Wales Bill — Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

House of Lords, 13 October 2014.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

My Lords, I am a little disappointed that the Minister is not here yet. Is she arriving? Should I propose that we adjourn until the Minister arrives?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)

My Lords, I offer sincere apologies to the noble Baroness and the Committee for the delay in the Minister returning to the Chamber to continue the Committee stage of the Bill. I had been reliably informed that she was just outside the Chamber and I know that she certainly is not far away. I would be happy to remain in place for the noble Baroness’s speech and to ensure that the Minister is properly apprised of the points that the noble Baroness makes as soon as my noble friend returns.

While I am here, I remind noble Lords of what I said following the Statement that we just heard on Scotland: clearly there is much that noble Lords would like to debate about devolution following the referendum. I am pleased that we will have a debate in government time later this month. I very much look forward to that. Once again, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to noble Lords for their patience.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

Thank you. We have just heard about the vigorous referendum campaign in Scotland, where people on all sides talked about the need to respect the established devolved institutions. It should be remembered that the current settlement means that Westminster theoretically still has the power to dissolve the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament without any consultation with the Welsh public or the Scottish Parliament, although in practice the Sewel convention means that, generally speaking, Westminster does not intervene in devolved matters.

However, in this clause, we are faced with a situation where an autonomous Assembly is being told what to do by Big Brother in London. Westminster has changed the date of its general election and therefore, of course, so should Wales. If we have learnt anything in the past few weeks, it is surely that you cannot let the teenager find her feet and explore the paths she wants to take, only to put a curfew on her, insisting that she comes home at a particular time when you feel that she needs to be told what to do or when her decisions do not suit you.

If Westminster wants to change the date of its own election, so be it. What seems wrong in principle is that this should lead Westminster to impose a decision upon Wales about when she should hold a vote, without any consultation with her at all. The Presiding Officer of the Assembly said that the power of the decision about when to hold a vote is,

“more appropriately held by the Presiding Officer, as is the case for the Scottish Parliament”.

In the Bill, we have suggested that it should be a matter for the Assembly, but we are open to debate on that. The principle that we are after is at what level the decision should be made—who should be making the decision. If the Welsh Assembly wants to hold its election in the same year as a general election, that is surely a matter for the Assembly itself. It is too early to say to what extent we in the UK will go down the federal route. However, one thing is certain. If you are serious about devolution, you cannot hand over the powers but attach a spring so that they can be hauled back to Westminster every time a devolved structure makes a decision of which you disapprove or every time you make a decision that may impact on that institution.

The Welsh Government outlined in their response to the Green Paper produced two years ago that,

“no change to the Assembly’s current electoral arrangements should be made without the Assembly’s consent”.

This is a fundamental constitutional principle at issue. It is a necessary consequence of a constitution based on the principle of devolution. Clearly, the reason for the introduction of the original clause is to take account of the fact that the five-year Fixed-term Parliaments Act has been introduced for the House of Commons. The principle of broader legislative competence for Assembly elections should be considered by political parties when they draw up their manifestos. This is an issue that was dealt with in Silk 2. However, surely it cannot be right to bind the hands of the Assembly at such a sensitive time in our constitutional discussions.

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

My Lords, I can readily identify with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. I agree that these matters should ideally be in the hands of the National Assembly to decide. None the less, we have guidelines that have been laid down from here. By virtue of speaking to Amendment 5, I want to draw attention to the fact that there are real dangers when a Westminster election overshadows an election to the National Assembly.

Amendment 5 provides that the poll for a National Assembly ordinary general election should not be held within 355 days of the date of a UK general election, although I accept entirely that it should be a matter for the Assembly finally to decide on these matters if we can give it the power to do so. The amendment mentions 355 days rather than 12 months to allow situations to arise whereby one vote could be held on 7 May one year, followed by a poll on 1 May the following year, or similar circumstances.

The truth, which may not be immediately apparent to colleagues from other parts of the United Kingdom, is that the UK media are heavily biased in favour of England-only issues. That is understandable because most of the media are based in south-east England and look through a prism from that perspective. In the leaders’ debates in the run-up to the previous general election, for example, party leaders answered questions relating to healthcare and education, without mentioning that those policies were applicable only in England and not in Wales or Scotland. These considerations spill over to arguments in relation to the settlement that will be made to Scotland as well.

Circumstances such as these are highly confusing for viewers, listeners or readers in Wales and can lead to voters making choices based on policies that would not in fact affect them. Wales has a number of daily newspapers such as the Western Mail and Daily Post, as well as very good local newspapers, but the majority of people still get their news and election coverage from London-based outlets. Were an election to the Welsh Assembly to occur in quick succession following a UK general election, or in inverse circumstances, it is certain that any debates surrounding Welsh policies would be totally drowned by UK election coverage. The Electoral Reform Society Wales has said that combining polls would always have a detrimental impact by causing confusion for voters, and that Welsh elections would be “subsumed” into media coverage of the UK general election.

To ensure that voters’ decisions are well informed, we believe that provisions similar to those contained in Amendment 5 would be necessary to mitigate such media distortion, although I repeat that I would prefer that initiatives along those lines should come from the Assembly itself.

Lord Richard (Labour)

My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the amendment but I am bound to say that I am not sure that I fully understand the wording of the first part of it. If one actually looks at the text, it would seem that the amendment proposes that the Welsh Assembly should revert to a system in which the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, with the consent of the Assembly, would be able to determine to hold an election at any moment that he thinks fit. In other

words, we would be back to the situation that we were in before we passed the Act a few years ago that set up the five-year Parliament gap.

If the intention of the amendment is that the Assembly should be able to fix in advance a particular term at the end of which an election should be held—in other words, that the Assembly should decide whether it should be a five-year, four-year or even perhaps a three-year term—that I understand and fully appreciate. If the intention is, however, to give the Welsh Assembly the additional powers that the Prime Minister had in the old House of Commons, to call an election at the time of his own choosing, I am bound to say that I am not sure I agree. I accept the thrust of the amendment, which is that decisions on the timing of an election should be a matter for the Assembly, but I am not sure whether the wording of proposed new subsection (1) in the proposed amendment goes anywhere near achieving that.

Lord Rowlands (Labour)

My Lords, I understand and appreciate the power of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just proposed to make sure that elections are not simultaneous. However, there is a case against that. The most worrying aspect in the whole of my parliamentary lifetime is the decline in turnout. In a democracy, turnout is extremely important. In the last Assembly election, the turnout was just over 40%. In the last general election to Westminster, it was 65%. The high point was in 1950 when we had a UK turnout of more than 83%. It never fell below 70% at the United Kingdom level until 2001, when it fell to 59%. But even now, at 65%, it is some 20 percentage points higher than the turnout for the latest Assembly election. I wonder whether we ought to be concerned about that. Although I understand and appreciate completely the argument that UK issues drown out Welsh issues, there is a point to make about turnout. It is extremely important in a democracy that turnout is upheld.

The turnout when I served Merthyr for 30-odd years was 70% to 75%. It fell to 70% in the last election in which I stood and I was mortified. But at the last election it fell to 59%, and that is in a highly political kind of community that appreciates and understands the nature of politics and elections. A case could be made, contrary to the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that if you run the elections together you intensify the politics. Parties are more engaged in the streets and you raise the turnout from 40% to 65%.

I am dredging my memory but the last time elections were run concurrently was in 1979, when local elections and the general election were held on the same date. That raised the turnout in local elections to a dramatically higher level than ever before. I think that was in 1979. Although I understand that there is consensus at the Assembly level on separating the elections, I wanted to register the point about turnout.

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

Would the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, accept that one element of an election is to give a mandate to the Government? If the mandate has been generated on the basis of a different election, how on earth can it be interpreted in the context of the Assembly?

Lord Rowlands (Labour)

I am not altogether certain that that would happen. There is some indication that if the polls were on the same day, people would vote for local Assembly Member from one party and for another at United Kingdom level. But if you talk about a mandate, it is always better to have two-thirds of the electorate giving you the mandate than 40%. I am not disputing that it is obviously the wish of everyone in Cardiff to separate the elections, but we should take account of the fact that turnout is important. There is no doubt that there is a big difference at the moment between turnout in National Assembly elections and turnout in UK elections.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation in this section of the debate. Amendment 4, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Gale, would give the Assembly the power to decide, by resolution, when Assembly elections are held. It would give the Assembly a wide degree of discretion to determine the date of Assembly elections, which is something that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised concerns about. We might all be rather worried about that issue because it has such a wide scope. By a simple majority, the Assembly would be able to vote for a change to the length of its terms. Such a power would go beyond that given to other devolved legislatures, which do not have the freedom to vary the length of their terms.

The Government believe that the devolution of further powers to the Assembly, such as this, cannot be undertaken in a piecemeal fashion. Once again, this is an issue that is better discussed and considered in a wider context of other changes to the Welsh devolution settlement arising from the Silk recommendations. It is a fundamental change, as has been said today, to devolve to the Assembly competence over its elections, and it would undoubtedly have knock-on effects on UK government elections. The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, made the very good point that you would get a higher turnout by holding those two elections in coincidence. I do not think, however, that that would be desirable because it is undoubtedly true that the media in Wales are not strong enough to lead a debate on Welsh issues that is not overshadowed, at the time of the general election, by UK issues.

Amendment 5 seeks to preclude an ordinary general election to the National Assembly being held within 355 days of the UK general election. As I have said, I fully agree with the sentiment behind this, that these should be distinct and separate events. I share the concerns of the noble Lord and the Assembly that holding those elections on the same day would not give electors a clear view of Welsh issues. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 changed the length of term of the current Assembly to five years on a one-off basis. Without further provision, the Assembly will return to four-year terms thereafter.

Clause 1, however, already provides for five-year terms in perpetuity for the Assembly’s general elections from 2016 onwards. It already does this without the need for further amendment, making it very unlikely that the Assembly general elections and parliamentary general elections will coincide in future. I am sure that

the noble Lord will welcome this, and I thank him for his explanation for including his amendment. I believe, however, that the provisions already included in the Bill will go as far as is necessary to ensure that Assembly elections and parliamentary elections do not coincide.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I point out that the Assembly agreed to the change of date of the elections. This is not something that has simply been visited upon it: it has agreed to it. I welcome once again the conversion of the Labour Party to the idea that the Assembly should have the freedom to do such things as deciding its own elections. It is important in that context that we note that views on devolution are changing fast in some quarters, and it is important that there is public debate as to what additional powers are devolved to the Assembly.

On that basis, I respectfully request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment and that the noble Lord does not press his.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

I thank those who have participated in this debate. I stand by the principle that it should be up to the Assembly to determine when its election should be. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about discussion of the Welsh election being drowned out, are valid, but the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, about turnout probably increasing significantly if the elections were held on the same day are also worthy of consideration. Ultimately, however, it should be up to the Assembly to decide. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made on tightening up the wording of the amendment. It is a lot better than the one they had in the Commons, in which there was no mention at all of when the Assembly should have elections; it could have gone on for ever without any. We have improved on that.

The Minister also talked about this being a fundamental change. I think there are fundamental changes going on at the moment, and so we need to make sure that we keep perspective and an open mind on some of these issues. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and to suggest that it could be returned to on Report.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendment 6

Moved by Lord Rowe-Beddoe

6: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—

“Size of Assembly

The Secretary of State must introduce a bill to provide that the Assembly shall constitute at least 80 Assembly Members with effect from the 2016 elections.”

Lord Rowe-Beddoe (Crossbench)

My Lords, Amendment 6 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Elystan-Morgan. It is rather coincidental that we are debating the Bill on the first

day back from the recess, and that it has been sandwiched between a referendum on Scotland and the Scottish Statement.

Many noble Lords will recall that, about two years ago, when the House was debating the referendum and further devolution for Scotland, many noble Lords remarked that, whatever the outcome, the United Kingdom would never be the same. I think that already we have seen that start, and it is not just a start—it is a wave of movement.

