overhaul some of them, which at the end of the day may be more expensive. Therefore, would it not be better to wait a few weeks until the Assembly is up and running, bring it into the consultation procedure, and convince it that the changes that the Minister wants to make are the right ones, but allow the Assembly to have its say? In a spirit of inclusiveness—as someone who did not parade the wonders of devolution, that is fairly new to me—I am now saying that we should let the Assembly have its say.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not quite got to grips with all that this will mean. It is not a question of hanging on for only a few weeks. We shall have been consulting the Welsh people for three months on the actual proposals. Anyone who has expressed a desire to stand for the Assembly will have had three months, and will still have two months in which to make observations on the trusts reconfiguration proposals. We want the new trusts to be well prepared on 1 April, so they will have five to six months to prepare themselves for the new regime and order of the day. To hold everything up until next April means holding things up not for a few weeks but for six or seven months. We have already spent more than a year consulting on the principle and practice of the new trusts, so I do not think that anyone would thank us for hanging on much longer and creating all sorts of uncertainties in the health service. As I have said before in the House, some people have told me that I have moved too quickly, others have told me that I have moved too slowly, and others still have said that I have moved both too quickly and too slowly. I think that we have got it about right.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about a substantial point? If the Assembly is to be the all-singing, all-dancing body that it has been promoted as over the past year, surely it would be better to have a delay of five or six months to allow the new fount of democracy to make a decision than to make any decision now. I presume that he will not deny that the Assembly will have the right immediately to overthrow any decision that he may take towards the end of the year. I find it most peculiar that the Welsh Office is advertising for chairmen for the new trusts while the proposals are still out to consultation. If the Welsh Office has already decided what the new configuration will be, why bother to consult on it? The Assembly will contain a corpus of informed opinion, so it will be ready to make a political decision. I should have thought that waiting a few months for the 60 brains to be brought together in the new Assembly would be far more democratic, inclusive and of benefit to the people.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

My hon. Friend does justice neither to himself nor to his constituents, who have made vigorous representations to me about the proposals on NHS reconfiguration. I can only repeat that the consultation has been very wide and detailed. Anyone who is thinking of standing for the Assembly could already have made a contribution to that consultation process. Staff in the health service want us to come to some decisions on the proposals. If we do not, those decisions will have to wait longer than six or seven months, as the Assembly will not be able to decide to do everything completely differently; it, too, would have to consult properly on any changes that it wanted to make. I think that everyone in Wales—both those working in the health service and those being cared for by it—will want us to save money in administration so that we can spend more on health care. Moreover, I am sure that the Welsh ombudsman will be able to deal very satisfactorily with any problems in the health service. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned joint orders and the overlap of jurisdictions between different ombudsmen. Schedule 9 provides for consultation and co-operation between ombudsmen, so that any overlap can be sorted out by agreement. If the ombudsmen decided that the complaint was equally important to their activities—if they felt that neither the Minister of the Crown nor the Assembly had acted appropriately, or that they should investigate allegations—they could work together to deal with the issue. I think that I have covered all the points raised, so I commend the amendment to the House.

TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 36, 45, 54, 151, 157, 158, 161 to 163, 168 and 170.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The amendments clarify what functions the Assembly may be given in England in respect of the sea and in respect of cross-border bodies—that is, bodies whose activities relate to Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), signalled on Report on 25 March the intention to table in another place amendments relating to clause 23. He undertook that any such amendments would not enable the transfer order to give the Assembly more functions in England than was possible under clause 23, and that they would maintain the mechanisms that are in the Bill in respect of the Assembly's functions in England. We have kept to that undertaking. The principal amendments are No. 34, which deletes clause 23; No. 170, which reproduces many of its provisions in a new schedule; and No. 157, which defines "Wales" as including the territorial sea adjacent to Wales. I propose to concentrate my remarks on the significant changes made by those amendments. Paragraph 3 of the new schedule limits the range of functions that the Assembly can be given in parts of England that adjoin Wales. Previously, the Bill had allowed potentially any function to be given to the Assembly in respect of a cross-border area; however, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made clear on Report, we intend to transfer such functions to the Assembly only in respect of rivers and other water-related matters. The term "rivers" encompasses the functions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State currently exercises in respect of flood defence and navigation on rivers. The amendment also makes it clear that the Assembly can be given functions only in parts of England that adjoin Wales, and only if the Assembly is given the equivalent functions for the whole or part of Wales. That constitutes a significant narrowing compared to the approach in clause 23(6)(c) and I hope that the House will agree that the clarification is welcome.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I want to get an assurance from him. He has got to paragraph 3, but is going to explain paragraph 2 of the schedule?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I hope that I shall cover that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will remind me of it, if it appears that I am not going to do as he asks. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will find the amendment particularly helpful in demolishing, once and for all, the suggestion that the Assembly would have responsibility for schools in parts of Herefordshire. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had already dealt with that point on Report on 25 March—Hansard column 645, if the hon. Gentleman wants to check—but the amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt. Amendment No. 157 provides that: 'Wales' includes the sea adjacent to Wales out as far as the seaward boundary of the territorial sea, which extends 12 nautical miles from the coast. That definition of Wales will apply for all the purposes of the Bill. One effect is that the Assembly may be given ministerial functions only in respect of the territorial sea. Two other provisions flow from that definition of Wales. First, amendment No. 158 provides an order-making power to determine any boundary between the parts of the sea that areto be treated as adjacent to Wales and those that are not. Amendment No. 151 provides for such an order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That power is necessary in the case of the Dee and Severn estuaries and the Bristol channel, where the coast of Wales lies less than 24 nautical miles from the coast of England. Secondly, paragraph 4 of the new schedule, which is inserted by amendment No. 170, provides that the transfer order may require a Minister of the Crown to consult the Assembly about certain functions essentially to do with the disposal and abandonment of oil and gas installations in the sea adjacent to the territorial sea—that is, beyond the 12-mile limit. There is a similar order-making power to define the boundaries of "Welsh controlled waters" for the purposes of that paragraph. Paragraph 3 makes it clear that an order under clause 22 may give the Assembly functions in respect of a range of cross-border bodies as diverse as the Environment Agency, Audit Commission, Intervention Board and the North West and North Wales sea fisheries committee, to give just a few examples. The previous definition in clause 23(6)(d) would not have allowed the Assembly to inherit many of the functions that my right hon. Friend currently exercises, and the amendment corrects that oversight. In the light of the further consideration that we have given to the Assembly's functions, it has become apparent that there are a limited number of functions that it will exercise in Wales but whose principal effect may be felt in England. The effect could take the form of a serious adverse impact on water resources, the water supply or the quality of water in England, and relates to matters such as abstractions from, and discharges into, rivers that flow across the border. We believe that, in recognition of the interests of people living in England who may be affected by the Assembly's decisions in Wales, there should be a limited override power allowing the Secretary of State to intervene and to take certain decisions in place of the Assembly.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Why does the Minister think that the Secretary of State is likely to behave more responsibly than the Assembly?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

It is not an issue of responsibility, because I am sure that the Assembly, the Secretary of State for Wales and other Secretaries of State with responsibilities in England whose actions might affect Wales will behave very responsibly. It is a cross-border issue involving consultation at an English level. In the cases that I have described, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have some responsibility in this matter.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

In order to ensure that we understand him correctly, will the Minister spell out his intentions in respect of these changes? Is he really saying that we will give the Secretary of State—whose political colour may be different from that of the Government of the Assembly—a veto over the Assembly when it comes to decisions about abstracting water from rivers in Wales in order to supply the industrial needs of cities in England? Is that what the Government are offering in the amendment? Has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions turned over Welsh Office Ministers to that extent?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is a matter of approaching the matter sensibly. The Environment Agency could also have some input. The Assembly will have to consider issues on the Welsh side of the border, and the Secretary of State will consider those on the English side. For example, the Environment Agency would have something to say if a decision had adverse effects on the Welsh or English sides of the border. There can be no question of any action taken by the Secretary of State in relation to England having a detrimental effect on the Welsh side of the border. It is a question of balancing these matters, and that is provided for in paragraph 6 of the new schedule. The override power can apply to functions in parts of two named Acts only, and, in due course, the transfer orders will set out our proposals for the precise areas where the override power will be available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the right hon. Gentleman about a number of those issues, and I am sure that he will want to consider that correspondence. Certain matters relating to abstraction—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred specifically—will not be covered by this provision; responsibility will remain with Welsh bodies. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the legislation. Abstraction is dealt with under part II of the Water Resources Act 1991, and is excluded from the override provisions. I give him an absolute assurance on that point. On the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), paragraph 2 of the new schedule is already covered by clause 23(6)(a). It is not new. The purpose is to allow the Assembly to be given responsibility for any function that relates to the Welsh language and culture, whether inside or outside Wales—for example, the power to make grants to education authorities for Welsh language teaching under the Education Act 1996. We propose that the Assembly should have that power for Wales and England. Irrespective of the override power, as a matter of administrative law the Assembly will have to take account of the wider impact of its decisions across a range of environmental functions, including any impact that may be felt in England. I have just been reminded that part II of the Water Resources Act was included in the override power, although it says explicitly—this is where my confusion arose—that applications will not be a matter for Ministers, but will be dealt with my the Environment Agency. Ministers would participate in the process only if an application were rejected and was subject to an appeal. I hope that, with all those matters taken into consideration, the House will be able to agree to the amendment.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Before I deal with the amendment, I should like to say a word about amendment No. 157, which defines the maritime boundary of Wales. Will the Minister comment on the implications of that definition and on the Assembly's powers vis-a-vis the effects of pollution arising from oil and gas exploration and extraction both inside and beyond the area defined as being within Welsh territorial waters? Does he agree that, despite its limited powers in that area, the Assembly will need to develop a comprehensive energy strategy for Wales, and that it will have a lively interest in oil and gas exploration in the seas off Wales? It may prefer alternative developments, such as the large-scale offshore wind technology advocated by Greenpeace. The Department of Trade and Industry, which licenses oil and gas exploration and exploitation, will have to listen seriously to the Assembly's opinion and have regard to its views about an appropriate energy strategy for Wales and its concerns about the environment.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman just referred to Welsh territorial waters. The Bill talks about territorial waters "adjacent to Wales"—in other words, British territorial waters. Is he suggesting that the Assembly should be responsible for all the acts relating to those territorial waters?

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has derived some kind of pleasure from picking up on a small point of definition. The people of Wales regard the seas off the Welsh coasts as being a part of Wales that impinges on their welfare and interests. As I understand it, the amendment is about defining where Wales comes to an end in the sea. [Laughter.] Indeed. I hope that the Minister will address the issues that I have raised on energy and the development of energy policy. In respect of Lords amendment No. 170, the concern is that the Assembly would be constrained in its ability to ensure the implementation of what might be described as a sustainable water strategy for Wales. Surely it will need to consider that because water is important for environmental policy and vital for economic development policy, both of which come within a sustainable development policy. Wales is richly endowed with invaluable water resources. I do not need to tell hon. Members that water is becoming increasingly important in the United Kingdom and globally. We know that there is an impending significant, and perhaps serious, water shortage in certain parts of the United Kingdom arising from the increasing use of water in development and in agriculture as well as in industry. Demand and consumption are rising, and there is the whole question of climate change. I emphasise that thought is currently being given to the large-scale transfer of water resources from various parts of the United Kingdom to areas that will suffer water shortages. That certainly includes Wales, so new reservoirs and impounding water will be on the agenda within the next 10 to 15 years. The availability of water is also relevant to the location of economic activity, and to where it is appropriate to locate certain industries and to grow certain agricultural crops. Wales should be able to benefit from its plentiful supply of water and, rather than exporting water as a raw material, value would be added to water in Wales. We need to get the matter clear now and hear the Minister's view: would the Assembly have to approve any transfer of water, which there might have to be in certain circumstances? Surely the Assembly would have to approve such a transfer. It simply would not be acceptable for the Secretary of State to be able to override it on the grounds in Lords amendment No. 170 and especially paragraph 6(1) of the new schedule. The Minister referred to the Secretary of State's letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on this matter. The Secretary of State said: The compulsory purchase and compulsory works powers needed to build a new reservoir are in part VI of the Water Industries Act 1991 and the override power of the Secretary of State therefore would not permit intervention. However, the amendment refers not to the Water Industries Act 1991, but to the Water Resources Act 1991, part VII of which applies to compulsory purchase in respect of the laying of pipes. That is relevant to reservoirs and water transfers, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it. There seems to be confusion between the two 1991 Acts. Part II of the Water Resources Act 1991 concerns abstraction licences, although I do not know whether subsequent legislation and amendment means that the provisions have been shifted to other parts of that Act. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) shakes his head, which is a great comfort to me—a great discomfort, I should say. We need satisfactory clarification of these matters. If we do not receive it, we shall be obliged to divide the House.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Let me take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis). One of his simpler points involved Lords amendment No. 157, and its definition of Wales as including the sea…as far as the…boundary of the territorial sea". We welcome that definition, but it would not allow the Assembly to influence decisions on oil explorations more than 12 miles offshore. We all know of the grid in the Irish sea where there are possibilities of drilling—and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, opportunities for pollution, which we would be unable to prevent. The Assembly could debate such an issue under the general provisions of the Bill, but it could not have a formal say in regard to, for example, a planning application for oil exploration just 13 miles off the Welsh coast. That is worrying, and I should like to know how the Government propose to deal with it. Paragraph 4 of the new schedule proposed in Lords amendment No. 170 provides for the Assembly to be consulted about the abandonment of oil and gas installations—a very topical subject—but not about new explorations. Many members of the Assembly would not consider that right. 4.30 pm Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the new schedule is the provision in paragraph 6 that allows the Secretary of State to overrule the Assembly on matters of water supply and quality if the exercise of a function in that regard might have a "serious adverse impact" in England. We consider that far too wide-ranging. It would allow the Secretary of State to go against the Assembly's opinion and to allow, for example, water extraction from Welsh rivers for use in England. There is clearly a need for effective water management between England and Wales, and there may be a need for the transfer of water from Wales to some parts of England that have less water, but we think it essential for that to take place with the permission of the Assembly, rather than at the will of the Secretary of State. As a constituency Member, I am particularly interested in that aspect. The River Wye and the River Usk flow through my constituency, and there is a huge issue of compensatory flow at times of water shortage. Moreover, Welsh Water is putting many more boreholes in both river valleys so that water can be extracted for public consumption. The problem is that that lowers the river levels, and has a grave ecological effect on the rivers. If we are to be asked for more abstraction for England without the Assembly's being able to have an impact on decisions, we shall be in considerable trouble. The question has arisen in the past of the supply of water from the Elan valley, and the agreement that was struck between Welsh Water and Severn Trent plc for the supply of water to the midlands. That was achieved, but it was controversial at the time. I have in my house plans made 100 years ago—which I have discussed with a neighbour—for a water grid to supply southern England, which is now being talked about again. The plans are very sophisticated, even by today's standards. They allow for the damming of the River Irfon, just above Builth Wells, for piped water to go into Llangors lake, near where I live, for the level of the lake to be raised considerably and for water to flow down the Usk and into the Thames system down to Staines. It is all there on paper, and I am sure that it could be resuscitated. It would be a disgrace if the Welsh Assembly could not influence such activity, but it could happen within the next 10 years. We must have safeguards, enabling the Assembly to influence water abstraction from Wales for use elsewhere. I feel very strongly about the matter.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