This is a simple amendment. Whether it is deferred or whether it is delegated, if it has more power then it is proposed that it must have more people. It may not go down very well with parts of the constituencies in Wales but, for the sake of good governance on behalf of the electorate, to hold accountable those elected into the Assembly, we must have further numbers. I have seen and been told that there are insufficient Assembly Members properly to staff the committees that already exist. We have former Assembly Members here; no doubt they will either agree with me or challenge me on that.

The proposal in this amendment is very simple. The current composition is 60, which is considered insufficient to do the business that needs to be done when the Bill, in this form or its increased form, goes to Cardiff. With increased powers comes increased responsibility, and increased responsibility means a decreased accountability. As we can all see from the paper, there are four or five following amendments which sound very complicated as to how these extra Members should be elected. That is a separate issue. The principle here is that there are not sufficient Members to handle further responsibility. I beg to move.

Lord Richard (Labour)

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. If one goes back 10 years to the report of the commission that I had the honour of chairing, we then identified this as one of the problems the Assembly had then and would face increasingly in the future. I will spend just two minutes on analysing where the Assembly is in this regard. We have 60 Members in the National Assembly in Wales; the Scottish Parliament has 129 and the Northern Ireland Assembly has 108.

At first sight, those numbers are a bit odd. I do not see why they should be quite as different as they are. If one then goes on to look at what the present 60 in the National Assembly of Wales do, only 42 of them are actually available to hold the Welsh Government to account and scrutinise legislation. Indeed, at one stage it was even worse than that. At the time of the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition, there were 41 Members either from Labour or Plaid Cymru, leaving only 19 from a non-governing party to scrutinise the whole body of Assembly legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite me will no doubt remember those days pretty well since he was one of the 19.

Can that many Members do that work? The short answer is no. They could not do it 10 years ago and they certainly cannot do it now. I recently came across a quote from Rosemary Butler, the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly. She put it like this:

“There are only 42 Members to scrutinise £15 billion of taxpayers’ money, and to scrutinise the government on the big issues of the day—the future of our health service, our education system and the economy. On top of that they have to make sound, thoroughly scrutinized laws for our nation. A quarter of those 42 members sit on three committees, half sit on two”.

She concludes with the comment:

“One would simply not find the same level of workload on Members in Westminster, Holyrood or Stormont”.

That is clearly true.

Over the years, we have given the Assembly greater powers. We have not increased the number of people available to deal with those powers and scrutinise the way they are used. In this Bill, we propose to give them more powers. We will no doubt, in the not too distant future, have proposals to give the Assembly further powers again. To keep the limit at 60 is frankly ludicrous. It hobbles the way in which the Assembly works and means that laws are not sufficiently scrutinised. It means, too, that the way money is spent is not sufficiently looked at. Quite honestly, it breeds inefficiency. The argument for increasing it from 60 to 80 is, frankly, irrefutable.

The only argument now is whether it should be 80 or go up to 100. I have an open mind on that. As a first step, going up to 80 would satisfy me for the moment. If you are to give the Assembly more powers, and if it is to become a Parliament in the sense that the Scottish Parliament is one, 80 may not be enough. Assuredly, if you are to do that, 60 will not be. I support this amendment.

Lord Elis-Thomas (Plaid Cymru)

My Lords, it is always a delight to follow a debate proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude for having defined an ideal model in 2004 of what the National Assembly could have been.

My Amendment 9 has a whiff of relative autonomy about it, which will not surprise noble Lords. Although I deny being a separatist and I am not an upper-case Nationalist, I am certainly an avid, totally committed, complete devolutionist. My amendment—which my noble friend supports—proposes that the Assembly should decide its own size. No doubt many constitutional objections will be put forward to this notion. However, the amendment proposes that the decision should be subject to the very important principle of a majority of not less than two-thirds of voting Assembly Members on a vote of the whole Assembly. That is a feature we have already in our constitution—and use regularly. It applies to dissolution Motions and other Motions within our procedures.

My amendment has the support—and I had the assistance in drafting it—of the Electoral Reform Society Cymru. I will not detain the Committee by quoting from Size Matters—I know the Government have read it. However, it provides a comparative analysis of the size of national Assemblies—that is Parliaments; we will come to this at a later stage this evening, perhaps with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. The key issue is the ratio of Members to the size of the electorate in a given constituency, and the relationship between the two. It also looks at the legislative Assemblies of other comparable European regions or nations—

whatever you wish to call them. Again, it looks at their size in relation to function. What is relevant in this analysis is the functional level. In other words, with the amount of devolutionary power that the National Assembly for Wales already has, we are reaching the norm of the European Union—and the Canadian provinces, another comparator. However, we are nowhere near the norm in terms of the number of Members.

Therefore, this amendment would give the National Assembly the ability to decide its own membership subject to the agreement of a two-thirds majority of Members. This is a proper devolutionary measure for the nature of the constitution itself. I know that that is a difficult concept for the Committee to understand. I am sorry to say that the United Kingdom is still an extremely centralist state. It is not a unitary state and never has been. It is a state of unions and those unions are different, for historical reasons. But the nation of Wales, despite the great time we had during the Tudor ascendancy, is not well placed in the pecking order of UK devolution. This amendment seeks to redress that. I know the Government will not be able to accept the amendment because it is too autonomous—but it is a constitutional principle that it is important to present in this discussion.

Baroness Humphreys (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to return to a theme I referred to briefly at Second Reading: the issue of the size of the Assembly. I am also pleased that our debate today may inform opinion in Wales on the number of AMs needed to run our Assembly effectively. My amendment recognises that the Assembly has too few Members to carry out its present functions. It also recognises that there is a simple way to increase its size to 80 Members for the next Assembly elections to be held in 2016, and further recognises that an Assembly of 100 Members at the 2021 elections is possible but dependent on a reduction in the number of MPs that Wales sends to Westminster.

In its publication, Size Matters, the Electoral Reform Society, drawing on the work of the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, the Institute of Welsh Affairs and Cymru Yfory/Tomorrow’s Wales, argues that the size of the Assembly is a matter that is,

“too important to be left to politicians”.

However, politicians, whether here or in Cardiff Bay, will ultimately have to make a decision: a decision that will give the National Assembly the tools that it needs to make it the accountable and efficient institution we desire it to be, or leave it overburdened and struggling to cope with its powers.

We are urged, in all our deliberations, to come to evidence-based decisions, and Size Matters provides us with the unbiased evidence we need to guide those deliberations. Of course, it is and would be difficult for Assembly Members themselves to make the case for an increase in their numbers. Fear of criticism from the media and the electorate results in their remaining silent in public. However, privately many will confess that there are too few of them to hold the Welsh Government to account or to scrutinise the volume of legislation for which they are responsible.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already referred to the fact that with only 60 Members—and only 70% of them, 42 Members, available for scrutiny work at present—their ability to undertake this work is seriously compromised. In the UK Parliament, 85% of Members are available to undertake scrutiny and legislative functions; in the Scottish Parliament, 88%; and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, 85%. There are too few Assembly Members to populate the committees where scrutiny takes place, and because of time constraints arising from other duties they are less able to develop the specialist expertise needed to optimise their effectiveness. Because of this, and the increase in the number of plenary sessions, the Assembly’s own remuneration board has increased the staffing allowance for AMs to allow them three staff members to support their research, policy and constituency work, and is even now giving further consideration to increases that will allow each Assembly Member to appoint a senior adviser.

However, appointing more support or research staff misses the main point. It does not address the issue of AMs being unable to find the time to read papers, however well prepared by their staff, and to prepare for committees. That has led to a strengthening of the Executive, with well briefed Ministers apparently able to run rings around AMs who do not have time to read their briefings.

In these times of austerity, proposing an increase in Members to the National Assembly for Wales is hardly likely to be popular. Arguments we make about workload, efficiency, effective scrutiny, accountability and holding the Executive to account will all seem insignificant to an electorate more concerned about costs. However, the truth is that we get our Assembly on the cheap compared to other legislatures. The average annual cost of an Assembly Member, including pay, travel and other expenses, support staff and equipment is £225,000. The annual cost of an MP is £590,000 and that of an MEP is £1.8 million. Based on those figures an 80-Member Assembly would cost an extra £4.5 million per annum and a 100-Member Assembly an extra £9 million. The Electoral Reform Society’s publication argues that this,

“would be a small price to pay”,

given the benefits that would flow from increased accountability and better scrutiny.

That cost could, however, be offset by the better use of existing resources if Wales had fewer MPs and Peers at Westminster, fewer paid councillors and more AMs instead. The case has long been made for a reduction in Welsh MPs. Each Welsh MP has an average electorate of 76,000 while the figure for the UK is one Member per 97,000. While Scotland cut its number of MPs from 72 to 59 in 1999, Wales did not.

In a footnote, which I found extremely interesting, Size Matters reminds us that:

“It is important to note that the legislation to cut the number of Welsh MPs by a quarter, from 40 to 30, has only been deferred—to 2017—and so remains on the statute book. ... Unless the new UK Government after the 2015 general election brings in new legislation, the reduction in the total of MPs for the UK to 600, including the reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, will take effect from 2018 … in time for the UK general election in 2020 and the Assembly elections in 2021”.

There can be no reason for Parliament to continue denying the National Assembly the capacity to deliver on the functions it already has and to prepare it for the further powers proposed for it. The first part of my amendment calls for the next Assembly elections in 2016 to be for an 80-Member Chamber. There can be no doubt that I would not support the option that some have suggested of an 80-Member Assembly, where two Members would be elected from each constituency. A return to a first past the post system would be a retrograde step, denying Wales the opportunity to elect an Assembly where the number of votes cast for each party is, more or less, reflected in the number of Members elected.

To deny fair votes to the people of Wales while allowing a proportional system to continue in both Scotland and Northern Ireland is illogical and perverse and would result in a Labour Government in Wales in perpetuity. To ensure the continuation of proportional results, Wales needs an Assembly election in 2016 in which 40 Members are elected in constituencies and a further 40 are elected on regional lists. Further, as the legislation to cut the number of Welsh MPs is enacted and takes effect from 2018, Wales needs a 100-Member Assembly elected by STV, so ensuring an even fairer proportional result in the Assembly elections of 2021.

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 6 only, which I believe to be a model of draftsmanship, put together in such a way as to bring about as wide and substantial a coalition in favour of a principle as one can imagine.

I believe with retrospect that there are two essential questions facing the House. First, do noble Lords in their heart of hearts believe for a moment that the Welsh Assembly can conduct its important duties, including scrutiny of legislation in particular, on a basis of 60 Members? Secondly, if noble Lords do not—and I suspect that practically every Member of the House can see the force of that point—what are we prepared to do about it? Those are two very simple but, I believe, crushingly relevant questions.

The facts have already been set out very clearly. Scotland has 129 Members; Northern Ireland has 108; Wales has 60. Of course, even more important than that is the fact that only 42 Members in Wales are available to scrutinise legislation. In the case of Scotland there are 113; in the case of Northern Ireland, I am not entirely sure whether it is 90 or 92—I think it may be 92. In the case of the House of Commons, it is 522. However, the issue is not really how many Members you have in relation to the population. There may well be a proper argument in that respect that is deployed later; that is not the issue at the moment. The issue is the minimum critical mass. If you fall below that and fail to constitute a critical mass, you are not a legislature; you are a mock parliament and no legislature at all.

That has to be remembered against this background. It is a single cameral House. I am not for a moment arguing that we should have a second House, which might be very interesting to dissertate on some day.

Be that as it may, we have plenty to worry about at the moment in this regard. It is a single cameral House. The scrutiny of legislation in Wales occurs in the Assembly or does not occur at all. That is the point.

This House does its work magnificently as a scrutinising body. Sometimes, we are given more to scrutinise than we should be. I feel that the House of Commons sends huge pieces of undigested legislation through which almost makes a mockery of the constitutional situation, but that is another story altogether.

Again, one has to remember the point already made by one or two Members. When we think of a critical mass, we should think not just of a number but of whether that critical mass is there, in the main, in the Opposition. If it is not—even if you increase the membership to, say, 80 or 100—if you have a strong coalition between party A and party B that is responsible for, let us say, 70% of the membership, you still fail to have a critical mass where it counts.

We are not talking about mathematical representation; nor, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys—with whose address I wholeheartedly agree in the main—do I honestly believe that it is a matter of trade-off with local government or the House of Commons. If I remember rightly, the noble Baroness was not a Member of the House when this matter was discussed three or four years ago, when the proposal was carried to reduce the number of Welsh Members of Parliament from 40 to 30. I do not want to spoil the splendid feeling of unanimity that we have had up to now, at any rate on this issue, but the Liberal Democrats could have done better than they did on that occasion. We had a vote to give the Isle of Wight two seats. Not one member of the Liberal Democrats spoke on the issue of Wales. The real condemnation came not from the Opposition but from the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the grandson of David Lloyd George, who said, “My grandfather would not be turning over in his grave; he would have been in the Dwyfor by now”. That says everything.

The only other thing I have to say about that, which is on the face of it an attractive argument but possibly a dangerous course to take, is that in 1993 a proposal was before the House of Commons to reduce the number of seats in Wales—indeed, I think, over the whole country. The Home Secretary at the time was Mr Kenneth Clarke. He said, “No, as far as Wales is concerned, I am not having it. Wales is a land and nation with characteristics of its own and circumstances which are so special and so unique that I will make it an exception”. I do not believe that Wales is any less of an exception than it was in 1993.

The question then is: what should the number be? The Electoral Reform Society, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has properly referred, has examined 42 countries which are comparable with Wales in various ways. It has come to the conclusion, taking all things into account, that the average number for such sub-parliaments as those countries have—perhaps I do them less than justice in calling them sub-parliaments, but that is the term used by the Electoral Reform Society—is about 100. It also concludes in relation to Wales that the ideal figure would be of the order of 100.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who has placed Wales eternally in his debt by his report of 2004, mentioned the fact that the committee animadverted on the question of whether the number should be 80 and said that it should, although it was not asked specifically to deal with the matter, nor did it deal with it scientifically or specifically. Nevertheless, it was a measured judgment. Now then: if it was 80 in 2004, bearing in mind the huge changes that have occurred since then, what would it be worth today? I hope that I do not take unfair advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—I certainly would not wish to nor could I do that; he is well able to make his points for himself. If 80 was the genuine estimate that was appropriate in 2004, surely by today one should be speaking of 100.

I would speak myself of 120. Why? If you regard the curve of the development as a constitutional entity of the Welsh Assembly in the 15 or 16 years of its existence, one does not have to exercise a great deal of imagination to see where it might be in a few years’ time. The idea of aiming for 120 is not chimerical, irresponsible or populist—certainly not populist—in any way. It projects what one hopes and expects for in relation to Wales. I would be very surprised if the powers that have been given to Wales do not over the next few years amply justify that.

If we were holding this debate a month or two ago, I would still be making that point, but where do the promises and undertakings that have been showered on the people of Scotland, and the people of Wales and Northern Ireland, about devolution—those promises were falling like autumn leaves in Vallombrosa, as the quotation goes—bring us? If a quarter of what was promised solemnly will in fact be done, 120 could well be justified as the membership. However, it is not a question of numbers. It is more a question of prejudice: the vast storm of prejudice that anybody who argues for an increased number will have to face. That has to be done with courage and integrity. Edmund Burke famously said that for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for men of good will to do nothing. If you wish the Welsh Assembly to fail in its main purpose of being a legislature, all you have to do about the membership is nothing.

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made his proposal for 120. I thought that one was reaching the point of, “Any advance on 80? Any advance on 100? Any advance on 120?”. Where does one stop?

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)

I am deeply grateful to my friend for giving way. Perhaps I may make a point that I forgot to make. The real case for 120 is that it is very simple. It is exactly double the number now, and you can double both constituencies—the individual constituencies and the regional ones.

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

That sounds a bit like double the number you first thought of. It is always good to follow the noble Lord. Certainly he cannot be accused of populism—perhaps courage, perhaps recklessness, but not populism.

I was tempted to go down his path of a second Chamber for Wales. There may, ultimately, further down the path, be a case for a second-opinion Chamber composed of some of the notables from the local authorities and elsewhere in Wales, but that is not a debate for today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, quoted, I think, the Electoral Reform Society, saying that these matters were too important to be left to politicians. That is a little patronising. The Electoral Reform Society consists no doubt of very worthy people who can help us by doing their analysis, but ultimately these decisions will be made by politicians, who have the experience and do not live in ivory towers. However, I agree with her that the whole matter—the matter of numbers—should be seen in the round and that one should look at the numbers in the Assembly and whether those numbers are capable of doing the job. One cannot exclude the number of those in local authorities. On that subject, I hope to move an amendment in respect of the recommendations of the Williams commission on amalgamations of local authorities in Wales, because I detect among the people of Wales a distaste for the number of people currently in the various authorities. Looking at it in the round, including local authorities and the Assembly, and not excluding the House of Commons, I am not convinced of her case for this House, because on the whole we have far fewer Members of this House than Wales warrants. That is, however, another matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, spoke simply and put forward a simple proposition. There is a consensus around his suggested figure of 80. The starting point is that, after a somewhat bumpy start, the National Assembly has now bedded down, is accepted as a proper part of the Welsh political landscape and has been a pioneer for the United Kingdom in several aspects of policy, as I find when I go into my local supermarkets and am charged for bags, a matter that will come to England somewhat later.

The amendment that I am speaking to will not, as politicians often boast, kill two birds with one stone; it will kill three birds with one stone. In respect of the equality of men and women, it is clear that although the position in the Assembly in Wales is better than in most other legislatures, certainly better than in the House of Commons, there is still a disparity. Many parties and many parliaments have struggled with this problem. Selectorates, often with a majority of women, are frequently reluctant to select women for various levels of representation. My own party tried women-only shortlists in both the 2005 and 2010 elections; in the 2015 election, my own Swansea East constituency will have a women-only shortlist.

However, that is not without problems, as one sees in Cynon Valley, and it can be a matter of considerable controversy. It can be a problem when men find it difficult to find a place in the areas where they were born, brought up and worked for a long time. They are demotivated when there is no chance, because of women-only shortlists, of standing in their own constituencies. I put forward this proposal as a serious option for solving the problem. It is a far more acceptable

device for ensuring equality and would make Wales a world leader, consistent with our normal radical policies and progressive traditions.

The advantages do not stop there. My proposal would also abolish the list system. The list system has not been a success. I am reminded that “hiraeth” in Welsh is not a longing for one’s own region within Wales but a longing for one’s own valley, constituency, city or village. It is difficult to work up loyalty or attachment to a region in Wales. “My region, right or wrong”: I cannot see anyone in Wales going to the barricades to fight for their region. It is more consistent with our Welsh tradition not to have regional lists.

Thirdly and finally, I come to the increase in numbers. It goes logically with what I am saying that as the powers of the Assembly increase—and one does not know how far that will go, and here perhaps the consensus ends, because some will want a great leap forward while others will want a more incremental approach—there should at the same time be an increase in numbers. It is also clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, said with great clarity and power, that the number in the Assembly, the 60, may have been an appropriate starting point—the 40 and the 20. Indeed, there would have been difficulties had the number of 40 constituencies been reduced to 30—it would have been perhaps 30 and 30 at that point.

However, the numbers are clearly insufficient for the job of scrutiny. At the moment, particularly when there is a coalition, as often happens in the Assembly, everyone appears to have a job. It is rather like the jibes at the old Mexican army—everyone was a general, everyone had a job. We want to get away from that. We want people in the Assembly who are able to do a job of scrutiny and we should agree to have 80 of them.

There are three good reasons for the amendment. We should not be afraid of change. In terms of gender equality, the smaller units in Wales and the increase in the powers of the Assembly, which would be matched with a commensurate increase in numbers, this amendment is proper and consistent with our radical, trailblazing tradition in Wales.

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, that was an extraordinary speech, if I may say so. We Gogs certainly have an identity, and we have an identity when we know that the south-east of Wales is spending the borrowing powers that it is acquiring on two tunnels on the M4 and putting a great deal of development into south Wales that we do not see in the north, where we have our own communication problems. To talk in terms of everyone being concerned about their little valley may do very well in south Wales, but I can tell you that in north Wales we feel very differently about it and we welcome the fact that we have regional AMs in the Welsh Assembly who can express a wider view than that of the little valley that they come from.

Although I am not overly enthusiastic about the list system, I will not see it dismissed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has done. Nor am I convinced by his idea that we should have proportionality of gender but not of political viewpoint. That would mean that the possibility of a dominant party would

swiftly arise. My noble friend said that it would be the Labour Party. I would not go that far, because there are forces at work in some of the Welsh valleys today that are not essentially socialist in their approach. I am against the idea of having first past the post in Wales when it does not exist in Scotland or in Northern Ireland and when we have been fighting hard for it not to exist in England as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made the important point that the increasing amount of legislation coming to the Welsh Assembly means that we must have more Members to deal with it. I think that the consensus in Wales at the moment is that there are not enough people to scrutinise the legislation that is going through.

The noble Lord talked about scrutiny. The fact is that this is about not just primary legislation going through but primary legislation without the advantage of a second Chamber. Your Lordships will recall that I suggested earlier that we should surely be working towards a federal, single-tier Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, with committees for Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland that could scrutinise the legislation that comes through. As I said, if we have English votes for English laws that have to go through the scrutiny of this House, that will be a considerable advantage compared to single parties putting through legislation without adequate scrutiny. On primary legislation in Wales, there is a lot to be done, but what is not to be done is what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggests in his amendment. I wholly support everything that my noble friend Lady Humphreys so ably said.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I would welcome further explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, regarding his amendment. When he suggests that two Members should be elected from 40 constituencies, should the elector have one vote or two in that election?

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

Basically, whether it should be one or two votes is a matter that should be left to the Assembly. My position is that all these arrangements should be left, so far as possible, to the Assembly. It has mature politicians and it is for them to make those decisions.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, perhaps I might reply to my great colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by saying that if you have only one vote as against two, the whole composition of the Assembly, including the one that is to make the further arrangements, will be totally distorted.

Baroness Gale (Labour)

My Lords, once again we have had a very interesting debate on how big the Assembly should be and how many seats it should have. I think that this debate has been going on since 1999, when the first Assembly sat. We know that many changes have been made in the Assembly that give it greater responsibilities, with increased powers to make decisions in Wales for Welsh people.

Many calls have been made about the number of Assembly Members. A number of reports have been published saying that 60 Members are insufficient to deal with holding the Executive to account. Increasing the number of Assembly Members has been endorsed by the Electoral Reform Society Cymru and by the Richard commission in 2004. In addition, we know that the current Presiding Officer, Dame Rosemary Butler, has endorsed this. The Richard commission said that there should be 80 seats. Silk 2 argued for the same and stated:

“The size of the … Assembly should be increased”.

In October 2013, the Electoral Reform Society and the Changing Union project published their report Size Matters and argued that there should be 100 Members, based on examination of legislatures across Europe and the competences for which the Assembly is now responsible.

As other noble Lords have said, there are only 42 Back-Benchers, which means that the ability to scrutinise legislation is severely curtailed owing to the capacity issues experienced by those Back-Benchers. We have noted that other noble Lords said earlier in the debate that the Assembly is small in relation to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and other legislatures across the world. As the legislation becomes more complex, there is a necessity for our politicians in Wales to develop areas of specialist expertise. That is difficult for most Back-Bench AMs, as they are members of more than one committee and it is difficult to build up expertise. In debating this Bill, we will be discussing tax legislation—a new and complicated area where it will be essential that adequate scrutiny takes place. If the recommendations of the areas to be devolved from Silk 2 are taken up, there will obviously be still further pressure on Assembly Members.