What aspect would the Assembly want to influence—the engineering side, the projects side or just the costs side?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I do not think that the House would want me to go into a treatise on construction. Matters of principle must be considered, such as the issue of a way-leave for pipes that may cross land but from which no one in Wales would benefit. We welcome the fact that the Assembly has a role in the development of the Welsh language and culture within and outside Wales. During the referendum campaign, I discovered that there are 400,000 Welsh speakers in England and 500,000 in Wales. That is a fascinating statistic. The Assembly should provide an excellent opportunity for the Welsh language and culture to be given appropriate priority, and I am sure that they will flourish in the future. The other provisions of the new schedule, especially those that provide clarification, are welcome. However, the possibility of the Secretary of State overruling the Assembly on water issues is a very serious matter.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

This is an important and substantial debate. It is a genuine attempt to limit and narrow the issues that were raised in earlier debates. Nevertheless, it has raised other issues, such the problem of water which was mentioned by the previous two speakers. I Want to draw attention to the potential confusion that could arise, and the potential for friction between the Assembly and Government Departments. It is in the common interest of everyone who wants devolution to work to deal with the potential areas of friction and dispute in these clauses. The report of the debates on these amendments in the other place on 2 June are to be found at columns 225 and 231–36 of the House of Lords Hansard. Those debates show the wide-ranging nature of the provisions in the schedule, despite the Minister's attempts to limit them. The schedule contains wide and sweeping powers. The new schedule refers to transfers of functions. We have had a continuing debate on one aspect of this issue, about which we are still no clearer. In the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn said that functions relating to animal health and food safety, including those under the Food Safety Act 1990, would be transferred to the Assembly. Therefore, the regulations that were used to ban beef on the bone will be a function of the Assembly. Lord Williams referred to a joint responsibility with the Minister of Agriculture. I have asked this question many times, and I am still waiting for an answer. What will happen if there is a dispute between the Assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Who will have the final say? Will the Minister of Agriculture have the power under the 1990 Act on an issue such as meat on the bone to override the strong wishes expressed by the Assembly, or will the Assembly's view prevail? The Bill does not contain a disputes procedure. Before we let the provision through, we should be clear in our minds about who will have the final say if there is joint responsibility; otherwise, there will be considerable friction. Let us take the vivid example of exercising power under meat on the bone regulations. If the Assembly decided not to implement the ban, but MAFF wanted to apply the order, whose view would finally prevail if it was a joint responsibility? That is an extremely basic proposition, but it will test the model that we are trying to establish. Amendment No. 170 relates to cross-border arrangements. Opposition Members put their finger on the provisions in paragraph 6 of the new schedule, which provide that "the Secretary of State"—not the Secretary of State for Wales—or the relevant Minister will have overriding power. However, we are still in the dark. Paragraph 7(b) of the proposed new schedule states that the function may be exercised by the Assembly only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, a Minister of the Crown. There is a big difference between consultation and agreement. Consultation implies that one party has the right to override the other. It is difficult to work out the issues that are covered by paragraph 7. Some orders might be for agreement and some could be subject to consultation. We should not rubber stamp such provisions. We should be given vivid illustrations and examples of the areas that would be subject to agreement and those that would be for consultation. Unless we are given those, we may be creating headaches for Ministers or for the Assembly. We must clarify cross-border issues and areas for which the Bill provides for joint responsibility. We must know who will have the final say and how disputes are to be settled. Without that information, there will be a recipe for potential conflict, and none of us wants that. Lord Williams of Mostyn spoke about what he called water issues. His speech shows that the schedule also covers matters such as rent rebate subsidy and its impact on social security benefits. Lord Williams of Mostyn's explanation is contained in column 233 of Hansard and shows the consultation that has to take place with Ministers, especially the Secretary of State for Social Security, because of the ripple effect, if, for example, the Assembly grants a generous rent rebate subsidy and is willing to pay for it. What is the Government's position on rent subsidies? I do not remember thinking in Committee that the Assembly would have rent subsidy powers, but such powers are logical. They are lodged with local government and must be Assembly responsibilities of one sort or another. Lord Williams of Mostyn said: In the longer term, we will consider providing for a separate rent rebate subsidy payable by a UK Minister similar to the current arrangements in Scotland. I apologise for my ignorance, but I was not aware that our rent rebate subsidy system was different from the one in Scotland. As a result, there will be complications if the Assembly proceeds to exercise its duty, responsibility or power to be more generous, or less generous, on rent rebate subsidies. Lord Williams of Mostyn also observed: However, such changes will need to be considered in the context of the Government's comprehensive spending review. This may reach conclusions that would entail amending the relevant provisions of the 1989 Act for both England and Wales. We would want to avoid cutting across the conclusions of that review by making changes to the 1989 Act only in respect of Wales. For that reason we are not making such amendments now."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 1998; Vol.590, c.234.] We have now had the comprehensive spending review, so perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us what consequential amendments need to be made to the rent subsidy arrangements. That is an integral part of the issues that arise from the new schedule. We all want the system to work. I read with great interest something that came through the post over the last day or so. It was Mr. Peter Hennessy's lecture to the Lloyds TSB forum. This is what he said about devolution—it is pertinent and rather well put: The edifice of devolution is very largely constructed on the harmony model. But that desirable state of affairs cannot be guaranteed. Far from it. If the harmony model survives, I can see that many of the issues and concerns that we are scratching at in our debate on the schedule may prove to be modest or minor. However, if the harmony model breaks down, the legislation must be robust enough to cope with that. I am not convinced that the complex and difficult wording of the schedule establishes a sufficiently robust model to deal with important demarcation disputes, possible boundary disputes and potential areas of conflict between the Assembly and the Government.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I am pleased to be called to speak in this important debate on Lords amendment No. 170. As hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, the powers of the Assembly will be curtailed in relation to powers of the Secretary of State—the Secretary of State will have some overriding powers—so it is right that we test some of the issues that have been aired by hon. Members. I apologise to the Minister for not being here for his first few sentences, but I listened carefully to the remainder of his speech and I did not hear him referring to paragraph 5 and European matters. He will recall that on a number of occasions in Committee I asked questions about these issues. When he replies, will he deal with some of the points that arise from paragraph 5? Paragraph 5 deals with two issues. The first is ensuring that any treaty obligations for the United Kingdom pertain in all parts of the UK, so in a devolved system we understand the need for sub-paragraph (a). The main issue relates to sub-paragraph (b), which refers to the powers that both the Assembly and the Secretary of State will have in implementing statutory instruments that flow from European directives. Who will have responsibility for passing the statutory instruments and who will have the ultimate sanction? The list of statutory instruments covered by sub-paragraph (b) contain a number of important ones for Wales. I draw the Minister's attention to two areas where the Assembly might wish to differ from regulations in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. An example might be the hill livestock compensatory allowances. The Assembly may or may not want to enhance the payments to farmers. For the sake of argument, let us assume that they want to keep the amount currently paid to farmers, but want to distribute it in a different way. Let us assume that the Assembly wants to target the allowances differently, to ensure that farmers who really need them get them. Under sub-paragraph (b), the Assembly would be prevented from doing so unless the same provisions applied in other parts of the United Kingdom. That seems to be an unnecessary restriction. The Minister will know that one of hon. Members' concerns about the dairy quota is how little quota is available for young farmers entering the industry. What if the Assembly wants to operate a siphon system to ensure that part of the quota is set aside for young farmers? Although such a system has been considered by many Select Committees, the Conservative Government always refused to accept one. If the Assembly wanted to go down that road, paragraph 5 would prevent it from doing so. We are debating issues not of money but of principle. We are debating issues of how resources might be distributed in Wales differently from the way in which they are distributed in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will the Assembly be prevented by the provision from such activities? [Interruption.] What if the Welsh Assembly wants to innovate in matters covered by statutory instruments on equal pay or air quality standards? What if the Welsh Assembly wants to do different things—[Interruption.]

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

Order. General conversations are breaking out throughout the Chamber. Hon. Members must listen to the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question—I am sure that the Minister is aware of the point—is, what ability will the Assembly have to think afresh and to think through new ideas? Will the Assembly have simply to consider what is happening elsewhere? Will the Secretary of State simply override it? The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) put his finger on the question—who will have the final say? That is the important question. I hope that the Minister will assure us that, on the issues I have mentioned, the Assembly will have the final say.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

On many of those issues, neither the Assembly nor this place will have the final say. Many of the cross-border issues that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) mentioned, such as pollution, are covered by European legislation. European legislation will increasingly cover those issues. As for the Welsh Assembly being able to think afresh about those issues, it just will not happen. I should like to return to the territorial waters issue. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said that I made a rather trivial point. The point was not trivial but most significant. Although the Assembly will have a say on oil exploration, mineral development and Celtic sea pollution, those matters are subject to international treaties signed by the United Kingdom Government. The Welsh Assembly will have to operate within those parameters. Unfortunately—this is where I have great sympathy for the three Plaid Cymru Members in the Chamber—the Assembly will not have legislative and tax-raising powers or be able to negotiate as has been suggested. I do not think that we should create the impression that the Assembly will be an all-singing, all-dancing body that can do all those things. In the foreseeable future, under the terms of this Bill, it will not be able to do so.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

It would be churlish of me to begin my speech without congratulating Ministers on the splendour of their yellow flowers.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Daffodils.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Daffodils. Indeed. I take pleasure—I think that that is how it was described—in dealing with a small point of definition. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who made many excellent points in Committee, drew the Minister's attention to paragraph 3(2) of the new schedule in Lords amendment No. 170. In that sub-paragraph, a "cross-border body" is so defined that it means the whole of England, save one part—let us imagine, for example, Dorset. Therefore, Dorset would adjoin Wales if it were the whole of England, save one part. We are told that the saving grace is sub-paragraph (3), in which the transfer of powers over the whole of England, bar Dorset, would be limited to the transfer of powers over water resources in the whole of England, bar Dorset. A further saving grace, I suppose, is provided by paragraph 6, whereby the Minister—if he feels that a consequence of having transferred to the Assembly power over water resources of the whole of England, bar Dorset, is that that power is being used wrongly—can intervene and overrule the Assembly. I cannot think of a way in which the Government could conceivably have concocted a greater chance of dispute between Ministers and the Welsh Assembly in respect of water, but it is not my purpose to tease the Government or to dwell on the matter at length. However, I should like the Minister to guarantee that, despite the latitude defined in paragraph 3(2), the Government have no intention of applying it, and any transfer of functions over water which occurs to Wales will be, in the ordinary expectation of the term, a cross-border function and not an abuse engendered by the drafting of the provision. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister put that on the record and set the matter to rest. Much was said in Committee about paragraph 5, which continues to make it perfectly clear that, so long as the Minister believes that he is implementing a European Community directive, he can overrule the Assembly. It is left to the Assembly to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to argue that the Minister has misinterpreted his own action as an implementation of a directive and that it is in fact something else. I should be very grateful if the Minister could point out—although I very much doubt whether he will—any way in which it will fail to be a cause of continuing friction as EC directive after EC directive rains down on us and Ministers seek to implement them over the Welsh Assembly.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Perhaps I might start by responding briefly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the significance to the economy and the environment of Wales of developments that may be out to sea. An oil rig off the coast of Wales can have a significant bearing on the environment and possibly the economic prospects of the area. If it is within the 12-mile limit, the Assembly will have something to say about it, but if it is outside that limit, it may not. A difference of half a mile one way or another makes very little difference to the impact on the environment or the land. We need clarification of the role of the Assembly concerning developments beyond that limit. I do not need to impress on Ministers the significance of drowning the valleys and extracting water from Wales. The way in which the Liverpool corporation took the Tryweryn valley, kicked out the residents of Capel Celyn and created a reservoir to provide water for industry on Merseyside without any recompense is probably one reason why three of the four hon. Members representing Gwynedd are from Plaid Cymru. The significance of that for the Assembly is very great indeed. One of the many reasons for having a National Assembly for Wales is to ensure that there is a body to safeguard the land of Wales so that such action—which was contrary to the united view of Welsh Members of Parliament across party borders as they then were—can never again be taken. If the interpretation of the rules could allow the Secretary of State—perhaps of a different political colour—to intervene and overrule the National Assembly for Wales on the development of reservoirs, on augmenting existing reservoirs or on extracting water from rivers, as happens with the River Dee at the moment, that is very serious. Paragraph 6 of the new schedule proposed by Lords amendment No. 170 seems quite clear. It states: Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the exercise of a relevant transferred environmental function…might have a serious adverse impact on…water resources…water supply…in England, he may intervene". Sub-paragraph (2) continues: that function shall not in that case be exercisable by the Assembly. In other words, the Assembly will not have that function. Sub-paragraph (3) refers to part II of the Water Resources Act 1991, which states at section 19: It shall be the duty of the Authority to take…such action as it may from time to time consider…with the directions of the Secretary of State…for the purpose…of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in England and Wales. Section 20(2) provides that such arrangements may make provision, by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, with respect to the construction or installation of any reservoirs, apparatus or other works. If the Lords amendment goes through, the powers of the Assembly will be undermined. I want a lot of persuasion from the Minister that the Assembly will not lose vital powers that we hoped it would exercise.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