The noble Lords, Lord Rowe-Beddoe and Lord Elystan-Morgan, and my noble friend Lord Richard spoke of having at least 80 seats by 2016. The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, made the good point that more powers really equates to more seats. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, spoke of having 120 seats. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, argued for having 80 seats by 2016 and 100 seats by 2021, all being elected by STV. That is a controversial suggestion and I am quite sure that it would arouse a lot of discussion in Wales: should we have the whole number elected by STV or should we have the proportions that we have now? I am sure that we will be having that discussion at some time.

My noble friend Lord Anderson also called for an 80-seat Assembly with two Members in each of the 40 constituencies, with gender balance—a good solution, one might think. I am committed to having a gender balance in the Assembly and in all our elected institutions. However, that amendment would be controversial as well, if it were accepted, because we would be saying that there should be a form of quotas in legislation. If you write into law that there have to be two Members in every constituency in Wales, with one having to be a woman and one a man, there would in effect be quotas. I have spoken about having quotas before but

we need much more examination of that and I do not think that we would get legislation for quotas passed, certainly not in your Lordships’ House or in the House of Commons. My noble friend also mentioned having a second Chamber in the Assembly, which would be even more controversial.

This debate has shown clearly that there is consensus on having an increased number of Assembly Members, so that they can deal effectively with the new responsibilities and hold the Executive to account. I am sure that there will be further debate, not just in your Lordships’ House, before there is a clear decision on how many Members there should be and by what method of election. But one thing is clear: there is general agreement that the number of Assembly Members should be increased. I am looking forward to further debate as we take the Bill through the House.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

Thank you, my Lords, for that interesting debate. I have grasped the picture. There is a cross-party and no-party agreement here today. Noble Lords want the Assembly to have more Members but also have very different views on how many more Members there should be, how that process of enlargement should happen and how they should be elected.

I welcome again the conversion of the Labour Party to the cause of having more Members. If we go back to the days—10 years ago—when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested having 80 Members, that was not acceptable to the Labour Government then, so I am delighted that we are now reaching agreement on this. However, I have to point out that, although we as politicians here think that what is needed is more Members for the Assembly, I fear that if we asked the general public they would not produce the same answer. Asking for more politicians is not going to be an easy thing, particularly when the public view of politics and politicians is at a pretty low ebb across all parties.

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

The deal in Scotland was that it had primary legislative powers and therefore the number of Members was reduced from 72 to 59. The people of Wales have spoken. They have had a referendum in which they have provided that Wales should have primary legislative powers and those have been given. Why should the people of Wales object to a reduction in numbers of MPs and an increase in numbers of Members of the Assembly?

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

The noble Lord makes an excellent point and anticipates part of my speech. There is an issue of ensuring that if the Assembly is to have more Members, and that is to have broad public support, it needs to be done either when there is a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, as was referred to earlier, or there is a reorganisation of local government in Wales, when I anticipate that there would be a reduction in the number of councillors.

In the mean time, there is an important public debate to be had and an argument to be made by civil society. I am aware that a large number of organisations within civil society in Wales share the views that noble Lords have expressed today. There is an engagement

with politics that these things should be done by civil society in order to ensure that any arguments on them are put forward with force and relevance for the people of Wales.

I am grateful to the noble Lords whose amendments have enabled this debate. Amendments 6, 9 and 11, and Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, have formed a useful group and theme. Amendments 6 and 9 require the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill to increase the size of the Assembly to at least 80 Members—in the case of Amendment 6, from 2016. Amendment 9 provides that responsibility for deciding the number of Assembly Members should be devolved to the Assembly. Any subsequent change to the number of Members must be approved by a two-thirds majority.

We recognise in government the legitimate concerns about whether the Assembly has sufficient numbers to provide Ministers and the scrutiny that government through the committee system in the Assembly requires. This has been discussed since at least the time of the Richard commission and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on this issue. More recently, the Silk commission recommended in its second report increasing the number of Assembly Members, although it did not go into the detail of suggesting a number.

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)

The Silk commission was not allowed to consider the matter. With rather restrained mischief it made the point that there should be an increase. It produced this memorable line, which introduces a point that has not been considered in this debate. It said: good scrutiny leads to good legislation and good legislation pays for itself.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

I think that it was not a case of the Silk commission not being allowed to consider the matter; the issue was that this was not within the specific remit of the commission. It was certainly something that it considered and discussed, and on which it made a recommendation.

While all of us here today seem to have an agreement that there is an issue to be considered, the First Minister confirmed in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill that the Assembly could undoubtedly cope with all its new powers with the 60 Members. Reference has been to the Presiding Officer’s views. I think that it would be useful if the Assembly itself considered this issue.

Lord Elis-Thomas (Plaid Cymru)

I would counsel the Minister not to quote the First Minister or any first minister in any legislature as the authority on scrutiny.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

The noble Lord makes a very good point.

The size of the Assembly is a vital issue that goes to the heart of democracy in Wales and the inter-relationship between the legislature and the Executive. The key issue—the noble Lord has just drawn our attention to it—is that with a small Opposition, particularly in the

case of a coalition, scrutiny is very difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that everyone has a job. The problem is that everyone has two or three jobs in the Assembly, so the difficulty is with Assembly Members being busy. MPs and your Lordships are busy too, but Assembly Members are spreading themselves across several subjects and committees, which makes it difficult to establish expertise. This is a live issue. It needs to be considered as part of the Silk 2 recommendations and after the appropriate level of public debate.

A recent Electoral Reform Society report found that nearly 80% of Assembly Members believed that changes should be made to the way in which plenary time is used within the Assembly, with a view to making the time that they have available more effective. I am sure that that will have been considered within the Assembly at various times. As our debate today has demonstrated, this is a complex issue with a number of strands of opinion.

I wish now to turn to Amendments 11 and 14. Amendment 11, in the name of my noble friend Lady Humphreys, specifies that from 2021 the Assembly should be elected via the single transferable vote system. That would bring greater proportionality than the current system. We have discussed proportionality this evening. It would replace the current mix of first past the post and the proportional system that we have in the Assembly at the moment. Although we have an element of proportionality in the Assembly, it is not complete proportionality. A change in the electoral system is once again properly the domain of manifestos. I would also like to note a recommendation by the Richard commission report that was accepted at the time by several of the parties in the Assembly but has not been implemented.

Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would increase the size of the Assembly by providing 40 Members of each gender but because it does not remove the proportional element it would mean there would be 80 constituency Members plus 20 list Members. The Assembly would have a residual element of proportionality but it would be overwhelmingly dominated by first past the post constituency-elected Assembly Members and would undoubtedly be a very different place. However, it would not necessarily look very different from the Assembly today in terms of gender balance. One of the great successes of the Assembly is that there has consistently been a good gender balance. In fact, there was a time when there were more women than men in the Assembly. We were therefore the only legislature in the world in that position.

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

That was by chance and by choice of the parties rather than by statute.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

The noble Lord is seeking to guarantee that gender balance. I am normally very supportive of any initiative that increases the number of female elected Members but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, indicated, there would be an element of controversy. For example, if a female was elected as

one of the Members and a male as the other Member, but the second male, shall we say, on the list had more votes than the winning female, or vice versa, there would be local controversy.

However, the main concern with this proposal is that it would reduce the element of proportionality. The offer of proportionality was intrinsic when Welsh people accepted the Assembly in the referendum. It was an integral part of what was offered.

The interlinked issues of the right number of Assembly Members, the optimum balance between constituency and regional Members and the system used to elect them need to be considered as part of the further step forward in devolution in Wales. If there are to be profound changes, there needs to be wider consultation. I know I will disappoint many Members when I say that I do not believe that the thinking behind these amendments is sufficiently mature for me to accept any of them. There needs to be further debate.

Lord Richard (Labour)

Can the Minister go this far and say that the Government would accept in principle that the Assembly needs more Members?

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

I can certainly undertake to relay the points of view put forward this evening within government discussions on the future of devolution in Wales. I understand that there are very clear and strong views. Although I cannot promise action on this issue in this Bill, I can guarantee that I will ensure that the views are widely known within government. I fully understand the issues that have been raised.

Lord Elis-Thomas (Plaid Cymru)

That means that we go into the 2016 election without an increase in Members.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

The noble Lord is possibly being a little on the cautious side in his estimate of how fast a future Government could produce a further devolution settlement. I cannot give any guarantees about anything that a future Government might do, but if this debate is taken forward and undertaken rigorously within Wales within the next few months, and if parties put something in their manifesto on the increase in the size of the Assembly that they believe is required, we can have a debate on the future shape of devolution during the general election that would enable a future Government to take this forward with considerable speed. I regret that there are a number of “ifs” in that answer, but there is no need for the noble Lord to despair of the outcome.

This debate must continue. It must include civil society and seek to engage the general public if the Assembly is to change as a result of the further devolution of powers so that there can be more Assembly Members. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rowe-Beddoe (Crossbench)

I thank the Minister for her reply and her summing up of a very interesting debate. I am still most concerned that devolved power as contained in this Bill will become law and more money will be devolved, more capital will go down, more

tax-raising powers will come along and there will still not be a resolution for scrutiny. I listened very carefully to what Minister said in her concluding remarks. I hope the Government understand that it is inextricably linked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.25 pm.

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

My Lords, it is my pleasure to move my Amendment 7, which is that all matters regarding the electoral arrangements are subject to agreement by the National Assembly. The key phrase is,

“subject to agreement … before implementation”.

I am not personally against the following amendment, which will shortly be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Wigley, but I submit to him that my amendment is more likely to be acceptable than his, although I think that we are working to the same end.

Essentially, my proposition is clear and simple. It is as clear, pure and simple as the last amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe. In my judgment it is absurd that we should be laying down the rules relating to the electoral arrangements irrespective of the views of the National Assembly. Its Members are the experts in the field. They have the experience of fighting elections for the Assembly in Wales and the decision should be left to them. Even local authorities have a degree of discretion, which is currently denied to the Assembly. Without this, the arrangements are in the spirit of high to low—“We in Westminster and Whitehall know best”, almost as if in colonial times, when the constitutional arrangements were handed down like tablets of stone to the grateful people.

Surely we are dealing with a mature and maturing democracy in Wales, where the representatives of the people should decide for themselves. However, if leaving it by Order in Council wholly within the responsibility of the Assembly is not acceptable, the next best thing—perhaps the more realistic alternative—is the one proposed in this amendment. Do we really think that we know best? Have we no trust in the Assembly? I leave this question to the Minister: can it be reasonable that we do not involve the Assembly, not as a matter of generosity but as a matter of law, in decisions on its own electoral arrangements?

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

My Lords, I support the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has moved his amendment and am very supportive of its thrust. Amendment 8 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas transfers all responsibility for Welsh general elections to the Welsh Assembly. The provisions in it and Amendment 10 would mean that the Welsh Government could determine the electoral system used for elections to the National Assembly, as well as having control over the administration of those elections. It would certainly be my hope that, if the Welsh Assembly was granted such powers, it would vote to move towards a more proportional method of electing representatives. Plaid Cymru’s policy has long been for a form of proportional representation. I say that looking at Benches opposite and hope that they would concur warmly with that.

Any decisions relating to the electoral system would of course be up to the National Assembly for Wales to make. It would surely be a common-sense move to allow the Assembly to be in charge of its own elections, just as this Parliament is in charge of its own elections. It would once again strengthen the accountability of the institution and I hope that the Government will see the merits of this amendment.

Amendment 17 quite simply would enable the National Assembly for Wales to make decisions based directly on the will of the people that it represents. Over the past 20 years in the UK, a number of referenda have been used to ask questions of the electorate relating to constitutional change—the devolution referenda in the 1970s and the 1990s are examples, as well as the more recent AV referendum.

Referenda are hugely popular in Switzerland and state Governments in the United States frequently use them, as do a number in Canada. There is a definite trend in that the public have grown more likely to want decisions to be made closer to home. A way of ensuring that decisions already within the Assembly’s fields of competence are made to best reflect public opinion is allowing that institution to hold binding referenda. A transfer of this power could be granted by an Order in Council.

Transferring the power to the National Assembly for Wales would allow the Welsh electorate to have more say in decisions which affect them. That is what democracy is about. In appropriate circumstances, which include issues that cut across normal party-political divides or are totally non-political issues, a referendum

may be the only sensible way to resolve the issue. I believe that these powers would improve Welsh democracy and I urge the Government to give serious consideration to giving the Assembly such powers.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Anderson has correctly suggested that at the very least matters pertaining to the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales should be subject to agreement by the Assembly before implementation. That sentiment has been echoed once again by the Presiding Officer in Wales. He noted that,

“in the Scottish settlement, the power to make arrangements about Scottish Parliament elections is now divided between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State”.

Surely this is the very least we should ask for the Assembly. We echo that sentiment and therefore support the position of my noble friend Lord Anderson that the Assembly should agree to electoral changes and that these should not be imposed from Westminster.

Lord Elis-Thomas (Plaid Cymru)

Amendment 10, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Wigley, my parliamentary leader, and myself, is drafted again with the support of the Electoral Reform Society Cymru, which has been widely trailed in this debate and which I am sure it appreciates. This is to find a way of ensuring that the electoral system of the National Assembly is determined by the Assembly itself. The Order in Council procedure would enable both Houses to debate this matter before the transfer of functions of responsibility happen.

As in our earlier amendment, this amendment would ensure that there would have to be a two-thirds majority of voting Assembly Members. I take advantage of this amendment to impress on the Government that there are more checks and balances in the regulation of democracy which can be established for a democratic body in terms of its autonomous function. The idea that legislation for elections can be regulated only by Westminster fails to recognise the importance of the two-thirds majority principle, which we have established significantly in the constitution of Wales over the past 15 years.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Wigley and Lord Elis-Thomas, for tabling these amendments. I begin by discussing Amendment 7, which provides that the electoral provisions in the Bill should not be implemented until the Assembly has agreed them. Let us look at the electoral provisions in the Bill. The majority of the electoral proposals are widely supported within the Assembly. As I said earlier, the initial move to a five-year fixed term for the Assembly, set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, came about as a result of a vote in the Assembly. In the Government’s subsequent consultation on a permanent move to five-year fixed terms, there was also unanimous support from the parties in the Assembly for such a move.

The consultation also showed widespread support in the Assembly for the move to ban MPs from also sitting as Assembly Members, although the Welsh

Government did not believe that there was currently a need for legislation on this. The Government consulted on these changes. We listened to the views of those who responded and included these provisions in a draft Bill, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee. Therefore, the Assembly has had the opportunity to express its views even though I freely accept that it falls short of the legal obligation that the noble Lords are seeking.

Amendments 8 and 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish draft orders within six months of the passing of the Bill, for the approval of both Houses of Parliament, to provide for the transfer of responsibility for elections to the National Assembly for Wales. It is worth noting that the Silk commission did not make recommendations in relation to Assembly elections in its part 2 report. I also note that wholesale transfer of responsibility for elections has not been devolved under any of the devolution settlements. Therefore, at this moment the Bill is probably not the appropriate vehicle for making such a transfer on a piecemeal basis for only one part of the UK, at a time when a wholesale look is being taken at the whole shape of devolution. If there were not work going on in the Cabinet committee at this time, it would be a more appealing argument. Having said that, I go back to the point I made right at the beginning of my responses: this is a response to the provisions of the Silk 1 report in large part and the Green Paper.

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

The noble Baroness refers to this being a piecemeal approach, which is apparently not appropriate. Would she therefore use the same principle that, when there are devolution proposals for Scotland, they would not be regarded as piecemeal but rolled out for Wales and Northern Ireland also?

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

They are being looked at in the context of Wales and Northern Ireland, yes. Piecemeal means something different from having solutions that suit the individual countries. Piecemeal is when you pick one thing off at a time without looking at the situation in the round. There are some areas where I would fully agree that the situation is very different from one country to another, and it is appropriate that we respond in different ways. There are other things, such as the conduct of elections, where one needs to look in the round at all three countries and see whether one can have a comprehensive approach—the kind of comprehensive look that my noble friend Lord Thomas referred to earlier—to devolution.

The Bill provides for a referendum to be held on the devolution of a portion of income tax, among other things, and ensures that the decision of when and whether to hold this referendum is in the hands of the Assembly. It is important to point out that issues such as referendums obviously have an impact across the UK and need to be properly considered by not only the Assembly but Peers and MPs. In devolved areas there is already provision in Section 64 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 for Welsh Ministers to hold a poll in all or part of Wales to determine how any of their functions should be exercised.

I hope that the work of the Cabinet committee on devolution will result in a less piecemeal approach to devolution in the UK, and I point out to noble Lords that the Secretary of State is working across the parties in Wales to achieve consensus on a more robust settlement for Wales.

The amendments, if accepted, would represent a fundamental change to the devolution settlement in Wales. It is therefore important that they are considered in the context of party manifestos for the 2015 general election, and I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

It is contended that this is a piecemeal approach and “not appropriate at the moment”. Frankly, the whole Bill is a piecemeal approach. The whole process of devolution has been piecemeal. Who can doubt that, following the result of the Scottish referendum, we are now in a new era? Everything has to be looked at again and this has necessarily to be piecemeal. I would not dismiss this sensible suggestion by suggesting that it is just piecemeal.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that it is a sensible approach to say that the Bill, which for the first time introduces an important new principle of fiscal responsibility for the Assembly as well as borrowing powers, should be abandoned and we should go back to where we are?

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

I have not argued for a freeze or for abandonment. I am suggesting that we are in a new era following a new context and that that context means we are indeed moving piecemeal, bit by bit. So far as “piecemeal” is concerned, I made the point in an earlier debate: what about local government? Surely it is because there is some relation to local government that we have decided to move in a piecemeal manner. Also, it is contended that “it is not appropriate at the moment”, which begs the question: when will it be appropriate? Why should not Wales be different? Scotland has been different for some time. This is an area where Wales could be different. In my judgment, it should be a matter not just of good practice that the Wales Office chooses in its generosity to consult the Assembly on such matters: it should be a matter of law.

Once upon a time I was a civil servant and I could, if asked, choose 1,001 ways of dismissing something. I fear that there must be a lexicon in Whitehall from which people draw from time to time. We have managed to use two of those phrases from the lexicon: “it is not appropriate” and “it is not appropriate at the moment”. That is not good enough. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendments 8 to 11 not moved.

Amendment 12

Moved by Lord Tyler

12: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—

“Franchise for Assembly elections to include 16 and 17 year olds

In section 12 of GOWA 2006 (entitlement to vote), at the end of subsection (1) insert “, or

(c) those who would be so entitled and registered under this subsection had they attained the age of 18 but who at the time of an election held under Part 1 of this Act are aged 16 or 17 years old.

(1A) For the purposes of this section, the Welsh Ministers must by regulation make provision for registration officers to take necessary steps to register 16 and 17 year olds.

(1B) Regulations for necessary steps under subsection (1A) must include, but are not limited to, those listed in section 9A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (registration officers: duty to take necessary steps).””

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, my noble friends and I are very pleased to lead on this group of amendments, just as we have led the debate on this issue for more than a decade. In that time, cross-party support has grown, not least for my Private Member’s Bill, which was debated in the House in October 2013. We are now pleased to have the support of the Labour Front Bench in both Houses.

Only the Conservative leadership remains unconvinced, and yet the irony is, of course, that it has been the Prime Minister himself who, through his agreement with the Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary and with Alex Salmond, has let the genie out of the bottle. The evidence for this change no longer lies merely on foreign shores but here in the United Kingdom. The new clauses in Amendments 12 and 46 within the scope of this Bill argue separately for extending the franchise for Welsh Assembly elections, and for extending the franchise for any referendum on future tax-raising powers for the Assembly, to 16 year-olds and 17 year- olds.

Sixteen year-olds will be liable to pay tax. Why, then, should they not be responsible, in common with their fellow citizens, for voting on who should levy that tax? We support, too, the spirit of the Labour Front Bench’s Amendment 18, which would extend the right to vote to 16 year-olds at Welsh local elections. Indeed, on these Benches we support the extension to all United Kingdom elections.

This cannot any longer be considered controversial. What would be much more controversial, having extended the franchise on the question of the utmost importance of one part of the United Kingdom in the recent referendum, would be to retract that and go back to a voting age of 18. Removing that right from voters who have had that right in the upcoming general election would be extraordinary—and very controversial.

There will be an important election next year. What could be more important than the future governance of our country? Your Lordships’ House will be familiar with the excellent work of Kenny Imafidon in his two reports on democratic engagement among young people. He has given me a sneak preview of his third report, which rightly concludes:

“If we do not let 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, vote at our next election, we—the UK—will be the first democracy to enfranchise a group of voters, then take away their right to vote … for no logical reason”.

I could not put it better myself. Enfranchising 16 year-olds has plainly been a triumphant success in one part of the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary to note that their turnout was very good indeed. More than 80% of 16 and 17 year-olds registered to vote. That itself is a record.

No one could claim that their enfranchisement dragged down the overall turnout. The referendum had a higher turnout than any election in living memory. We all saw on our television screens young people who had been engaged by the process and were ready to vote again. What a scandal it would be if some of them were denied that right next year.

International evidence also supports those of us who would extend the franchise to all elections. Eva Zeglovits from the Austrian National Election Study team tells us:

“Results from Austria show that turnout of 16- and 17-year-olds is in fact higher than turnout of older first-time voters and is nearly as high as the overall turnout”.

The argument extends well beyond the simple issue of turnout. If not turning out were a reason for disenfranchising a group of people, all sorts would lose their vote. Some of us might say that, if maturity is the test of whether someone should be enfranchised, many older people would find themselves excluded. Indeed, extensive analysis of voting intentions in the Scottish referendum tells us that it was middle-aged men who took an arguably more emotional and less rational view in supporting independence. They could be said to have been immature.

Of course, their younger and older counterparts, and women, were a great deal more mature in their attitude to that particular question. Meanwhile, recent opinion polls and parliamentary election results might just suggest that it is an older demographic that is the most irrational and immature, giving reasons that seem to show that they are prepared to gamble with the country’s future in an effort to stop the world so they can get off. I suspect that even in your Lordships’ House nobody would argue that such emotional reactions warrant removing someone’s right to vote. Yet somehow that same argument is allowed to go unchecked in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds, whom people wrongly write off as unable to make a rational choice.

Again, there is some international evidence here. The Austrian experience is instructive. The latest study, to which I referred just now, also finds that while political interest was lower among younger than older age groups, young voters still made an informed choice when they cast their vote. It stated:

“The congruence between attitudes and the vote choice of teenage voters is comparable to adult voters”.

I know that the discussion goes on: why should 16 be right and 18 wrong? One of the strongest arguments is that those who cast their first vote at 16 are likely to do so in the community where they grow up, where it means something more to them than, perhaps, when they leave home and go to a different part of the country. We make so much in this country of the importance of a local link between representatives and those they represent. I endorse that, as someone who was very proud to represent the North Cornwall constituency for a fair number of years. That link is a key pillar in the argument for votes at 16.

In Norway, where they piloted votes at 16 just at local elections, the Institute of Social Research in Oslo found that turnout and interest is higher among 16 and 17 year-olds than among the 18 to 24 year-old cohort. It says that two factors explain this. First, 16 and 17 year-olds are more easily mobilised than their slightly older peers. They still go to school or live at home and have not moved out of their local community. Secondly, the selected municipalities made considerable efforts to mobilise their young voters. This was also a prestige project. It could and should become a prestige project here, too, with the aim of making a 16 year-old’s vote the first of many that they will cast through their life. Amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Roberts, along with the work done by Bite the Ballot, would also be crucial to that project, and to achieving success and extending the franchise. We will debate those amendments later this evening or on a future occasion.

We return from the Summer Recess celebrating that our United Kingdom is still united, and with an unexpected bonus. The referendum opened up debate about how our democracy works and blew away old assumptions about participation. The idea that the electorate is congenitally apathetic was confounded by the response of the Scottish people to a real democratic choice. For too long it has been our political establishment that has been apathetic, content to leave things as they are in the hope that a few middle-aged voters in a few middle England marginal seats would deliver one or other party a tired victory at each election. Well, no more. Extending the franchise is a first step to reinvigorating our politics, creating a seamless link between citizenship education, voter registration and then active participation in the electoral process itself.