We have had a long and interesting debate. I shall try to sum up the significant issues. The National Assembly for Wales will be consulted about issues such as oil rigs, whether they are in the 12-mile limit or not. The Assembly will be able to exercise additional powers inside the 12-mile limit, but it will be consulted for oil rigs or gas installations on either side of the limit. On the joint exercise of a power, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), if the Welsh Assembly does not agree with what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wants to do in England, it does not have to implement the proposal in Wales, so there is no problem. The issues of joint powers will be covered in the transfer orders, which will be available in the autumn. They can be considered in detail when they are debated early in the new year. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wants to put any thoughts to us on transfer orders, we shall be pleased to consider them. Water is an important issue. Part VI of the Water Industry Act 1991, which deals with water undertakers' powers to make compulsory purchase orders, is separate from the Water Resources Act 1991, which is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the new schedule. The National Assembly will decide about reservoirs and similar matters. Part VII of the Water Resources Act 1991 is about laying water pipes. The compulsory purchase power for reservoirs will lie with the National Assembly.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am sorry to press the issue, but I am referring to part II, not part VII. Part II makes it clear that people can augment the size of reservoirs. That can have a serious effect on the amount of water flowing in rivers, the amount of fishing and other issues. Will the National Assembly have control over that, or will there be override powers?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

My information is that the power on issues relating to compulsory purchase of land for the provision of further reservoirs will lie with the National Assembly for Wales. Nobody will be able to create a reservoir in any part of Wales without obtaining permission. The issue that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to concerns the Environment Agency, which does not have the funds to build reservoirs, so there can be no question of a repetition of the Tryweryn situation, because the National Assembly for Wales will have the necessary powers. The issue raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the extent of transfers under paragraph 3 relates only to genuine cases of cross-border areas, covering parts of Cheshire and Herefordshire that adjoin Wales. No other part of England would be covered. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. I thank all hon. Members for contributing to this very interesting debate. I reassure them again that, under the National Assembly for Wales, the Tryweryn situation certainly could not arise. Any other issues of concern can be dealt with when we debate matters surrounding the transfer orders.

MEMBERSHIP

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

At one time, I thought about speaking to each of the amendments individually, but, having taken soundings in the House, I find that there is general agreement that they are technical amendments, so I commend them all to the House.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

When lawyers hear words such as "technical" and "drafting", even the power of the Whips cannot prevent them from standing up to speak. I shall talk briefly about amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 111. When lawyers see phrases such as "Community law", they really start getting worried—or at least, some of them do. Amendment No. 108, as contained in the booklet entitled, "Lords amendments to the Government of Wales Bill", would leave out the phrase "Community law or" from clause 108, in page 55, line 30. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Indeed; perhaps that is a good idea. The original clause 108 says: The Assembly has no power to do anything that is incompatible with Community law", and the Lords amendment would take that out. I do not know whether we are debating a wholesale repudiation of the acquis communautaire, or whatever that is in Welsh—or, for that matter, in English. Are we now debating the abrogation of the whole of the treaty of Rome? No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that we are probably not. My first question is why—although I would welcome such a move—are we knocking out the words "Community law or", leaving clause 108 specifying only the European convention on human rights? I may be wrong—I may be reading the wrong document—but I believe that amendment No. 109 to clause 108 would make an insertion that relates entirely to the European convention on human rights. Will my hon. Friend briefly explain that? I was intrigued because amendment No. 109 refers to subsection (1), but there is no subsection (1) in clause 108, at least not in my copy of the Bill. There are many versions of the Bill. I have No. 98. Perhaps clause 108(1) is in another version of the Bill.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Yes.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

I am glad that Plaid Cymru's legal advisers have kept the party up to speed on that. Amendment No. 111 to clause 109 is very long and deals with many matters such as quantities relating to the United Kingdom, areas consisting of part of the United Kingdom, Community obligations and the Assembly's power. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister would briefly explain the amendment, because it makes no sense to me. It seems fairly complicated. That amendment also refers to subsection (1), but the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) tells me that that is all right.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

I do not want to delay the House by provoking the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I can see that the Whips are very pleased with some of my remarks. Subsection (1) is referred to, but I cannot find it in my copy of the Bill. I hope that I am not making life too difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister—I merely want to know what will happen to the acquis communautaire.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing those matters to my attention. One of the problems to which he has alluded is the many different versions of the Bill that have appeared over time. I reassure him that amendment No. 108 removes Community law from clause 108 because that is dealt with in clause 109. I refer my right hon. Friend to subsection (7) in amendment No. 111. That amendment refers to subsection (1) because clauses 108 and 109 have been transposed. Subsection (1) is what is currently the whole of clause 109. I said that these were technical amendments and, if there is any need for further correspondence on this matter, I shall be happy to help my right hon. Friend in that way.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

How will the Minister know whether legislation is incompatible with Community law? Clause 109(7) says that the Assembly can do nothing if legislation is incompatible. We should remember the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. We had to wait about eight years before we found out that the Act was incompatible with Community law. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has contempt for such business. He used to be in favour of freedom and liberty—I wish that he still was. Who will tell the Minister what legislation is incompatible? Will he telephone the Commission or the Foreign Office? How will he know what is incompatible when often we do not know that for many years, until the European Court tells us?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

The hon. Gentleman is famous for his ability to grasp issues of Community law. Let me assure him that we shall seek advice from our lawyers on any such issue, so he need not lose any sleep.

ASSEMBLY FIRST SECRETARY AND ASSEMBLY SECRETARIES

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I hope that, with the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I can persuade the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 49. The amendment is a response to what was clause 49 in the first version of the Bill that came before the House, which stated that, for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989, all members of the Welsh Assembly should be Crown servants. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) accepted that that might be inappropriate. He gave assurances to the House that the Government would consider that and return with amendments in the House of Lords. They have done so, and now propose that only the First Secretary and other Secretaries—essentially the Executive Committee of the Welsh Assembly—should be Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act. The Under-Secretary—I take his views as having been sincerely expressed—has been concerned during his political career with the pervasiveness, extent and usage of the Official Secrets Act. I put it to the House that when one considers the nature, functions and duties of the Assembly, one wonders why any Official Secrets Act is necessary. The Government have advanced weak arguments here and in another place, where the amendment was moved. The Government and the House accepted the necessity for an Official Secrets Act in respect of a restricted number of functions: defence, security, intelligence, foreign affairs and certain crime and investigative powers. None of those, per se, falls within the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. They are, perhaps, relevant to the Secretary of State for Wales who sits in the British Cabinet, for whom those issues may arise, but in what respect would they arise for the democratically elected Assembly for Wales? The only example that the Under-Secretary gave the House, on 26 March, was the only relevant argument that he made. He said: Sensitive information might be provided to an Assembly Member, for example, on police investigations into allegations of child abuse in Wales. An Assembly Member, perhaps with responsibilities for social services on a subject committee, would properly have to have that information. However, he or she should be under an obligation not to disclose that information publicly."—[Official Report, 26 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 727] He went on to say that the idea was not a novel one. If one starts disinterring and asking what is behind this or why it is necessary, the example given is not necessarily appropriate. Many hon. Members will have served on county councils, local authorities and so on, where directors of social services are advised by the police in the course of their investigations as to sensitive matters. That does not require the Official Secrets Act or a swearing to it. 5.30 pm All that I have ever asked the House since the Act came into being is that we should unpick the purpose behind it and ask why it is necessary. The Minister's argument does not stand up. Much confidential information that is exchanged would be covered by the Official Secrets Act. One of the problems that lies in the way that this is constructed is that the Minister is a Minister of the Crown. He may give information to Members of Parliament, or to anyone in society at large, but he is self-authorising, as long as it is within the construct of Cabinet policy. Who will self-authorise in a Welsh Assembly? The amendment is effectively gagging. I simply ask the good people of Wales and of Britain how they can in conscience be bound when they come upon a piece of information that they profoundly believe is important to the well-being or safety of their constituents. I do not believe that they can be bound in those circumstances.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, in the course of our work as Members of Parliament, we receive confidential information. I certainly have on occasions from the local police force. That does not make me a Crown servant or require me to comply with the Official Secrets Act.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for, in a sense, supporting an important contention.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I think that we both agree that the Bill as amended by the other place is a huge improvement, and we welcome the Government's change of mind. The justification for the application of the Official Secrets Act, even to the Executive, needs to be stated explicitly. The hon. Gentleman's argument, with which I agree, is that there is much less justification for applying the Official Secrets Act even to members of the Executive, even to the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, than there is to Ministers of the Crown.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

We do agree. On a quantum basis, it must be better that only the Executive of the Welsh Assembly is covered, rather than its totality, but the principle still remains. What is necessary to divide the Executive of the Welsh Assembly, whose members are elected on an equal franchise, different though it may be in type, from the other members of the Welsh Assembly? In that context, other features of the Official Secrets Act are worrying. This is a life-long duty. A person who was a member of the Executive for perhaps only six months would, in theory, be bound thereafter until such time as he was released from that burden. Who releases people from that burden? None of them is self-authorising. This is a battle that has been fought in Whitehall—I can see the nature of the civil service defending it—but, on the grounds advanced, the Minister did not give an instance that demonstrates why it is necessary to go to a democratically elected assembly. Nowhere else in the world do they try to impose this. Lord Williams of Mostyn puts his finger on perhaps the critical reason. In a short debate, he accepted that the measure is unlikely to affect many issues or instances in the Assembly but, almost as a giveaway, he added: We believe that leading members of the assembly should be covered by the Act to permit a proper flow of information between civil servants and those with executive responsibilities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 354.] That is one of the themes that have caused confusion, certainly to me, as to the status of the Welsh Assembly. What is its relationship to the Crown in Westminster? We know full well that the Crown is another way of saying the Prime Minister, Downing street, the Cabinet supported by a majority in the House of Commons. This is very much a subordinate body. We are asking to whom civil servants owe their duty of allegiance. Is it to the parliamentary apparatus headed by the Prime Minister, or to the Welsh Assembly? The Government have just said that the Welsh Assembly is merely a Crown body, so perhaps it falls into that. In the course of Lord Mostyn's address—[Interruption.] I shall just finish this point—he advises us that the Scottish Executive, no less, not a Crown body, will also be subject to the Official Secrets Act. So much for the claim of right where authority lies with the people. We again have the profound question: to whom do the civil servants owe their responsibilities and duties?

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

That is an acute question in Scotland. I apologise to the Whips, but this is a central matter. The truth is that Pandora's box has been opened and we want to know whether the Cabinet Secretary and the other senior civil servants have agreed to what will amount to a breakdown in discipline in the British civil service. That is the issue.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I appreciate that, and that is why I am concerned. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) wish to intervene?

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

No, I wish to speak after the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am concerned about this. The culture of secrecy is one side of the argument, against which I tried to fight, because, even in the example given by the Minister of child abuse in Wales, the culture of secrecy did not aid the revelation of what was going on. Would it not have been better if people had come forward, and more loudly, at an earlier stage, rather than everyone being silenced by an Official Secrets Act? The arguments put forward by the Government in relation to the functions and purposes of the Official Secrets Act are not appropriate for Wales. What signal does that give to Wales? Where is the culture of openness, which is the Government's flagship, no less? I have always been a believer in freedom of information. I fought the new Official Secrets Act. It was brought in, I regret to say, partly in response to my endeavours to reform section 2. There is no reason why a democratic assembly should be subject to it, in a way that does not happen in the rest of the world. Its application to Scotland compounds that outrage. As this is a Report stage, the Government must give detailed arguments as to why the measure is necessary. I rather suspect that it is that final point—that the civil servants would not owe their duty to Ministers and the Secretaries within the Parliament and the Assembly. Therefore, they have to draw Assembly leaders into the circle of secrecy. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Rhondda wish to intervene?

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

I want to speak after the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

It is on that basis that we would argue that we disagree with the Lords amendment.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Like other Labour Members, I am concerned about this critical issue. The Welsh Assembly was supposed to mark the new millennium with a new open democracy, all inclusive, which the people of Wales could crawl all over every day to see what their elected representatives were doing. Now people have to sign the Official Secrets Act. I am confused about why. Why does it have to be applied?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

I would rather not, because I want to continue with my argument. I have been a district and county councillor, a Member of the European Parliament and a Member of Parliament and, other than when I was in the Army as a lad, I never had to sign an Official Secrets Act. No Member of Parliament has signed it, except for Ministers of the Crown and those who are on the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that Committee is most peculiar, as it deals with national security.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

No. I want to finish. Hon. Members on the Intelligence and Security Committee have to sign the Act for specific reasons, but why should Assembly Members have to sign it? [Interruption.] I wish that the Deputy Chief Whip would let me make my speech. If he wants, I shall continue for an hour and a half—I shall make my point, as it is important. Why should Assembly Members have to sign the Act?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

They do not.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

As I understand it, and as the Government briefing suggests, the provision will apply only to members of the Assembly Executive Committee, who will be Members of the Welsh Assembly. I do not suppose that the Secretary of State will deny that, unless he intends that the Executive Committee be made up of people from the arts and television. Why will members of the Executive have to sign the Act? Will they be privy to national secrets? As far as I can see, the Assembly will be only a glorified county council carrying out administrative functions. It will not indulge in any secret exercises. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, people who are on county councils—chairmen and members of social services committee—deal with confidential information on child abuse cases. People who sit on education committees receive information on what happens in the education service, but they do not have to sign the Act, so why must members of the Assembly Executive Committee?

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

As one of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment, I want to make a few brief points that I hope the House will bear in mind. When the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that Assembly Members would have to sign the Official Secrets Act 1989, his comments were met with contempt by Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), seemed to shake his head as if to say rubbish. However, way back on 26 March, the Government were proposing that every Assembly Member should sign the Act. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I tabled an amendment to point out that the proposal was an outrage.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

In fact, the proposal was much worse; not only did Assembly Members have to sign the Act, but that was mandated by a Westminster statute—they had no alternative. To say that they were required to sign it suggests that they could have said, "I don't wish to sign it." The statute will now affect only the Executive of the Assembly, but it was intended to apply to all Assembly Members by fiat.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

How right my hon. Friend is. The Government had proposed that, unlike all other democratic assemblies of which I know, the provision would apply to all Members. Happily, a minor change has been made. On 26 March, I asked why the measure would apply to Wales but not to the Scottish Parliament. The Under-Secretary seemed to have acquired a delightful new interest in democracy, so I was staggered when, a few weeks later on 5 June, it was announced in the House of Lords that the provision would apply to the Scottish Parliament.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The simple answer to why that was been done must be that the Government believe that it is impossible to govern across the United Kingdom without the exchange of secrets between themselves and those in office in Wales and Scotland. That, of course, strikes at the root of democracy; the provision fetters those in the Scottish Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly, preventing them from responding to the needs of their electorates.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I am delighted to hear those words from my hon. Friend. I look forward to his joining me in the battle for democracy whether we have a Conservative or Labour Government—that will be great news for democracy. I make a point of not attacking people in the House, but I hope that the Under-Secretary—not the Secretary of State, for whom I have a high regard—will appreciate that he was regarded as someone who would fight for liberty and for people's rights. However, he defended a proposal that would apply the Official Secrets Act to every Assembly Member. What secrets are involved? The impression may be created that the Government are thinking only of massive issues, but that is wrong. I urge hon. Members to consider what respected members of their parties said when the Official Secrets Act was passed. Roy Hattersley, for example, pointed out that it applied not only to big issues, but to every piece of paper marked confidential or above. We were told that there would be a harm test, but, sadly, that does not work. I hope that hon. Members will also ask themselves what the blazes they would do if they were Executive Members of the Assembly and found a United Kingdom Government or European Union document that contained scandals or abuses that would damage Wales—not England or necessarily Britain, but specifically Wales. Under the provision, Executive Members of the Assembly would not be allowed to refer to such a document in any way. Members of the Executive should be fighting for Wales, so why should they not be able to reveal information about a new policy that would hit Wales hard? The Government should appreciate that the Welsh Assembly is not a branch or subsidiary part of the UK Government but something separate. I did not want a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly, but, as we are now to have them, we must appreciate that their task is to fight for Scotland and for Wales. Unfortunately, by applying the Official Secrets Act, the Government are giving the impression that they regard the Welsh Assembly as a branch of their operation. The provision is wrong and unnecessary, and I believe that we should accept the Lords amendment. The Official Secrets Act should not apply—the proposal is an insult not only to Wales, but to democracy.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I understand that the House wishes to reach a swift conclusion, so I shall curtail my remarks. I compliment the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the way in which he presented his case. I pay tribute to him, and to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for the way in which they have consistently argued their case. Their beliefs are genuine, but wrong; I shall briefly explain why. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills correctly described the history of this debate. The last time it occurred in this House, on Report, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said that the Government intended to give further consideration to the matter. We tabled amendments in the other place, which were discussed there, and we now propose to agree with those amendments. The Bill, as amended, provides that the Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Secretaries are to be Crown servants for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), the provision does not apply to Assembly Members per se. The proposal is consistent with our earlier debates on the issue. Assembly Secretaries will be acting in a quasi-ministerial role and might, from time to time, need to be entrusted with classified information within the meaning of the Act. Lord Williams and police investigations into child abuse were cited, and there are other instances in which classified information might have to be given to Ministers. The amendment is also essential if Assembly Secretaries are to discharge their responsibilities to the Assembly in European and other international negotiations. If Assembly Secretaries were not bound by the Act, it is quite possible that a Minister of the Crown would be legally unable to share information about such negotiations with them. That would leave the Assembly unable to use the powers available to it to address many matters of vital interest to Wales. The House will recall that, on Report, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who was then Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on constitutional matters, with his hon. Friends tabled amendments that were identical in effect to the amendment before us now; so did the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), his hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). It is therefore reasonable to assume that amendment No. 49 fully reflects a cross-party consensus in the House. I noted with interest the support for the Government's position expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). There is a cross-party consensus—one to which the Government rightly responded in the other place. I might add that the amendment was warmly welcomed by the Conservative Front Benchers in the other place. I trust that Conservatives in this House share that view. If the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gets his way and the amendment is not accepted, members of the Executive Committee will be seriously hampered in their work. They might well be unable to discuss matters of crucial interest to Wales with Ministers of the Crown. They would also have to assent to conditions imposed by civil servants on each and every occasion that they required access to classified material. That would be both inefficient and a distortion of the proper relationship between senior elected Members and their officials.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

It is perfectly true that the then Conservative Front-Bench team and the Liberal Democrats in the other place supported the amendment. However, the Secretary of State should remember that there is a fall-back position from the totalitarian grasp whereby everybody is covered by the Act. Even in the House of Commons, we had a fall-back position. The Secretary of State will have noticed that the Conservative Front Benchers in this place supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), so the right hon. Gentleman should not over-emphasise that point. This is meant to be an intelligent debate in which we test the arguments being advanced. We are hopeful that, when the Bill returns to the Lords, the Government will have reflected on the issue, but it does not sound as though they will, from the Secretary of State's speech.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Like the Conservative party, we are a listening Government, and it would be wrong of me not to say that we shall listen carefully to all the comments that have been made. However, I cannot hold out any prospects, because the matter has been debated and we listened carefully when it was considered on Report. We made a sensible amendment in the other place, and the provision that we now have reflects the need to ensure that the Assembly can conduct its business properly. If we were to remove the amendment, that would cause considerable doubt about how the Official Secrets Act applied to the Assembly in the conduct of its business. It is possible that, without there being any provision on the face of the Bill, the courts might look at clause 1(3), which gives the Assembly Crown status, and conclude that all Assembly Members were bound by the Act as Crown servants. That is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills wants. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman seeks to re-run this argument and to overturn an amendment that I genuinely believe improves the Bill and reflects a cross-party consensus both here and in the other place. I am also disappointed that, in so doing, he would leave the Executive Committee in doubt as to its status and hampered in its work. I urge the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's motion and to agree with the Lords in the amendment.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the Secretary of State's speech. I have to say that, no, I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument. I could have written his brief—indeed, it could have been written at any time in the 18 years of the previous Government. No instance—not one—was given of a case where the ability of the Welsh Assembly to address the matters relevant to its remit as a Crown body was constrained. There was only a generality of arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East and I contended that the European dimension—information exchanged between Governments in confidence—would be excluded from the knowledge of the Welsh Assembly. It clearly is of some importance to the Welsh Assembly. The measure sends out entirely the wrong signals: there is no need for it, and the Government have not made a case for it. I apologise for not having been present on 3 May when the amendment in my name was debated. I was in Canada, meeting the commissioner for freedom of information. The Bill as it stands is truly unsatisfactory. It does not reflect the position of the Opposition, because one key element is missing from the Official Secrets Act—there is no public interest defence. My rational final point for the Government to consider is to ask how they could seriously mount a prosecution. I shall take an outside-world case, that the leader of the SNP is a Member of the Scottish Parliament and information comes to him that there is something perverse or wrong about Dounreay. What law in the land could hold or bind a man of conscience who wanted to bring to public notice such a threat or fear? No prosecution could succeed. The trouble with the old Official Secrets Act was that it had fallen into disrepute, and the new Act was an attempt to modernise its provisions. There is no purpose behind the amendment. I am sorry that there was only a three-column debate in the House of Lords, because the issue requires proper reflection. The new Labour Government are sworn to openness; I believe that, in the past, the words "unbundle Britain" have been used by a right hon. Labour Member. I believe in the democratic rights of the people because of the oldest argument of all: how can we reason but from what we know? A Welsh democratically elected Assembly should be party to the information that is important to the government of Wales.

VOTING AT ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I believe that it is the mood of the House to move quickly on these matters—

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Not any more.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Fine. In that case, it appears that we have a considerable amount of time in which to develop interesting and persuasive arguments. I look forward to a lengthy exchange on the amendments. The amendments, which were introduced in the other place to change the additional member system from a two-vote ballot to a single-vote ballot, are fundamentally flawed. They are undemocratic and discriminatory. I believe that the House has a moral obligation to overturn the amendments and to restore unfettered democratic choice to the Welsh electorate. I remind the House that the White Paper "A Voice for Wales" spelled out clearly that the electoral arrangements for the Assembly would be based on electors having two votes. The additional member system, as proposed for the Assembly by the Government—and endorsed by the electorate in the referendum—would give voters two votes. It is worth reminding the House that, before the election, there was broadly based agreement that that form of electoral system was necessary for the Assembly. Agreement was sufficiently broadly based so that all Members of Parliament elected at the last election to represent Welsh constituencies subscribed to it in their national manifestos. At its conference in March 1997, the Labour party unanimously agreed that that was the system we wanted. I had many discussions with Alex Carlile, the former Liberal Democrat leader in Wales, and I know that he broadly accepted the proposal, as did the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and his party. I acknowledge that there were some differences, and that some amendments were required, but there was broadly based consensus that the additional member system was necessary in order to introduce the form of plurality into the Welsh Assembly that that new democratic institution demanded. 6 pm There was broadly based agreement in 1997, and the people of Wales obviously accepted that view at the general election, because they voted to elect in each of the 40 Welsh constituencies Members of Parliament whose national manifestos supported the additional member system. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) does not want to re-run the referendum, even at this late stage. However, those proposals were put before the people of Wales in that referendum of 18 September last year, and they endorsed them. The House should consider that point very carefully. The Government propose that electors should have two votes. The first would be for the constituency Member, elected by the first-past-the-post system under the traditional method. The second would be for a party list or independent candidate—that is particularly important in rural Wales; I know that Conservative Members do not understand the politics of rural Wales, so I urge them to reflect carefully on this point—