Our amendments argue that we should do this in Wales, but we should do it in the whole of our renewed United Kingdom, debunking the idea that these basic rights should differ around the UK. We argue for an equal, constant right for all 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the election next year, the devolved elections after that and, certainly, in any referendum on the vital political and economic issue of the future of this country in Europe. This right should extend to all UK citizens with the responsibilities in society which 16 and 17 year-olds now bear. Any other outcome after the Scottish experience would amount to completely unacceptable discrimination—evidence of a disunited kingdom. Votes at 16 is a principle for which I and my colleagues have argued tirelessly. It is an idea whose time has come—now. I beg to move.

Baroness Gale (Labour)

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who made such an excellent case for votes for all 16 year-olds in all elections.

The Labour Party position is quite firmly that 16 year-olds should be able to vote in general elections. We believe that the time has now come for 16 year-olds in Wales to be able to vote in the Welsh Assembly elections. Ed Miliband confirmed at the Labour Party conference that there will be a manifesto commitment for next year’s general election, which will include a

pledge to lower the voting age to 16 for general elections, as we pledged in the 2010 general election. That would allow more than 1.5 million 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in elections for the first time.

We saw how the 16 and 17 year-olds came out to vote in the Scottish referendum. The shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, has said:

“Despite warnings from the sceptics, 16 and 17-year-olds did come out and vote and engage in the big issues over the future of Scotland. This is all the more reason why the voting age should be lowered for all elections. It’s an idea whose time has come”.

Labour has been calling for a lowering of the voting age for some time. After the referendum in Scotland, there is very little reason why it should not be full steam ahead for all the elections.

The Welsh Labour Government believe that lowering the voting age would demonstrate a strong commitment to an effective democracy in our nation. Encouraging and engaging young people in this way would help to improve voter turnout, again, as the recent experience in Scotland has shown. Lowering the voting age would also clearly demonstrate to young people in Wales that they are being taken seriously and that their views will be listened to. The Welsh Government support and value strong, effective democracy and recognise that the involvement of young people in the democratic process is essential to achieving that. At present, 16 and 17 year-olds are deemed old enough to pay taxes, leave school, marry and join the Armed Forces, along with a wide range of other responsibilities. Why should they be denied the right to vote on how those taxes are spent, as well as on the direction of education, defence and other public policies?

However, the Welsh Government currently do not have the power to legislate on the voting age for elections held in Wales, as the UK Government retain responsibility for the conduct of elections and for the franchise. That is why the amendment is before your Lordships’ House tonight. While the Welsh Labour Government do not have the power to lower the voting age across Wales, in decision-making they encourage youth and pupil participation and have enabled them to have an important voice in our society. One example is the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, which provided for the appointment of up to two community youth representatives to a community council.

In 2002, the Welsh Government established the Sunderland commission on electoral arrangements. It looked at local government electoral arrangements and recommended a reduction in the voting age to 16. Regulations from the Welsh Labour Government in 2005 also established school councils in maintained primary and secondary schools in Wales. They play a part in making key appointments, as well as implementing budget decisions and representing the views of their peers, which is part of learning about the democratic process. We have given that responsibility to younger people and they have shown that they can deal with it.

The Welsh Labour Government have also ensured that duties are in place to promote youth participation in our democratic process via the youth fora. There is

now a duty on local authorities to promote and facilitate participation by children and young people in decisions that may affect them locally. There are now 400 youth fora and councils in Wales. If the voting age is lowered to 16, the youth service could play its role in empowering young people to make an informed choice.

There is a strong case for 16 year-olds having the right to vote in all elections in the United Kingdom, but tonight, in this amendment, we are dealing with matters relating to Wales. As the Welsh Assembly has no legislative power in this field, it is up to your Lordships’ House to debate it and, I hope, to give full voting rights in Wales to young people. If that is accepted, it would mean that in the next Welsh Assembly elections in 2016, 16 year-olds would have the right to vote.

There is much support for the measure, and I trust that the Minister will agree when she replies.

Lord Elis-Thomas (Plaid Cymru)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. The noble Baroness has already set out how the Welsh Government have sought to increase democratic participation in existing public service structures, especially in the development of schools councils. I find that in my regular meetings with young citizens from schools and colleges who are interested in the development of democracy and who visit the National Assembly. We have a substantial programme, as I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, knows because she was there when all this was inaugurated, as was the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. Those programmes encourage people to participate by visiting but also by being electronically and digitally linked with the National Assembly and through school participation.

Before the Minister tells me that we should not do this in Wales because there is no precedent and that we should do it for the whole of the United Kingdom, I advise her that we are there already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said. We are already quite a few steps ahead in participation. I have received many representations from young farmers, youth groups, school students and college students who are 16 already and want to feel that they are the cohort now and that their successor cohorts can participate in the democratic process. I raise this as someone who once campaigned for votes at 18; I am very pleased to campaign for votes at 16; if I live long enough, I will campaign for a vote for my six year-old granddaughter.

The issue here is substantial. In the context of National Assembly elections, are we able, on the basis of the citizen programme and the democratic participation that we have encouraged, to take this further? I believe that we are.

Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, briefly, I support the principle of the amendments as a long-time supporter of the principle that 16 and 17 year-olds should be entitled to vote. It is now 45 years since a Bill was passed that lowered the minimum age for voting across the United Kingdom to enable 18 year-olds to vote. Nearly half a century since then, there have been great changes in how society sees 16 and 17 year-olds. We are no longer a society in which you get the key to the door at 21, or even 18.

Young people, perhaps through the use of social media, are often politically very aware. The excellent Youth Parliament debates, some of which have taken place in our own parliamentary Chambers, show that many 16 and 17 year-olds are as aware of many of the issues facing us today—if not more so—as many people who are rather older. I do not want this debate to be too stereotypical of UKIP voters, but I was amused by one man who voted for UKIP in the Clacton by-election last week because he was disillusioned with his MP, whom he had not seen since the previous election.

In contrast to this, some three weeks ago we saw 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland considering very carefully what might be thought to be an even more important question than that at any General Election: whether Scotland should be an independent country. After significant deliberation, probably to the surprise of Mr Alex Salmond, this group of young people, according to the polling evidence, decided that it should not. Tonight we are considering whether young people in Wales could be as responsible, and I say: of course they are.

Thirty-eight years ago I watched a 16 year-old William Hague address his party conference. He told his audience that half of them would not be there in 40 years’ time. I am not sure that he realised then that neither would he. However, my point is that it seemed a shame that he could speak eloquently from his party conference platform but not be able to vote in an election. I am the same age as William Hague, and at 16 I was secretary of the Liverpool Wavertree constituency Liberal Association. I was able to organise elections, knock on doors and suggest how people should vote—but not mark a ballot paper myself, much to my annoyance.

These amendments do not, of course, suggest that 16 and 17 year-olds will be made to vote irrespective of their political knowledge and interests, just that they should have the opportunity to vote. There are those who do not wish to see 16 and 17 year-olds voting. Perhaps they fear how those votes may be cast. A few years ago, the much respected columnist Peter Riddell cited opinion poll evidence suggesting that the best hope for the Conservative Party in the future would be to raise the minimum voting age to about 56. The average age of our Members is 68, but we should be able to show appropriate understanding of people in their late teens, encouraging them to participate in our democracy and to engage in the process through which laws will be made in Wales and elsewhere.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)

My Lords, we live in an ever changing world. One thinks back over the last year and the issues that we have debated in this House, be it assisted dying or gay marriage, and it is clear that we live in a world that is changing very fast. What do we want of young people? Do we want passion? Do we want interest? Do we want commitment? If we want those things, the way to get them is to reward them with our confidence. I have worked in schools where I have seen members of orchestras who are suddenly given an extraordinary responsibility to their colleagues: they have, if you like, to play as a team. This is also true of sport.

I have no doubt that many 16 and 17 year-olds want this responsibility. It helps them to grow up, to mature. I say to those who suggest that there are many who are irresponsible—of course there are; that is true of any age group, as we have heard—that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, just implied, which is that those who are really irresponsible and not very interested simply will not bother to vote. We are talking about those who are interested, and possibly about making those who might be interested more interested. So I wholeheartedly support this amendment.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to this debate. Amendments 12 and 46 in the name of my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Morgan of Ely, would reduce the age of voting in an election to the National Assembly for Wales, and any referendum held under Clause 12, from 18 to 16. I thank noble Lords for a really interesting debate on an important issue which has certainly captured the public’s imagination, particularly that of young people. The passion when my noble friend Lord Tyler spoke was very appropriate to the topic because it has aroused so much interest and it has, more or less, come from nowhere in terms of public awareness and debate. It might not have engaged members of the public very much but Members in both this House and the other place have strongly held views on this issue. We have had agreement here this evening but there was a Backbench Business Committee debate in the other place in January of this year, which aired the often opposing views on this issue.

Amendments 12 and 18 would apply only to elections to the Assembly. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Tyler currently has a Private Member’s Bill before this House, which would apply these provisions to the whole of the UK. I commend him for adjusting his amendments for Wales to ensure that they are within scope of this Bill. Labour’s Amendment 18 also attempts to introduce a voting age of 16 but it is technically deficient because it refers to parish elections in Wales. Of course, we do not have parish elections in Wales but community council elections.

Amendment 46, in the name of my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford, provides for voting by 16 and 17 year-olds in a referendum held under Clause 12 on devolving powers over income tax to the Assembly. The events in the recent referendum in Scotland are obviously of intrinsic importance here. A consensus appears to have developed within the Scottish Parliament, across parties, that the voting experiment was a success and should be continued. There is interesting work to be done in assessing the lessons of including 16 and 17 year-olds in that referendum. The Electoral Commission is undertaking work at this moment and will be producing a report which will deal with this as part of its coverage of the referendum.

The Government are committed to increasing democratic engagement and registration across the UK. They are very much at one with, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the importance of systems of education which encourage young people

to be responsible and take an active part in civic life. As someone who has spoken often over the years on the issue of votes at 16, I think that the fears of people who oppose it are that 16 year-olds might vote in strangely different ways. Actually, the Scottish referendum showed that 16 and 17 year-olds vote very much in the same pattern as older people. There is certainly a fascinating and probably a very vigorous debate to be had and I hope that that public debate will take place, above all by including young people. It should be a debate including young people rather than about young people. That is the key thing for the future.

Ideas are moving fast and I find it heartwarming to hear reports of so much support for ideas which I have spoken about over many years. I have been disappointed only on occasions that young people have lacked confidence in their ability to participate, but the important thing that my noble friend Lord Tyler pointed out is that young people can be brought along with the voting process more easily. The word he used was “mobilised”. They are often still in education and usually living at home. They are therefore easily accessible for people campaigning in elections.

Having said all that, I shall say what I say every time: this is clearly not an issue for this Bill and I will listen with interest to the debate in future. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, until the last few seconds of my noble friend’s contribution I thought that we were going to have a very nice end to the evening. I have heard in this House and in the other House the doctrine of unripe time so often that it is frankly getting rather boring.

I remind my noble friend that in the House of Commons debate to which she referred there was actually a majority in favour of making this change. What is different about this issue compared with a number of the others discussed earlier in the evening, all of them important, is that the clock is ticking on this one. Those young 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland will in a matter of eight or nine months be denied the opportunity to use their democratic right again. The clock is ticking on this. We cannot say that it can be easily delayed and dealt with in other legislation, and that it is premature. The vote in Scotland means that we have to adopt the wholesale approach and avoid the piecemeal one to which the Minister has been referring. We have to make progress on this one. The initiative has already been taken in Scotland, with support across all parties. That is what is different about this issue.