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

We have.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am being uncharacteristically generous to the hon. Gentleman. The second vote would be for a party list or independent candidate, and would determine the four additional Members for the voter's electoral region. Under our proposals, voters would be given the right to choose whom they vote for in both the constituency and the electoral region. It is quite possible that voters would take two separate decisions: they might decide to support one candidate in the constituency section and a party in the regional list. That is common practice in Wales. Indeed, at the last election, I venture to suggest that there was a great deal of tactical voting. The people of Wales regard that as a great success, because they got rid of all Conservative Members of Parliament for Wales. I can understand why the Conservative party is loth to see the development of any electoral system that empowers people to get rid of Conservative candidates, but that is the reality of politics in Wales. The other place has chosen to deny that choice to the people of Wales, and that issue is at the heart of our debate. The amendments introduced there allow voters one vote only—they deny the opportunity for a second vote—for the constituency ballot. Under those arrangements, a voter wishing to express a choice for the regional candidates can vote only for a constituency candidate from a party that has also put forward a party list. I shall give an example from my constituency. A vote for the Conservative candidate in Caerphilly—a rare prospect, one might imagine, but it is nevertheless technically possible—would register automatically as a vote for the Conservative party list for the whole south Wales east electoral region. I am prepared to acknowledge that some of my constituents might choose to vote Conservative as an alternative to voting for the Labour candidate—they may be instinctively inclined to support Labour but have some difficulty supporting the Labour candidate in Caerphilly. However, under those circumstances, it would be wrong to assume that they would always vote Conservative, and to tot up those votes for the Conservative party. However, that is precisely the effect of the amendment that the House of Lords invites us to accept. The voter would not have the option to vote for the list of a different party. The consequence of the single vote system is that the four additional Members elected from each of the five regions will be elected indirectly. That makes a total of 20 indirectly elected Assembly Members from a total of only 60. Under the proposals endorsed by the electorate in the referendum, the additional Members would each receive a separate mandate from electors choosing to support their party. The question arises under the Lords amendments: to whom would those Members be accountable? Would they be accountable to the electorate, or to the constituency Members in their regions for whom the votes were cast directly? If the hon. Member for West Dorset reflects on that point, he will see that that is precisely the logic behind the House of Lords suggestion. The provisions inserted in the other place are discriminatory. They discriminate against small parties. That may concern the Conservative party, because, according to the latest evidence, it is the smallest party in Wales. Conservative Members should reflect carefully on the prospect of suffering more self-inflicted damage. The provisions also discriminate against independent candidates—that point concerns me, as I am sure that the Conservative party can look after itself—and against elector choice. For smaller parties, which are unlikely to win any constituency seats, the best chance of winning seats is through the electoral region. Under these arrangements, to have any chance of winning additional member seats in a region, a party would have to put forward candidates in all constituencies within that region. That is manifestly unfair in the case of parties such as the Green party. It would mean putting up between seven and nine constituency candidates per region, which would be a tremendous strain on the finances and resources of those small parties. Why should smaller parties be obliged to overreach themselves and compete in the most unfavourable circumstances? Having looked closely at the arguments made in the other place, I can conclude only that it is simply because the Conservatives have a fertile imagination. In our previous debates, and in the other place, Conservative Front Benchers sought to suggest that the electoral system proposed by the Government would distinguish between the status of Members voted for at the constituency level and those from the list. That will not be the case. However, the amendments made by the other place offer the clearest indication that the official Opposition want to have second-class Members of the Assembly. That is unacceptable to the Government. The Conservative spokesman in the other place made much of the possibility of collusion by political parties—even though the House and the other place have put it on record that the parties will not entertain any such suggestion. I give the hon. Member for West Dorset an assurance that there will be no collusion by my party or by any persons standing as Labour party candidates. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the Labour party made a momentous decision in moving away from a system that had served us well, guaranteed us a majority and denied the Conservative party a majority in Wales every since the secret ballot was introduced in the last century. It was a momentous decision to move to a system that guaranteed fairer representation for all political parties in Wales. It is a travesty of politics in Wales to suggest that, having moved from that position, the Labour party would seek deliberately to collude or enter into underhanded arrangements that would deny the effect of our proposed change. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that point. The amendments made by the Lords offer the clearest indication that the official Opposition want to create suspicion.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

How does the Secretary of State define "collusion"? For the sake of clarity, when he says that the Labour party will not collude, to what is he referring specifically?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I am happy to explain, because this was the subject of some discussion in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), also raised the issue, and I gave him a similar assurance. For example, it was suggested that the Labour party would put up candidates in the south Wales east region to contest all the constituencies quite properly on a first-past-the-post basis, but would not enter any candidates for the additional member seats, putting forward instead candidates standing in the name of the Co-operative party. The Co-operative party is part of the Labour party. The suggestion is that we would then encourage Labour voters not to vote for the Labour candidate—there would not be one—but to vote for the Co-operative party candidate and that, after the election, the Co-operative party candidate would form an immediate one-party alliance with the Labour party. It has been suggested that we would not put forward candidates in mid and west Wales, for example, but would choose individuals who were known to be Labour party supporters, and that the party machine would support them as independent candidates. Immediately after the election of the Assembly, those independent candidates would automatically take the whip of the Labour party. Such collusion is technically possible, which is why I want to assure the House that, as far as I am concerned—as Secretary of State for Wales, I have some influence in these matters—there will be no such collusion when we fight the election.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

Although I accept the Secretary of State's assurance—I give the same assurance on behalf of the Conservative party—we cannot speak for other parties. The Secretary of State admits that collusion is possible. Does he not therefore think that there should be a provision in the Bill to prevent such activity?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

That may be so, but the proposal that we are discussing strikes at the very heart of the democratic arrangements. It does not achieve the objective that the Opposition seek to achieve, but strikes out the principle of proportionality in the electoral system. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be no collusion by the Conservative party, but I must tell him in a spirit of friendship that I would not mind if the Conservative party did collude, because, according to the latest information available, even with collusion the Conservatives would be unlikely to win many seats in the Welsh Assembly. The Conservatives are not really afraid of the possibility of collusion—that is a smokescreen; their real fear is that there is such a broad-based consensus in Wales that people will choose to vote for, dare I say it, a Liberal Democrat candidate in Brecon and Radnor if they feel that that vote is most likely to succeed in getting rid of the Conservatives. In exactly the same way, it is clear that, in the 1997 election, a range of people who were broadly left of centre in Monmouth, Vale of Glamorgan or Vale of Clwyd were prepared to support the Labour candidate, because they thought that that was the best way to guarantee getting rid of what they considered to be a discredited and unacceptable Conservative party candidate. They wanted a Tory-free Wales, and to set Wales on the path of creating a new democracy. That actually happened. We cannot quantify it, because I can give no direct evidence to the Opposition, but I know from my experience of canvassing in Brecon and Radnor—Montgomery was not top of the Labour party's hit list at the last election—where I spent many happy days trying to persuade people to vote Labour, that many people told me that the only way to get rid of the dreadful, rotten, corrupt, incompetent and feckless Conservative Government was to vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate, even though they did not admire his personal qualities.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I wonder whether the Secretary of State has understood what he has just said. If the amendment were accepted and people were to follow the tactic that he describes, that would do worse damage to the Tory cause than the system that he proposes.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

That intervention shows how difficult the Conservative party finds it to come into touch with the reality of modern politics. I do not regard the electoral system as something that should be constructed in order to advance the interests of my political party. Politics in Wales has moved on from that. The hon. Gentleman clearly cannot understand that I want a system that ensures that the 20 per cent. of people in Wales who voted Conservative at the last election are properly represented in the Assembly if they choose to vote Conservative again. I do not want them to vote Conservative, and will do all I can by argument and campaigning to prevent them from doing so, but if they choose to vote for the Conservative party, they should be represented in the Assembly.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

As Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to maintain some intellectual integrity in this argument. Did he not argue that the Conservative party was supporting the amendment not because we were concerned about alter ego parties but because we were trying to preserve ourselves against the circumstances that he described? He should have the grace to admit that that argument is wholly fallacious, because the amendment makes our position under those circumstances worse, and we must therefore have a different motive—genuinely to prevent the problem of alter ego parties.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I do not accept that. I am trying to save the Conservative party from itself. The hon. Gentleman must understand that these moments of generosity are few and far between, so I urge the Conservatives—

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? He has now been in the House long enough to know that, when someone is responding to an intervention, it is courteous and sensible to allow that intervention to be dealt with before making another. If he will contain himself for a moment, I shall finish dealing with the previous intervention. This is a serious matter. We are trying to construct a new form of inclusive democracy in Wales, and the Conservative party seeks to strike at the heart of the electoral arrangements that we propose.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Does the Secretary of State agree that the alternative way of viewing the matter is that he is concerned for the time when the worm turns? When the worm turns, his party might be at a disadvantage in Wales.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

It is quite clear that I am wasting my time. Despite my best efforts and those of all political parties in Wales, the Conservatives refuse to be brought into touch with the reality of modern politics. I am not concerned about the time, in five, 10 or 15 years, when the electoral cycle has moved on and the Labour party has 40 seats rather than the current 34. When that happens, we shall have to grin and bear it, with fortitude and good humour. I know that the electoral cycle swings. Hon. Members must now recognise that we have a broad-based consensus. The last election was fought on that basis, as was the referendum—

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

rose—

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself, because it is possible to strain my tolerance and good humour. If anybody can do so, it is the hon. Gentleman. As I was saying, we have a broad-based consensus. The House of Commons passed the Bill with a record majority of 220. It was accepted in Committee, and there were never any questions about it, but we are now faced with the prospect of the House of Lords striking out a measure that is at the heart of the creation of the Welsh Assembly. I shall give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), but, as the House wants to listen to the views of other hon. Members, I should like to make some progress thereafter.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the consensus cannot be judged to last for ever. The undertaking that he has so willingly given that none of the parties present will indulge in so-called "split ticket voting" cannot be held as a guarantee for ever. We are simply trying to put in place processes that will prevent that once the electoral cycle has moved on. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the measures that we propose, should he not think of other more appropriate measures to put in the Bill?

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I have thought of other more appropriate measures. They were put in my party's manifesto at the last election, and we won 34 out of 40 parliamentary seats in Wales. The other parties with similar proposals also won the confidence of the majority of the people of Wales. The Conservative party, which was the only one trying to defend the status quo—it was stuck in a time warp, and was not prepared to move on to a new form of inclusive, rational, sane, democratic politics—paid the price. The people endorsed our proposals again in the referendum, and this House has endorsed them. What we are now seeing is Conservative Front-Bench Members trying to justify a measure that was inserted against their better judgment in the House of Lords. I want to move on now, if I may. The Lords amendments are driven by party self-interest. The last thing that the official Opposition want is the people of Wales to be able fully to exercise their democratic rights—they fully realise the difficulties that befell them at the general election. I would not dispute the intelligence of the United Kingdom electorate, and we should leave it to them, not to a diktat from the Conservative party, to decide who they want to represent them in the Assembly. The changes would discriminate against independent candidates by denying them the opportunity to stand in an electoral region, and by undermining their chances in individual constituencies. The single vote system would mean that anyone who voted in a constituency for an independent candidate would not register a vote in the indirect election of the additional members. How many voters who might vote for an independent in their constituency would do so when they realised that they would disfranchise themselves in the regional election? Very few, which is where the Lords amendment would discriminate so directly and blatantly against independent candidates. It is important in politics, certainly in rural Wales, that individual candidates should be able to come forward. I do not understand why the Conservative party wants to impose such draconian restrictions on small parties such as the Green party and on the independents, especially when the Conservative party faces the prospect of becoming an even smaller party. I do not understand why voters should not be able to vote for one party in a constituency and for the list of another party in the electoral region. That is the heart of the arrangements we propose. Ours is a democracy of long standing, and we have a mature electorate who are well able to take responsible decisions for themselves. Lords amendment No. 21 greatly extends the reference in respect of the party list to be used in the event of a vacancy in a party list seat. It is otiose. The original drafting made it perfectly clear which was the relevant list, and did so quite succinctly. The Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 21 will restore the clarity of the provision. I urge the House to overturn these amendments and to agree to the Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 21.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should engage in political knockabout in a discussion of a serious constitutional issue. I do not say that it is the biggest constitutional issue that has ever hit the face of the earth, but it is significant and he should take the argument seriously. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who briefly graced us with his presence, presumably found the Secretary of State' s remarks too difficult to swallow and left. During proceedings on the Registration of Political Parties Bill, the Under-Secretary was good enough frequently to acknowledge the seriousness of the question of alter ego parties—what the Secretary of State calls collusion. Although the Under-Secretary found it difficult to accept amendments because they would not have been effective against the problem, he made it clear that he hoped that the Government would seek measures to prevent such abuse. We have before us a clear case. We did not invent the idea of introducing the alternative member system to the Welsh Assembly—the Government did that. Nor does the Lords amendment, despite the Secretary of State's amusing efforts to make it seem so, in any way militate against the integrity of that system. On the contrary, it retains all the ability for top-up to occur, one way or another, to the advantage of whatever party it might be.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

There has been an additional member system in Germany for many years. Can the hon. Gentleman cite one example, or even a handful, of where such a thing has happened in the German body politic? I cannot think of any.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

That is an interesting point which has been much discussed. So far as we are aware, there are no examples at national level, in Germany or elsewhere, of parties engaging in alter ego activities. At lander level, there have been some such suggestions and attempts, although I understand that none were brought to fruition. The Secretary of State and the Minister are relying on the proposition that the same discipline will apply in Wales. We do not say that it may not apply; it may, but there is no reason on earth not to have an amendment or a rule preventing that occurrence. The Secretary of State and the Minister presumably agree with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that this is a serious problem which needs tackling. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is saying from a sedentary position that the Lords amendment has other disadvantages which outweigh its advantage of removing the alter ego party problem, it would have been better if he had couched his speech in such terms. It would then have been intellectually respectable and we could have come to the arguments about whether the Lords amendment has other disadvantages which outweigh its advantage. If the Secretary of State had thought through the issue and come to such a conclusion, he should have brought forward alternative methods, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said when he was taxing the Secretary of State's patience from the Back Benches. Alternative methods were discussed in the other place, such as rules about having to be represented in both parts of the voting. Those were not pressed, but it is entirely possible for the Secretary of State to come back with a better version of a rule to prevent alter ego party activities.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Yes, of course, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman now understands this matter does not tax us greatly. If there is a responsibility on anyone, it is on the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to introduce a proposition to deal with the problem. They have not done that. The responsibility is theirs, if they believe that the Bill needs improvement. We do not.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Our noble Friends in the other place have introduced exactly such a proposition to solve that problem. To move to the Secretary of State's serious arguments, he claims that it has other disadvantages. [Interruption.] Well, let us go through what those other huge, serious problems are meant to be. The Secretary of State told us that the Lords amendment was flawed, undemocratic and discriminatory. The arguments that he put forward boiled down to one thing: he claimed that, although the single vote proposition would cure the alter ego problem, it would cause difficulties for smaller parties. Let us examine what he means by that proposition.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

I said more than that.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I do not think that the Secretary of State said any more than that; he simply said it several different ways.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

So that there is no misunderstanding, I made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the additional member system is to create a new inclusive politics with parties receiving representation in accordance with the percentage of the vote that they receive from the electorate.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I fear that I have overrated the Secretary of State. I had thought that he was engaging in political knockabout because he well understood the point and was merely having fun at our expense, but it appears that he is genuinely under a misapprehension. Let me explain; the single vote proposition maintains entirely the integrity of the inclusive politics to which he is so attached.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

The hon. Gentleman represents the small party in Wales.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am leaving aside the question of the smaller parties, but I shall return to it. The single vote proposition leaves entirely intact the proposition that a party that receives N per cent. of the vote will receive N per cent. of the representation, barring the question of the divisors. It would make no change in that, so we are left with the Secretary of State's one serious point: does the Lords amendment in any way seriously militate against smaller parties? I shall distinguish between two kinds of smaller party, although the Secretary of State did not do so clearly until the end of his remarks. On the one hand, there are parties that are small because they have small popular appeal in Wales, or in a region of Wales, and do not have much money. On the other, there are genuine Independents, or the party sole—a person who wants to stand in a particular constituency and does not have a party behind him. The Secretary of State succeeded in muddling the two cases virtually entirely, but let me try to disentangle them. He alluded to the Green party, but I shall start with the Conservative party, which he says is a smaller party. I assure him that rules which meant that the Conservative party had to put up candidates in all seats would pose us no problem. We are quite up to that job. I am grateful to him for his concern for us, but we can look after ourselves. I venture that every other party represented in the House is in a similar position, so there is no question of discrimination against major political parties in Wales or elsewhere. What are we asking of the Green party in the single vote proposition? We are asking it to risk its deposit in a number of seats to benefit from the top-up, which occurs through the single vote mechanism. The only difference between the Lords amendment and the Bill is that Green party deposits would be put at risk. It has regularly run candidates who clearly stood in the greatest possible danger of losing their deposits, but that did not stop them. I do not think that the Green party would have the slightest difficulty in putting up candidates, but, if the Secretary of State thinks that a serious problem exists, it falls to him to table an amendment to reduce the amount of the deposit. That would be a legitimate tactic, and it would be a conclusive answer to his argument. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman's argument has only a monetary aspect—nothing else that he has said carries the slightest credence—and, if he is worried about money, he can deal with that in a way that we would doubtless accept. 6.30 pm Let us now turn to the other part of the argument. The Secretary of State managed to confuse it with something else, but it is the beginning of a shred of a serious argument against the single-vote amendment—the only one that I have heard so far. I refer to the question of an Independent who wishes to stand for a particular seat. The Secretary of State said, or at least tried to say, that the amendment posed a problem for such an Independent. He seemed to be arguing that voters who were really Labour voters—to be generous, as he would say—but who happened to like Mr. X, an Independent, would be disinclined to vote for Mr. X, knowing that their vote, as a Labour vote, would not be added to the total number of Labour votes in terms of the additional member list and that they would not have expressed their preference for the Labour party to have a large proportion of the total number of votes in the Assembly. I suppose that the Secretary of State was trying to say that people would be more inclined to vote for the Labour candidate, and that would be unfair on the Independent candidate. It is uncharacteristically generous—or perhaps I should be more generous myself, and say that it is characteristically generous—of the Secretary of State to be so concerned about Independents, who, in general, would militate against the Labour party's success in Wales. I must add, however, that, if an Independent stood any serious chance of winning a seat, it is very unlikely that people would refuse to support him for tactical reasons, simply to ensure that their vote—which, necessarily, would constitute only a small part of the total—was registered in the additional member list for the party of their choice. The Secretary of State's argument is extraordinarily tenuous. This, I think, is the structure of that argument: is the slight disadvantage accruing to the Independent member enough, in the view of any reasonable person, to outweigh the huge advantage recognised by his Home Office colleague of preventing for all time the alter ego party problem, which could distort the result absolutely?

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable person, must have misunderstood the way in which the amendment is intended to work. Let me explain slowly, in the genuine hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that he is under a misapprehension.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

May I explain? Then I will give way again. In the single-vote system proposed in the amendment, those who vote for a candidate who is or is not successful—in other words, all who vote for all candidates in all constituencies—add to the total of votes for their party. Thus, eventually, there will be a system of proportional representation through the additional member list, as intended by the Government and by my party, which will not be compromised by the amendment.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice. I understand his argument now. He is saying that the amendment would distort the proportions that would otherwise obtain. His argument is an elaboration, or indeed a stronger version, of the Secretary of State's argument. Perhaps he should swap places with the Secretary of State in order to present it properly. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that the proportions would be distorted, because preferences for particular candidates in particular seats would enter into the equation of apparent preferences for a particular party—his or ours—and that would not be a fair representation of people's party preferences. That might obtain to a slight extent, but I think the hon. Gentleman would accept that all the evidence so far from psephologists who have studied elections not only in this country, but in other countries that have strongly established party systems, suggests that very few people vote for candidates rather than for the party of their choice—except in the case of tactical voting, which the amendment and the additional member system would remove. Although valid, unlike most of the Secretary of State's arguments, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would have a minuscule effect. We return to this question: would that effect be greater or less than what the hon. Gentleman considers to be an academic proposition by us—the prevention of alter ego parties? The Secretary of State says that, because the major political parties have promised that they will not run alter ego candidates, all is well. He suggests that we should go happily to bed, and not trouble the House further with tedious arguments that keep him from his important business of mismanaging Welsh affairs. It is very likely that he is right. We have yet to hear a final statement from the leader of one of the major political parties, but I gathered from an earlier exchange of nods that we would hear such a statement tonight. Indeed, it may already have been made; I may not have heard it.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The hon. Gentleman cast the same slur in an earlier debate. As he has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), there is no basis for that slur. There is no reason to expect that we would fiddle the electoral system, any more than the hon. Gentleman's party would.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am delighted to hear that statement, and I fully believe it. The current position is excellent: the major parties have promised not to take such action. However, will that be true in all circumstances and at all times? We are legislating for a constitution and an electoral system, and the Secretary of State's colleagues in the Home Office have admitted that, should such a problem arise at a time when it mattered, it would matter a great deal. It could distort the whole result of an election. Can such circumstances be imagined? I regret to say this—the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will probably think me a cad—but I am trying to tell what I believe to be the truth. It is not intended as any sort of slur on his or his party's honour. If I were the right hon. Gentleman, and if I believed in Welsh independence as sincerely and passionately as I think he does, and if there came a time—not at the next election, but, judging by what has happened in Scotland and the way in which Labour is proceeding, such a time may come—when the right hon. Gentleman's party stood a chance of gaining an overall majority, I might be inclined to use such a tactic just once. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to use it ever again.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The hon. Gentleman might; we would not.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am delighted to hear that.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

Nor would we.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am delighted at that as well. However, it is not good law—

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

Will the hon. Gentleman stop digging a hole for himself? He is casting aspersions that are entirely baseless, for which there is not a shred of evidence. I ask him to withdraw them.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I have considerable respect for him, for his party and for the sincerity with which his party holds its views. The fact is, however, that there could come a time when the balance was so delicate that there was a possibility of achieving a long-held desire. In such circumstances, it makes sense to legislate to stop that possibility. I concede that, if the amendment gave rise to serious difficulties—if the Secretary of State, unaided by the Liberal Democrats, had been able to produce a serious argument—that remote possibility might not be worth pursuing; but the fact is that the amendment has no serious disadvantages. There are slight disadvantages associated with Independents, and there is a slight possibility of distortion in regard to proportionality, but those are not serious problems. The serious point is that there is a slight risk of a devastating disaster, which ought to be legislated for.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

In spite of the pseudo-cerebral meanderings of the Opposition spokesman in his worst, or perhaps best, Reith lecturer manqué mode, it is clear that the Tories motive for tabling this amendment is based on their fear of finishing fourth in the Welsh Assembly elections. Despite the protestations of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), that is what the amendment is all about. The Tories know from bitter experience and from all the latest opinion poll evidence that they have not recovered from their below 20 per cent. performance in the election last May. They also know that if the people of Wales are faced with the prospect of voting, not for an individual, but for a party, those who split their votes are more likely to vote for other parties and not for the Conservative party. That is the naked truth, despite the hon. Gentleman's protestations that this is a great constitutional exercise to help to clean up politics in 30 or 40 years' time, because of the possibility of parties subdividing themselves to take advantage of the two-vote system. Will the Tory party ever get away from the problem that they have with the people of Wales, which causes this dilemma? Their proposition is that a Conservative candidate may get 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the vote, depending on the constituency, but in the second vote the Conservative party will do less well than the individual Conservative candidate. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe that he thinks that the Conservative party in Clwyd, North-West is less popular than Rod Richards. That is an extraordinary proposition, but that is the basis of the Conservatives' thought processes. The Conservative party is still unable to come to terms with the decision made by the people of Wales. There may be split ticket voting: people may vote for a Labour, Liberal Democrat or Plaid Cymru candidate, but will vote for another party with their second vote to have another bite of the cherry. It is human nature that 5 or 10 per cent. of the electorate will think that that is the wise thing to do. Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Labour votes may be interchangeable, but they will not leak out to the Conservatives.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I shall give way in a second. Conservative voters, if they are of the same mind as split ticket voters, will vote for a Conservative Member of the Welsh Assembly but may vote for another party with their second vote. The Conservatives lose on the leaking out, but they do not gain anything on the leaking in, because they refuse to come to terms with devolution. The three parties that are in favour of devolution have the right body language for the Welsh Assembly, but the Conservative party is still playing devolution hokey-cokey: put the right leg in, take the right leg out, put the right leg in and shake it all about. The Conservatives will not overcome this problem. The votes of the other three parties may be interchangeable for the 5 or 10 per cent. who split their votes, but the Conservative party will not gain because it is not seen as playing the game and is not positive about devolution. If it accepted devolution, it would not lose when people vote for a Member of the Welsh Assembly from one party, but vote for another party on the second vote. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend, who is an expert on the hokey-cokey.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

I would rather leave that to my hon. Friend, who is more skilled in verbosity. He talks about the interchangeability of votes. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), realised a couple of weeks ago that it is possible that more than 50 per cent. of the people in Wales are against the Welsh Assembly, and, although 50 per cent. of the votes may be interchangeable between the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Labour, the only Unionist party standing will be the Conservative party. The Labour party must wake up to that fact.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

That may be to the Conservative party's advantage, but opinion poll evidence suggests that its position is now worse than it was last May when it got only about 19.5 per cent. of the vote. Its Unionist stance has not done its prospects in the vote next May any good. Everything may change by next May, but the problem is that the Conservative vote in Wales, such as it is, is soft and may leak out on the second vote. Conservatives know that they will not gain from the split ticket voting of voters of the other three parties. That is the motivation behind the absurd position that they are presenting. It is not a fear of parties subdividing, but of finishing fourth in the elections next May.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Bill proposes a two-vote additional member system, which was contained in the White Paper. It was clear in the referendum last year that every voter in Wales, especially those who voted yes, understood that. The Liberal Democrats would prefer the use of the single transferable vote system. If the official Opposition were proposing an amendment that included the single transferable vote, we would have a different view of what they are up to.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

Given the great consistency shown by the hon. Gentleman's party on the single transferable vote issue, why did his party in the House of Lords vote against this proposal when it was considered in the other place?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Our approach was based on realism. It was recognised that we must get the Bill through. The element of proportionality contained in the Bill is a seismic move forward, and the amendment would unstitch that. We accept that the additional member system proposed by the Government is a vast improvement on the first-past-the-post system. It is a more proportional electoral system, and it is one of the features that we support. It will ensure that representation bears more resemblance to the proportions of votes cast, and it will be fairer to all parties. As has been said several times, that is part of the new politics, and we welcome that. The two-vote additional member system has the advantage of allowing voters to express their preferences for individual candidates in the constituencies and for parties on the lists. That clearly increases voter choice, and allows a vote to be cast for an individual from a different party to the list vote. It allows local, effective candidates to be rewarded above party preferences, with party preferences being re-established in the list vote. The two-vote system also makes it more likely that an independent candidate can be elected for a region. The Conservative amendments would remove the provision for independent candidates to stand in the regions. That is undemocratic, and the Bill should not exclude the possibility of independent candidates coming forward. In my constituency in 1983, I was opposed by a rural revivalist, Richard Booth, who is a well-known local bookseller in Hay-on-Wye. Does the Conservative party really want to snuff out such individualism and such colour in our political system? Following the election, we want a review of the electoral system to be used for the Assembly. The Secretary of State agreed to such a review with Alex Carlile, the former Member for Montgomery. Why is there no provision for a review in the Bill? We hope that the spirit in which the Secretary of State came to that agreement with Alex Carlile will live on. The Government conceded in amendment No. 136 that a review of the Assembly's work with regard to sustainable development should be carried out. We should like an assurance from the Secretary of State that the agreement that was struck with Alex Carlile will be honoured. He has given that before, and I am sure he will not find it difficult to give it again. The Tories say that their amendments will prevent split-ticket voting and stop parties using the additional member system to their advantage. I shall shorten my speech because we have been through all that and I want to make progress. The Minister has made it clear that there was no collusion. I said that we did not subscribe to such a practice and Plaid Cymru also said that, so we can bury that issue. We would have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment if the only outcome would be to prevent split-ticket voting. However, it would reduce voter choice, which is crucial, and would remove the ability of independents to stand in the regions as well. The amendments are not the best way to prevent dishonesty, and we do not support them. We supported amendments to the Registration of Political Parties Bill to prevent split-ticket voting, and I hope that another way can be found to prevent it under this legislation. Lords amendment No. 21 closes a loophole that would allow a person who has left a political party to become an Assembly Member following a vacancy for the party that he or she has left. It will protect parties from the problem of defectors and ensure that voters are represented by a member of the party that they support. We welcome that amendment.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