I know that the Minister’s sympathies are entirely with us on this, but I must warn her that she should warn her colleagues in the coalition that this issue is not going to go away. It will come back on Report in your Lordships’ House. If we are able to make sure that it does, it will come up again in the other House. The time has come for this issue. It cannot be delayed. Nevertheless, for the time being I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Clause 2: Removal of restriction on standing for election for both constituency and electoral region

Amendment 13

Moved by Lord German

13: Clause 2, page 2, line 1, at beginning insert—

“( ) for subsection (4) substitute—

“(4) The list must not include more than six persons (but may include only one).

(4A) The list of those persons so nominated shall be printed on the regional list ballot paper.””

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I hope that this amendment will be quite straightforward. I hope to make the case that this Bill is the right Bill at the right time for dealing with this matter, as I will explain.

The amendment is straightforward because it seeks to put the names of the candidates back on the regional ballot paper. This situation existed for all National Assembly elections until the last one. I want to go back to the days when I remember the ballot paper saying—noble Lords who were around at the time will remember it, too—Welsh Labour Party: number 1, Rhodri Morgan; number 2, Sue Essex; number 3, Jane Hutt. That seemed to send quite a clear message to send to people who wanted to vote Labour. If they put their mark alongside, they were voting for those people in that order. This would also return us to what goes on in European elections, where the names of the candidates for whom you are voting appear on the ballot paper.

To understand why this amendment is the right amendment at the right time, now, we must try to find out why the names were removed in 2011. I have before me the reply to a letter that I wrote to the Electoral Commission prior to the 2011 National Assembly for Wales elections, and which I received before those elections took place. It outlines the reason why it recommended the names be taken off.

It states:

“After the Assembly elections in 2007, our published election report identified that a number of complaints had been raised by voters about the size of the regional list ballot paper. Voters found it difficult to complete in polling booths and to fold and put into ballot boxes. The ballot paper size was also problematic for printing and counting”.

The commission’s recommendation to resolve this issue was to reduce the number of candidates eligible to stand on the regional list. The letter stated that each party was still able to nominate up to 12 candidates, even though since 2007 candidates had been prohibited from standing for both the regional list and the constituency election.

As we all know, four candidates are elected in each region. The Electoral Commission stated:

“In our view, it would be sufficient that each party could nominate up to six candidates for the regional list. Three of the main political parties in Wales supported our recommendation to reduce the number of candidates nominated, but the other main party did not. The change would also require”—

this is the crucial part—

“amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006, for which there was no apparent legislative opportunity at the time”.

I do not know whether it was my party that did not say yes to reducing the number to six. Certainly, nobody asked me about this issue at the time. However, the important consequence was that, as it did not have the time to change the primary legislation and did not have the agreement of the parties, the Electoral Commission decided to follow the alternative route of simply taking off the names of people standing on the regional list for each party.

As many Members of your Lordships’ House will know, on the regional list ballot paper there are not just parties but independent candidates, so part of the reason for the growth of the ballot paper was not just the number of names against parties but the independent candidates—usually only one name. The restriction on ballot papers by the Electoral Commission and by regulations on the size of the fonts and of the ballot papers passed by your Lordships’ House made it impossible for any other change to take place because the Electoral Commission had run out of time.

The letter also states:

“We shall assess the outcome of the change in our statutory report on the election, based on feedback we receive from parties and returning officers”.

There was feedback post the election. I have described the situation that led the Electoral Commission to recommend that change. In its report on what happened afterwards it stated:

“Early on polling day”—

it is almost like the story of the man with the bricks and the ladder—

“there were complaints that regional candidates’ names were not displayed or were displayed inadequately by some Returning Officers”.

There was a rule that you had to put them up somewhere in the polling station. As noble Lords know, many polling stations are in schools, where children’s work is often on the walls and the space where you can put up a list of names may not be apparent. It was certainly not alongside the polling booth or in the polling booth itself but could be anywhere. I went to a polling station where the list was on a steel box. They could not put drawing pins in it, so they had to use tape. The only tape they could find obliterated half the words. They put the list on the outside wall of the property, so people went in and it was then too late to see the names. The Electoral Commission goes on:

“There were also a small number of complaints from postal voters that they did not have access to the names of regional list candidates other than by consulting notices in public places or local authority websites”.

So people who voted by post had no knowledge of the names of the candidates and people in polling stations had no idea where to find the names. You had to be pretty good at hunting around in the polling station to find the names.

The Electoral Commission states:

“We conclude that, following the experience at the elections, the question of whether candidates’ names are included on the regional list ballot paper should be reconsidered. However, before certain relevant matters are resolved … it would be premature to make decisions on the regional ballot paper. We will revisit this issue no later than December 2014”.

That is two months from now.

I ask noble Lords to consider whether that needs to be done slightly faster. The commission gave its report after the 2011 elections and we have waited a further three years for an answer to this question. Because there was no legislative time available last time, it meant that that change could not be made to reduce the number.

The obvious answer is to reduce the number of names on the ballot paper to six, which was the Electoral Commission’s recommendation. I am not actually wedded to six, but it seems a reasonable number, because there are only four places available. Even if a party won all four places, there would still be two left in case the first two fell under a bus halfway through the election period. It is unlikely that, during an election campaign, four candidates would die and no people would be left to fill up the names on the list. We have to make that change according to the number of spaces that there would be on a ballot paper, to make it less unwieldy. That is the only argument that I have heard, as explained by the Electoral Commission, for making the change and removing the names.

It is a fundamental right of people, when they place their mark on a ballot paper, to know the names of the people for whom they are voting. These are the people who will represent them on an equal status. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has said to us on many occasions that those who are elected by the regional list system are of equal status to those who are elected from the constituency. Therefore, it is important that people should know the names of those for whom they are voting and the order in which they are elected.

It is not our favourite system; in our party, we would not want to say that. But we are approaching the time when the chance to make this change is fast running out. If there is to be a change to primary legislation and, following that change to primary legislation, secondary legislation has to come to provide the appropriate rules for the election in 2016, it would require a piece of primary legislation to be placed before Parliament in the first four months of a new Government. I know that many noble Lords will think that for this very purpose that is not a very likely procedure. This Bill is the right one in which to make that simple change to the line that appeared in the Government of Wales Act 1998 as well as the 2006 Act:

“The list must not include more than twelve persons (but may include only one)”.

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

I am following the noble Lord’s argument with a lot of interest and considerable sympathy, but would he and his party not go one stage further by having an open list and allowing electors to determine the order in which people fill those slots?

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

I would indeed. As I say, this is such an urgent matter to change and to change the electoral system to make that happen might be a step too far. I might be told, in exactly the same way as the noble Lord has been told many times this afternoon, that this is not the right time or place or Bill. But because there is only one chance to do this, this Bill is the right place and it is the right time. I hope that my noble

friend and the rest of the Government will see the wisdom of this action and give people the right to see who they are voting for on their ballot paper.

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord German and will speak to Amendments 15 and 16. Before I do so, I share a reflection. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was talking about his six year-old granddaughter, and I was reminded that when my granddaughter, Pip, was elected to a school council, my wife, my noble friend Lady Walmsley, commented—rather caustically, I thought—that she was the first member of the Thomas family ever to win an election. That was unfair.

I turn to Amendments 15 and 16. The system of election aimed at proportionality throws up a number of difficulties. In particular, it makes the election of a regional list candidate almost capricious. An example is the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who served with distinction as a regional list Member as leader of his party—and I see that he has almost left the Chamber at the thought. He lost his seat not because his party did badly but because they did far too well and won a Montgomeryshire seat from us. Consequently, he ceased to be a regional list Member. It is clearly unfair that a person should be required to give up a public position, or even employment, simply to stand as a candidate in an election. There is not only the individual to consider; the pool of those willing and able to undertake public duties is not so large in Wales as to make it in the public interest to impose such a restriction.

The legal position is further complicated by an apparent conflict between the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which deals with disqualification, and the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, which deals with aspects of electoral law. According to the 2007 order, a candidate should not be part of, or a member of, any organisations included on long lists set out in the 2006 Act and the relevant disqualification order made under it. The Act, however, refers to the disqualification as relating to “being an Assembly Member”, and not to being a candidate. These provisions are subject to the power of the Assembly under Sections 17(3) and (4) of the Government of Wales Act to resolve to disregard the disqualification of any person,

“if it appears to the Assembly … that the ground has been removed, and … that it is proper so to resolve”.

Further, if it is alleged that an Assembly Member is disqualified, costly High Court proceedings can be involved. It is well known that two regional list Lib Dem Members fell foul of these provisions in the 2011 election. One was a member of the Care Council for Wales, and he admitted that he had not read the 2010 order that contained a long list of public bodies. After anxious consideration, the Welsh Liberal Democrats decided to withdraw the motion that they had lodged with the Assembly to lift his disqualification, and the number two on the list took his place. The other was a member of the Valuation Tribunal for Wales. The Assembly Standards Commissioner, Gerard Elias QC, said that that Member had done,

“everything that he could have reasonably been expected to do in ensuring that he was not a disqualified person for the purpose of nomination or election”.

He had followed the Welsh language advice from the Electoral Commission, which had referred him to regulations on proscribed bodies from the 2006 order, which had been replaced by a new order in 2010. It was correct in English but wrong in Welsh. The Electoral Commission apologised for its error. The motion that was filed to disregard the disqualification was passed with some Labour opposition, which will not be forgotten because anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of non-elected Labour candidates would have failed the test themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, at the time wrote in the Daily Post very wise words, as usual:

“There is a saying that ‘Rules are for the guidance of wise people and the obedience of fools’ … The fiasco of blocking two Liberal Democrats … surely falls into this category”.

He said that the principle of disqualification should be reviewed by the Electoral Commission and added that it,

“should only apply for deliberate conflicts of interest”.

At the same time, a UKIP MEP put a complaint into the police about corrupt practices against that sitting Member. The complaint was duly investigated by the police and no further proceedings ensued.

Arising out of this controversy, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, at the invitation of the First Minister, considered the issue under the chairmanship of David Melding the Deputy Presiding Officer, took evidence and obtained the legal opinion of the Counsel General. The Welsh Government’s attitude, as filed with the committee, was summarised in a memorandum attached to the report. In particular, it stated:

“The disqualifications are long and complex, and individuals may inadvertently fall foul (as two did in 2011) of apparently unjustified disqualifications … The complex nature of some of the disqualifications may require prospective candidates to seek legal advice in order to determine whether they are caught by the particular disqualification”.

The Welsh Government also said:

“However, we see the current requirements as a clear disincentive to candidates because a person must resign their post or employment in order to stand as a candidate and, if unsuccessful in that election, reinstatement would depend on the terms and conditions of employment that apply ... It is our view that the current structures for excluding persons from Assembly membership do not properly reflect their raison d’être. The disqualifications purport to prevent AMs from holding offices or employments deemed to interfere with the proper fulfilment with their duties. But it is our view that the rules pertaining to disqualifications are increasingly unfit for purpose to the point that, in some instances, they pose a disincentive to potential candidates and thus fall foul of the logic of empowering democratic participation”.

I may have said rude things about the Welsh Government in the past but I agree with every sentence that is expressed there.

The committee’s report, published in the middle of July 2014, made a number of recommendations which these amendments are designed to reflect. In particular, the committee felt that the disqualifications should be spelt out without reference to the legislation dealing with Westminster elections, hence the drafting of proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 15. Since I have been asked why the various judicial offices are named,

it is because as currently drafted the Government of Wales Act 2006 refers to disqualifications of the judicial officers mentioned in the schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which cover, for example, the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland and judges of Northern Ireland. One would not expect them to be applying to be candidates to the Welsh Assembly in any event. As the committee recommended, I have spelt out those judicial offices in the amendment.

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)

May I make a very small, pettifogging legal point? As I understand it, there is no such judicial animal as a county court judge, and there has not been one since 1971. A circuit judge has practically all the powers of a High Court judge as the noble Lord knows, and those apply both to civil and to criminal matters. I think that I am right in saying that there has been no county court judge since that time.