In Committee, we had a wide-ranging debate on electoral arrangements. When we raised concerns, we were told that they would be dealt with under the Registration of Political Parties Bill. I was on the Committee that examined that Bill, and some of the issues that were raised then, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), relating to alter ego parties are not dealt with by that Bill. To some extent, that is why the amendment has been tabled. It would not be necessary if the Registration of Political Parties Bill had closed what may be a loophole. When the electoral arrangements for a description on the ballot paper were changed in the late 1960s, James Callaghan told the House that the arrangements would not be abused, but, in recent years, people have used descriptions to mislead electors. The Registration of Political Parties Bill rules out that abuse, but, under the additional member system there is potential—I put it no higher than that—for abuse by some alter ego parties. We are all honourable people in the Chamber, and I do not think that any party would try to deceive the electors. However, if there is a loophole some party may try to use it. It may do that only once, after which there would be great uproar and perhaps the law would be changed. At this stage, the general concern, certainly among Opposition Members, is to close the loophole now. A single vote proposal for first-past-the-post seats and a top-up list is not new. The Hansard Society proposed alternatives to our current electoral system in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and came up with a similar proposal. I understand the Secretary of State's point that, in one or two cases, it would cut out independents, but it is a question of balancing rights and wrongs. The deficiencies in the current legislation may outweigh the difficulties of the change in terms of a single vote causing difficulties for one or two independents. The additional member system has been used in Germany, and there have not been many examples of alter ego parties. In one or two lander elections, particularly in north Germany, some states parties tended to align with one or other of the major parties—the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats—because there was an advantage in picking up list seats. In the early 1950s, the German Refugees party, which was part of the Adenauer coalition, used to garner a substantial number of votes on the list. Of course, it was part of the general centre-right and over the years it was absorbed into the Christian Democrats. That is probably the only example of a party that picked up list seats. The issue is serious and it deserves careful consideration. In the context of alter ego parties, whether it is an advantage to a party to try to pull a fast one depends a great deal on the predictability of the first-past-the-post results because, under the additional member system, the distribution of additional seats is in proportion to those who do badly or those who do very well in terms of first-past-the-post seats. The one certainty about Welsh politics, certainly in terms of single-member constituencies, is that it is a relatively predictable area of the United Kingdom in that it regularly returns Labour party candidates. I do not think that there are many marginal seats in the Principality. In future, it would be possible for a political party to form a view on how it will fare on first-past-the-post and perhaps arrange matters in a way that might enable it to get some slight additional benefit under the additional member system. That system reduces the likelihood of a party getting an overall majority, partly because of proportionality. There are 40 first-past-the-post and 20 additional-list seats and perhaps a party—in the context of Wales, it would probably be the Labour party—might be close to an overall majority. In such an event, there would be a tremendous temptation to get an extra seat or two to try to form an administration. All politicians are sometimes tempted, especially when we feel passionately about our cause. The amendment merely tries to fill a gap that the Registration of Political Parties Bill has not filled and to deal with this important issue.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

One of my reasons for being a great supporter of first-past-the-post is that it leaves greater discretion at constituency level with electors. If they wish to vote in a specific way, perhaps not particularly for their first preference but for a Liberal Democrat or a Labour candidate to defeat my party, that is their choice. Inevitably, there will be some variation in seats, but, in 40 constituencies, the swings and roundabouts would mean that the vote would not differ much when all the results were added. In Brecon, the tactical vote may go one way, but the seat next door may go in a completely different way. The totality of the vote would show a close correlation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point is material.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

At the risk of taxing the patience and good will of the Secretary of State, particularly in this age of new politics and consensus, may I say that he rather overplayed the argument that the amendment addresses a problem that is largely a figment of Conservative imagination? That was certainly not the case in the other place. Lord Falconer of Thoroton said: My Lords, the Government have thought carefully about this. They are aware of the problem…Plainly, if someone provides a solution that deals with all the problems the Government will certainly think about it. They have given considerable thought to it. We do not have a closed mind,".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 272.] It is the height of irresponsibility to acknowledge that there is a problem with the legislation and to rely on the Opposition and other parties to address the solution. However, the solution having been addressed, it has been decided to reject it. The second point that the Secretary of State was determined to labour was the minuscule probability of split-ticket voting, but that is not the perception of their lordships. Lord Bledisloe said: My Lords,… I think I now see that there is a real problem, certainly mathematically. I am also prepared to accept that it is a problem that is not just mathematical but is real, because from these Benches I am perfectly prepared to believe that any political party will commit any dirty trick which it thinks will be to its own advantage."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c.269.] We all accept that no political party in the House today would indulge in that sort of activity. However, the Secretary of State described the pressures that led to tactical voting at the last general election. Does he suddenly believe that this new age of consensus and good will has banished those pressures for ever? Does he believe that future political leaders under those pressures will not institute just such a form of voting to achieve the desired ends? Of course that is possible, so it is right that we should try to deal with the issue now. The right hon. Gentleman's principal argument against the amendment is that it would undermine the democratic integrity of the voting system. That is nonsense. AMS was introduced to address the overall proportionality of the votes. That will be guaranteed by the amendment.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

We have had an interesting debate and I think that we all understand the issues involved in the Lords amendment. I still believe that what the other place is suggesting is unfair and discriminatory. It does not deal with the problem of alter ego parties, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). All parties in the House have given undertakings, and we all accept them. None of the existing political parties will become involved in the collusion that has been suggested. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, given Wales and Welsh politics, if that were to happen it would be quickly exposed and immediately reviled by the people of Wales. It would not be successful. The amendment strikes at the heart of an important part of devolution—the settlement that we have and the new democratic arrangements that we are proposing for the Assembly. It is contrary to the mandate that was given to all politicians from Wales at the general election and contrary to the wishes of the people of Wales as expressed in the referendum. Therefore, I believe that the House should reject the amendment.

DISQUALIFICATION FROM BEING ASSEMBLY MEMBER

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to take amendment (a) in page 28, line 12, at end insert— '( ) A Minister of the Crown may not— (a) be elected to be Assembly First Secretary, or (b) be appointed as an Assembly Secretary.'.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I will speak briefly at this stage in the hope of replying more fully to the debate later. First, let us be clear about the terms of the Lords amendment. The entire argument by the Conservative peers who backed it was whether the Secretary of State for Wales could also be the National Assembly's First Secretary. They were particular about that, to the point of obsession. However, the amendment does not specify that. It does not even specify that the Secretary of State should be barred from being a member of the Assembly Executive; it seeks to determine who should be a Member of the Assembly itself. I freely acknowledge that quite different constitutional functions will be exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary of the National Assembly. We have never suggested that they could or should be exercised by the same person in perpetuity. What we have here is a smokescreen of concern, hyped up into a frenzy and disguising a blatantly political exercise to dictate to the people of Wales for whom they may or may not vote. If the people wish to elect a Minister of the Crown as an Assembly Member, that is their right. Why should this House deny them that right? I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

The arguments on the issue have been put clearly both here and in the other place, so there seems little point in detaining the House unnecessarily by reiterating them. This is not just an exercise in political posturing, as the Under-Secretary suggested; it is about a point of principle. To understand what lies behind the Lords amendment and our amendment in lieu we have to look at two matters. First, what is the role of a Member of the Assembly; and secondly, what is the role of a Minister of the Crown? First, the direct constituency Assembly Members have to do what we understand clearly in this House, which is to look after our constituents' interests as well as scrutinising the wider picture. Secondly, those on the party list will have to look after the general interests, under whatever arrangements they come to within their parties or relating to whatever constituency interest may be pertinent. Thirdly, all Members will have to scrutinise the political life of Wales independently, just as hon. Members are supposed to do in this House. We have also to consider the role of Ministers of the Crown. The Prime Minister published a ministerial code in July 1997. The first principle set out is: Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility. The second is: Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Step Agencies. The eighth principle is: Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their role as Minister and constituency Member. I shall deal with the last principle first. Those of us who have been Ministers know that a great deal of discipline is required to keep ministerial and constituency roles separate. In many Departments, there is potential for the roles to overlap, so Ministers require a great deal of self-discipline to keep them separate. How much more difficult would that be if another role were added—ministerial, constituency and Assembly roles, all at the same time? There are phenomenal dangers in creating potential for conflicting interests. The part of the code that deals with the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Step Agencies creates another difficulty. A Minister of the Crown may sit in a Welsh Assembly and be responsible not only for the scrutiny of, for example, United Kingdom-wide agencies, but for the agencies' actions in Wales. That is utterly preposterous. Upholding collective responsibility is the most difficult responsibility. The Under-Secretary referred to the First Secretary. What could be more preposterous than having to be First Secretary and a Minister of the Crown at the same time? What is he supposed to do—write to himself, "Dear Secretary of State, I find myself in my position of First Secretary in the Assembly needing a bit more money so could you please arrange this for me because I am finding it awfully hard? Yours, the First Secretary." Then he has to write back to himself saying, "Dear First Secretary, Unfortunately, due to my collective responsibility in the Cabinet, my Treasury colleagues tell me that I am not able to discuss this with you. Yours, the Secretary of State." Perhaps that will be the ultimate job share—or, in the lingo of the Welsh Labour party, the ultimate twinning. However, it seems to those of us who live in the real political world that that is extraordinary politics and will create incompatibility on a scale that we have never known in the House of Commons. It is not a point of party politics; it is a point of principle. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that he could not stand to be the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament while being Secretary of State for Scotland, because that would be a conflict of interest. If that is true of devolution in Scotland, why is it not true of devolution in Wales? If it is a point of principle for the Secretary of State for Scotland, why is it not one for the Secretary of State for Wales? It does not matter whether one holds the posts for a week or a year; a point of principle is involved.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the crucial difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is that the Scottish Parliament has primary legislative powers. It is a totally different situation from that which will obtain in Wales.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

In the previous debate—about alter ego parties—I wondered whether we were talking about the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, but I realise now that they are playing their usual welcome-mat role for the Labour party. We are debating a matter not of degree but of principle—that there would be a conflict of interest, and one cannot serve two masters. If one is to represent someone in one body, one cannot be bound by collective responsibility in another. Such an arrangement—especially given the nature of the Welsh devolution settlement—would be constitutional nonsense. The Government would do well to accept now that it would be nonsense—before they land themselves in the hot water that they will so richly deserve if they do not accept the Lords amendment.

Huw Edwards (Labour, Monmouth)

I oppose Lords amendment No. 27, which is based on a narrow-minded personal vindictiveness towards my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Wales. I therefore support the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 27. Inclusivity is a fundamental aim and principle of the Assembly. Inclusivity is essential to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales reflects all the political and cultural traditions in Wales and that it gives fair representation to women; to minority ethnic groups; to north, south, east and west Wales; to Welsh-speaking and non-Welsh-speaking areas; and to areas that voted yes in the referendum and to those that voted no. Another principle was to ensure that experienced and high-calibre candidates stand for the Assembly and that Members of the House of Lords should themselves be free to stand for the Assembly. Although the Lords cannot stand for this House or even vote in parliamentary elections, they will be able to be Members of both the House of Lords and the National Assembly for Wales. I therefore cannot accept the Lords intention of preventing hon. Members and Ministers from standing for or holding office in the Welsh Assembly. There is no constitutional reason why a Minister of the Crown cannot be a Member of the Welsh Assembly. It would be wrong also to assume that there would be any conflict of interest. Ministers, and Ministers of the Welsh Assembly, will be accountable to both bodies and will be judged on their integrity by their own electorate. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said, there are good reasons why such a dual mandate should be encouraged and given in a transitional period, to ensure continuity and co-ordination in the establishment of the new National Assembly for Wales.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference between being an hon. Member and being a Minister of the Crown? One is about independent scrutiny of the Executive whereas the other is about being a member of the Executive.

Huw Edwards (Labour, Monmouth)

I say again that individuals' integrity will dictate how they should conduct themselves. I have read the speech made in the other place by Lord Crickhowell. I think that it was a highly personal and spiteful attack that was not worthy of someone who has been Secretary of State for Wales and involved in public life since that time. I shall make no personal comment on Lord Crickhowell.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Why not?

Huw Edwards (Labour, Monmouth)

If I had more time, I would pay a long, glowing tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for all that he has done to ensure that the Bill gets through not only the House but—perhaps more important—through the Wales Labour party. However, there is not time to do so. I take exception to the right of the unelected House of Lords—especially of the dominant hereditary group in the House of Lords, 62 of whom voted in support of Lords amendment No. 27—to seek to overthrow one of the Bill's important principles. It is a serious indictment of our parliamentary system that we allow people to legislate who have inherited the right to do so—because they are the eldest son of someone who already had the right to be in the other place. We do not allow people to inherit the right to practise or implement the law; how can it be justified that anyone should inherit the right to make or amend the law? If this debate and the fiasco offer one important lesson, it is that we must swiftly end the hereditary principle: abolish the right of hereditary peers to legislate. I hope that Ministers will act on that as soon as possible. The principle of inclusivity must allow hon. Members to stand for the Welsh Assembly. I therefore ask the House to reject Lords amendment No. 27.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

If one person is both First Secretary and Secretary of State for Wales, he or she will—as Secretary of State for Wales, because of Cabinet collective responsibility—have to attend Cabinet meetings. What if the Assembly wants that person as First Secretary to be somewhere else? He or she will either have to accept Cabinet collective responsibility or speak for the people of Wales in the Assembly and be sacked as a Cabinet member. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that that would be a real problem?

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

I know that the Liberal Democrats have trouble with the matter—it is almost 100 years since any of them was a Minister—but the first point made in the ministerial code is that Ministers must accept collective responsibility. The code has been established by No. 10 Downing street. It will not be for the Secretary of State for Wales to decide on etiquette. A code has already been established and published by the Prime Minister.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that it is not a matter of going back to the drawing board every time? The politics will have moved on and Plaid Cymru Members will use the impetus and dynamics of that to shift matters further and they will not give a fig about new politics and consensus.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I shall be brief. I oppose amendment (a), which is a bit rich coming from the Conservative party. We should extend the franchise for Assembly Members as widely as possible. There is no reason why a Minister of the Crown should not stand and be elected to the Assembly, as the Lords amendment provides. In respect of any dual mandate, the issue is what happens afterwards, but I believe that it is a matter for political parties to sort out and that it should not be enshrined in legislation. In my view, any dual mandate should be for the shortest possible time. There are strong feelings in the Labour party against any dual mandates. There are two main reasons for that. First, we want people to be elected who are committed to the Assembly and not doing another job with different responsibilities. We told people on their doorsteps during the campaign that membership of the Assembly would be a full-time job requiring total commitment, bringing power closer to the people of Wales through people who were totally committed to the Assembly. That is why we want people who are committed to one job and one Assembly. The second reason people in the Labour party are opposed to a dual mandate is that an awful lot of people want to become Assembly Members and think that it is a bit greedy of anyone standing for the Assembly to contemplate doing two jobs when so many are keen to do one. As there are only 60 seats, we are only grudgingly willing to contemplate a dual mandate for right hon. and hon. Members until the next general election in order to avoid by-elections. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is obvious that, in practical terms, a member of the British Cabinet could not be at the same time a Member of the Welsh Assembly or First Secretary for anything other than the shortest transitional period because of the conflicting loyalties that would arise. The First Secretary would be voted in as leader of the Assembly by Assembly Members or by her or his political party—it is a bottom-up approach. She or he would then represent those people. The Secretary of State for Wales is appointed by the Prime Minister and is bound by Cabinet collective responsibility. There is a clear conflict between the two roles, which could not be combined other than for the shortest possible transitional period. In bringing devolution to Wales, we are bringing democracy and inclusivity. We want to get away from the centralisation of power—and holding two jobs is just that. I am disappointed that we are to have a Cabinet system. It would be quite wrong for a Minister of the Crown to contemplate a dual mandate for longer than the shortest transitional period. I oppose the amendment; we do not need legislation on something that could happen, but only for the shortest possible time as I know Labour Members are strongly opposed to it.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) made a telling speech that rubbished everything Ministers have said on the issue. She correctly identified the nature of the conflict of interests, but then told the House that it might be allowed to continue for the shortest possible period. She never sought to explain or justify why even the shortest possible period should be allowed. No period should be allowed because the conflict is clear, manifest and unacceptable. The Government's problem in putting forward their devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales has been their inability to think through the constitutional implications. Inherent in them is the scope for conflict between the way in which the Welsh Assembly runs its affairs, the way in which the First Secretary or other Secretary of the Welsh Assembly decides to operate, and his responsibilities and loyalties and those of a Minister of the Crown at Westminster. I do not welcome that—it was one reason I did not support devolution in the first place—but, to judge from what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, it seems that, for perfectly plain short-term political advantage, there is a refusal to accept the implications of what is being proposed. We cannot have a Minister of the Crown also being an Assembly Member—and certainly not being a First Secretary or other Secretary in that Assembly. There has to be a division and that division should be accepted.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Is my hon. Friend saying that we are dealing with mechanics of government that are not based on a sound constitutional settlement and political theory, and that political theories are being made up on the hoof after the mechanics have been put in place?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree entirely. That is quite apparent from our earlier debate about the Official Secrets Act 1989 and its application to the First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries. The matter simply has not been thought through, but at least we can try to do something about it. The first step is to ensure that amendment is accepted, if not in the form proposed by the House of Lords, at least in the more limited form proposed by my hon. Friends.

Alan Williams (Labour, Swansea West)

First, may I make it clear that I perfectly respect the aspirations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to stand as a First Secretary and I wish him and the others who are standing well? However, that is not the issue. I regret that there has been an attempt to dismiss the matter with some quite irrelevant comments as it strikes at the heart of the constitutional basis of Cabinet government. Under Cabinet government, there is Cabinet responsibility and Cabinet accountability. If a Minister cannot accept what the Cabinet decides, he or she must leave the Cabinet. With all respect to my right hon. Friend, how on earth can he give his full loyalty to a separate Assembly that may have different perspectives—although it may have the same political background—on policy, expenditure and so on? How can he give equal loyalty to each or full loyalty to either? When he steps out of No. 10 and is interviewed by the BBC and HTV, how will we know which hat he is wearing? When he disagrees, how will we know whether he is speaking for the Assembly and when he is speaking for the Assembly, how will he preserve Cabinet responsibility and accountability? There is already a problem in that my right hon. Friend has announced that he is standing because every decision he takes between now and next May could influence the choice of leader. There is already a conflict of interests. If my right hon. Friend had announced that he was going for a commercial job that would depend on the decisions that he made as a Minister, he would have to stand down. That may be something that he has to consider in his own interests if he wants to pursue his other ambition. It would be bad for Wales if we ended up with what in America would be called a lame duck president. We do not want a lame duck Secretary of State who cannot take unpopular decisions between now and May because they may prejudice his chances. I hope that that danger will be avoided, but it has to be perceived. There is also the question of appearance. We have just had a referendum on whether there should be an Assembly. We are now giving the appearance of London trying to impose a leader on that Assembly. What a fine start to devolution—the London Cabinet has to have its hands on the helm. That cannot be right. My right hon. Friend should consider that. My right hon. Friend may argue that this is a question of helping with one or two teething troubles. If he were the First Secretary of the Assembly, the wisdom of Ron would be available to the Assembly regardless of whether he was Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is lucky that he is among friends today. In an interview with HTV last week, I was asked whether I thought he was trying to influence the choice of leader unfairly. I had to say that the thought had not crossed my mind, but others are not as generous. I can think of no reason other than personal expediency for supporting the proposed course of action. I urge my right hon. Friend to change track now and make the right decision.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is a good colleague and a neighbouring Member of Parliament. He has fallen into the trap that the Conservatives have laid. I regret that very much. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) talked about an ultimate job share. Conservative Members are experts in ultimate job shares. Their Front-Bench Members persist in holding other jobs outside the House. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) indulged in transparently mischievous comments that did not address the issues. Nobody seriously argues that the same person can be Secretary of State for Wales and Assembly First Secretary in perpetuity. It would be politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) are pertinent on the issue of a long-term dual mandate.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

Is not that precisely the point? If the situation is constitutionally undesirable, what difference does it make whether it lasts for a month or a year? If the principle is wrong, is not the time scale irrelevant?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

If the hon. Gentleman had waited a moment, I would have explained the facts of political life to him and he would have realised that there is a difference between permanency and a transitional period. There is a very strong case for a transitional period, particularly at the beginning when the Assembly is bedding down and the order transferring the functions of the Secretary of State has still to be implemented. There is a great deal of sense in having some continuity in the interests of stability and good government. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) talked about potential conflict. If there were conflict, it would have to be resolved. If that conflict could not be resolved, there would have to be a resignation from one post. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West insults my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he imagines that he could ever be a lame duck First Secretary of the National Assembly or Secretary of State—he has demonstrated his abilities over the past year. The Conservative Lords amendment is not about the Secretary of State.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

We almost all reject the Lords amendment because it would not allow any Minister to stand, but does the Under-Secretary understand that many of us would be uneasy about the prospect of any long-term dual mandate? Can he assure us that, to meet the points that have been made from both sides of the House, the Government would be prepared to consider an amendment in another place that would limit any dual mandate to the time necessary for the transitional orders?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, we would not be willing to consider that. The right hon. Gentleman has played a constructive role in the passage of the Bill through both Houses. I caution him against falling into a Conservative trap.

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the track record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, is not that the point? Let us put on record the reality behind the vindictive and pernicious amendment, which comes from a failed former Secretary of State for Wales and is directed at one who has an excellent track record.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. The Conservative Lords amendment is not about the Secretary of State. That is the main issue before us. The amendment puts a blanket ban on any Minister being a Member of—and maybe even standing for—the Assembly. The Conservative Lords have not thought through the consequences of their proposal. It is difficult to imagine, but if the Conservatives won the next general election and a Conservative Assembly Member were elected to the House of Commons, there could be a ban on his being appointed to ministerial office at least until he had resigned from the National Assembly. If the person in question were Rod Richards—I take his name at random—perhaps that would be a good idea and in the interests of the Conservatives. I discovered him loitering with intent on the pavement outside the Welsh Office last week, taking an interest in our affairs. There may be no other Conservative Member elected from Wales. Perhaps that is why the Conservatives are so keen on the issue. Perhaps it is not a Ron amendment, but a Rod amendment to prevent his being put in that position. Let us consider the issue another way round. Consider a serving Minister who wanted to stand for election to the Assembly in May, but was taking a Bill through the House to Royal Assent in the summer before standing down from a Government post. That person would be prejudiced from standing for the National Assembly. A Minister who was seeing out a British presidency of the European Union to the end of June would not be able to stand for election to the Assembly in May. The Lords have clearly not considered such transitional arrangements, which would be prejudiced by their amendment, which we reject. Imagine a Conservative or Liberal Democrat First Secretary of the National Assembly who stood for the Commons and was appointed Secretary of State in a new Administration. There might be a new approach to devolution that would require some transitional arrangements. That would be blocked if the amendment were passed. Consider a further transfer of functions in the next century. Perhaps broadcasting might be transferred to the Assembly. A Welsh Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could usefully be an Assembly Secretary—not in the long term, but on a transitional basis. Others with inside experience of Whitehall as a Transport Minister or an Industry Minister would have invaluable experience for the post of Assembly Secretary, taking forward policies with maximum consultation and agreement. We could consider the situation in reverse. A Welsh Secretary could have a great deal to contribute to a Whitehall ministerial post on a transitional basis. Such cross-fertilisation would be constitutionally and politically useful. Many other unforeseen circumstances could be blocked off if we put a rigid straitjacket in the Bill, as the Tory amendment would. It could be extremely damaging; it could prevent talented people from making a contribution to the good government of both Westminster and Wales. Why is Wales being made a scapegoat? No such rule is proposed for Scotland, Northern Ireland, the European Parliament or local councils. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) that amendment (a) is just a vehicle for another petty, spiteful attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Conservatives cannot attack his policies on schools, health, jobs and housing because they are very popular. They cannot attack his historic role in establishing the Assembly because that, too, is popular. Even Tories are falling over themselves to stand for it. The Conservatives cannot cope with a Secretary of State who is popular in Wales for the first time in 19 years.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

No such amendment has been tabled to the Scotland Bill because the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that no transition period is required and that he will not be standing as Secretary of State and First Minister. Why is that not so for Wales?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Since the hon. Gentleman has just taken a new job that he claims to be able to do, he, of all people, should know that the Scottish situation is different from the Welsh situation; that is why. The Bills are different and the powers exercised by the Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are different. He must acknowledge that.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the Minister to mislead the House? No Member of the European Parliament can hold any office in any Parliament or Assembly. That is why the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) could not take the job in Northern Ireland.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

That is a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The Conservatives are so used to Secretaries of State being unpopular in Wales that they find it difficult to comprehend somebody who holds the office being able to wander around the Royal National Eisteddfod, for example, without a phalanx of bodyguards protecting him, or mingle at the Royal Welsh show with demonstrating farmers who welcome rather than abuse him. The Conservatives cannot cope with a people's Secretary of State. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not out of sycophancy—I leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)— but out of admiration for his work. He is choosing willingly to leave a Cabinet post—one of the highest posts in the Government, to which most Members of Parliament aspire only in their dreams. He is giving that up—at some point in the future—and is prepared to take a salary cut and all the reductions in status that his self-removal from the Cabinet will entail in order to help give birth to Wales's new democracy. Unlike Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The Minister must be given a hearing.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Unlike many others whom we can imagine, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not making any presumptions about his position in the Assembly. He is standing in order to take part in the creation of the new and vibrant democracy in Wales. Instead of being denigrated, he ought to be congratulated on that. I pay tribute to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fought many difficult battles—sometimes even in the tortuous labyrinths of the Welsh Labour party, and at other times—coaxing and persuading a hesitant Welsh nation into greater self-confidence and common citizenship. Notwithstanding the sniping of Conservative Members, Lord Crickhowell said of my right hon. Friend on 15 July: I wish the present Secretary of State for Wales well. I admire the way in which he has carried the legislation to this point; it is a considerable achievement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 370.] I am sure that, on reflection, even Lord Crickhowell accepts that his authorship of the amendment was misconceived. Apart from on this matter and a few others, the Lords have shown much greater intelligence and responsibility than the Conservative Opposition in this House, as a reading of the debate shows. After the assurances that I have given, and considering the problems with the amendment that I have identified, I am sure that their lordships will not want to put a road block across the passage of the Bill and that, instead, they will allow Wales's exciting new democracy to grow and flourish on schedule, as we are determined it should.