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful for that assistance from the noble Lord, because I wondered why it would be in the 1975 Act as a disqualification for standing for Parliament. Since this is Committee stage, amendments can always be made on Report to correct that. The nub of the matter is in proposed new subsection (5) in Amendment 15. This adds two additional subsections to Section 16 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. The committee put forward two ways of dealing with the issue: by requiring Assembly Members to resign a disqualifying office before taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance; or by deeming that an Assembly Member had resigned a disqualifying post at the moment that he was elected. It recommended the former course. It also suggested that the Law Commission might consider these issues as part of a wider review across all UK legislatures.

Kicking the issue into the long grass of the Law Commission is unnecessary. Devolution, as we have heard today, has not and almost certainly will not follow precisely the same pattern across the UK, and any short-term attempt to reach conformity is otiose. Such a course might delay changes welcomed by all sides beyond the 2016 election. The parliamentary processes here are surely robust enough to choose the proper mechanism. Amendment 15 suggests neither of the two methods proposed by the committee but follows the drafting of Clause 3 of this Bill, which deals with disqualification of persons elected to the House of Commons. It introduces an eight-day period following the election within which the Assembly Member can resign the post that would otherwise disqualify him.

The committee also accepted the advice of the Counsel General in relation to the power of the Assembly to disregard the disqualification. Your Lordships will recall that that was the process followed in relation to the Liberal Democrat Members. Paragraph 89 of the committee’s report states that Mr Bush thought that the ability of Assembly Members to relieve somebody of a disqualification was a “very unsound procedure”. Mr Bush added that,

“looking at it from general principles, if you have a clear and understandable list of disqualifications that are well publicised in advance and give people the opportunity to think carefully about them before they take the oath of allegiance, the rationale and the

practical reason for having that power to disapply the disqualification seems to me to cease. Then, all of the arguments are in favour of getting rid of it, because, undoubtedly, it is constitutionally a very strange procedure indeed”.

I agree. Consequently, my second amendment would remove the power of the Assembly to lift the disqualification if it exists.

I appreciate that further amendments to the Bill and to the relevant order may be necessary if my amendment is successful, but I think that at Committee stage that suffices.

Baroness Morgan of Ely (Labour)

Perhaps I may make a couple of quick points but, first, I think it is appropriate for us to raise spirits this evening by mentioning that Wales is in the lead by two goals to one against Cyprus in the European qualifiers.

Returning to the amendment, it is important for us to look at the pros and cons of politically restricted positions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for drawing our attention to this issue, which is worthy of consideration. It is worth asking whether we should distinguish between people who stand for election and people who win a position. That is something that we should consider. I shall give an example. Somebody from a ministerial advisory group would have to stand down from their position on the advisory group, effectively losing a job, but that is the kind of person whom we should be encouraging to go into the Assembly—people with real expertise and special knowledge in certain areas.

I want to touch on a couple of little points. On the list of people ineligible to stand, there was mention of the Regular Forces. I presume that that excludes members of the Territorial Army. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was being picky, so I shall also be picky. Regarding members of “any police force”, I wonder whether special constables are considered to be part of the police force. If so, someone such as David Davies MP, who is a special constable, would not be allowed to stand. Some of us might think that that was quite a good idea but the principle is worth looking at.

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

I believe that the territorials and special police are not disqualified.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I have been very interested in the debate on these amendments. Amendment 13 in the name of my noble friend Lord German would reduce to six the number of candidates on the regional list at an Assembly election and ensure that the names appeared on the ballot paper. The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides that a political party may put up no more than 12 candidates. As my noble friend explained, until the 2011 Assembly election the names of all regional candidates appeared. However, in its report on the 2007 Assembly election, the Electoral Commission noted that returning officers were becoming increasingly concerned with the size of ballot papers due to having to list up to 12 candidates. As a result, no names of regional candidates were displayed in 2011.

I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concerns, which were widely shared across parties at the time. Because of this, following the election, the Electoral Commission

committed to consulting on the issue of including names on regional ballot papers once more with a view to providing a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Wales. This consultation is currently under way and is due to report before the end of the year. I concur with my noble friend that it is perhaps surprising that it has slipped so late in this electoral cycle. Once the Commission has reported, however, the Wales Office will, together with the Welsh Government, political parties and electoral administrators in Wales, consider the recommendations for inclusion in the conduct order for the next Assembly elections in 2016. That order will, of course, be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

I recognise that this does not deal with the issue of the maximum of six candidates. I am sure that my noble friend will understand that this is an issue with which there will have to be discussion with the Assembly and across political parties. I remind the House that earlier this evening noble Lords said how important it was to consult the Assembly. I am certainly not brave enough to ignore that in respect of a significant change such as reducing the number of candidates on the list to six.

I now turn to Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by my noble friend Lord Thomas, which would implement the recommendations made by the National Assembly for Wales’s Constitution and Legislative Affairs Committee in its report in July this year. Noble Lords will no doubt agree that there should be restrictions on who can stand for election to legislatures. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, gave some examples just now. There are some positions—such as police officer, a member of the judiciary or Armed Forces—where independence is crucial. In these cases, simply standing for election would undermine confidence in the candidates’ role.

However, as my noble friend noted in his speech, another category exists of those who are disqualified for membership of the Assembly and other legislatures. These are people who work for bodies which receive grants from the Welsh Government and whose organisation might be accountable to the Assembly or Welsh Government Ministers. I looked today at the disqualification order of 2010. In Part 1, it lists 67 different bodies—many of which I have to confess I was not aware of—the members of which are disqualified. In addition, there are 46 disqualifying offices. The issues of the complexity of this order are a significant part of this problem.

Under existing legislation, as noble Lords have noticed, both groups are similarly disqualified from being members of the legislature. When they are nominated to stand for election, every candidate must sign a nomination paper, which states to the best of their knowledge that they are not disqualified from being an Assembly Member. This means, as has been noted, that somebody who appears 12th on their party’s regional list, with no realistic chance of being elected, must still resign from any disqualifying office. I understand the impact that this has on the pool of potential candidates. These are often the most experienced candidates; because they have that experience they

have been appointed to these bodies. Many noble Lords will find this a perverse situation, which is a view I understand.

As my noble friend said, the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee made a comprehensive set of recommendations, which it believes could remedy this situation and most of them are included in my noble friend’s new clause. It suggests that the potentially disqualified candidates should instead divest themselves of that disqualifying office within eight days of having been elected. It is a seemingly elegant yet simple solution to the issue. I realise that noble Lords find this to be a very unsatisfactory set of arrangements and, however much I might sympathise personally with the intent behind this amendment, we need time to consider the committee’s report.

It is worth noting that the Welsh Government have not yet responded to that report. Indeed, it was passed to the Secretary of State for Wales only last month. It is also worth nothing that the situation described is not unique to Wales. It also occurs in relation to the Scottish Parliament. It is important that it is considered in their circumstances as well.

Displaying the list of names on the ballot paper would be a relatively straightforward situation and a straightforward thing to do. Reducing candidate numbers to six would require consultation. The Electoral Commission will complete its report soon. There will be thorough consideration of the report and a full discussion with political parties to ensure that we respond to the issues that have been raised. On the disqualification report, once the Welsh Government have responded and the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Welsh Government we will be able to move forward.

In short, I can undertake to consider these issues and to do more work on the issues raised. We undertake to discuss with the Welsh Government their response to the Assembly committee’s report. We undertake to work with them to ensure a rigorous re-examination of the next Assembly disqualification order, which would specify which offices would mean that officeholders are disqualified from being an Assembly member. The order will be published in the summer of 2015 and our re-examination will ensure that only those offices for which there is a strong case for inclusion are listed in the order.

We also undertake to ensure that the issues raised following the Electoral Commission’s report on displaying names on ballot papers will be fully considered. We will ensure that appropriate action is taken. Having said that, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

I thank my noble friend for the response to Amendment 13. There is one thing that worries me about waiting. In the report that followed the 2011 Assembly elections, the Electoral Commission states:

“We will seek further views and make any necessary recommendations to the Secretary of State”,

which should be,

“no later than December 2014”—

just two months away. It further states that “any necessary recommendations” should be,

“in sufficient time for a decision not later than one year before the Assembly election in 2016. That would allow any change to the ballot paper to be prescribed in legislation at least six months before the 2016 election”,

which means December of next year. Therefore the order of which my noble friend spoke would have to be placed sometime around December or earlier next year. However, if the Electoral Commission were to also propose that there needed to be a change in primary legislation, then that change needs to be made in this Bill. I encourage my noble friend to have a word with the Electoral Commission and ask if it is going to make a recommendation in two months’ time about changes to primary legislation that ought to be done more swiftly than the end of this year, in order that the Government can give effect to those changes, even if they were not quite in the same format I have prescribed here—which is simply going on the Electoral Commission’s previous advice. I hope that the appropriate rocket will be sent in that direction by my noble friend so that we will not be left with a situation next year of perhaps waiting again for a further five years while the Electoral Commission have once again stopped the ball rolling in the right direction. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3 agreed.

Amendment 15

Tabled by Lord Thomas of Gresford

15: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—

“Other disqualifications from membership of Assembly

(1) Section 16 of GOWA 2006 (disqualification from being an Assembly member) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) to (e), substitute—

“(a) holds any of the following judicial offices—

Judge of the Supreme Court;

Judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal;

Judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court;

Circuit Judge;

County Court Judge;

District Judge (Magistrates’ Court);

Chief or other Social Security Commissioner;

Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry;

(b) is employed by the civil service of the Crown, whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or part of his time;

(c) is a member of any of the regular armed forces of the Crown;

(d) is a member of any police force;

(e) is a member of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth (other than Ireland);

(f) holds any of the offices for the time being designated by Order in Council as offices disqualifying persons from being Assembly members; or

(g) is employed as a member of the staff of the Assembly.”

(3) Omit subsections (2) and (3).

(4) In subsection (4), after “member”, omit from “for” to the end.

(5) After subsection (6) insert—

“( ) A person shall not be disqualified from standing as a candidate for the position of Assembly member by reason of his holding any office designated by an Order in Council under subsection (1)(f).

( ) A person returned at an election as an Assembly member is not disqualified under subsection (1)(f) at any time in the period of 8 days beginning with the day the person is so returned.””

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord German said in relation to his amendment. I hope that the same speed would attach to the proposals that I have made.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Amendments 16 to 18A not moved.

Amendment 18B

Moved by Lord Elystan-Morgan

18B: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—

“Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru)

The National Assembly for Wales (Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru) shall henceforth be known as the Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru).”

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)

My Lords, it is late at night. The amendment I move would have been tendered in a most tentative and humble way, which is the way that I allow the House at any time to consider anything from my direction. At the moment the name of the Assembly is the National Assembly for Wales, Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru. “Assembly” is the sort of term that you can use to describe a whole range of different bodies, some of them very distinguished, some of them less so. It is all-embracing. I doubt very much whether the ordinary citizen is greatly affected or impressed by it. One can say that the title of the Northern Ireland body is again “Assembly”. However, without raising controversial matters at this late hour, one is well appreciative of the circumstances in which that body came into being. A line was drawn by Lloyd George on a map—actually a right angle. According to his memoirs, he thought that it created a wholly unviable entity. He suggested that he did not want to give the impression that it was a parliament. It does not say in so many words that that is why the title “Assembly” was chosen, but it seems reasonable to infer that that may well have been the case.

My amendment suggests that the Welsh Assembly should be called the Welsh Parliament. But it is not that easy. The word for “parliament” in Welsh is “senedd”. The word for “senate” in Welsh is “senedd”. “Senedd” is not a basically Welsh word; it derives from the Latin, much the same as in “senex”—an old man. It is an assembly of elders. “Synod” in an ecclesiastical context is the same.

If I am asked whether I could, with my hand on my heart, justify absolutely why it should be “senedd” in relation to “parliament” or “senedd” in relation to

“senate”, I would find it rather difficult. I am conscious of a Bill drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and proposed by the late Lord Hooson in 1967. The reference in that was to “senate”. The Bill proposed by Mr SO Davies in or about 1953 referred to “senate”. I think that a person who sat for one of the Denbigh seats, the old ironmaster whose name escapes me for the moment, had a Bill in about 1900 and that was for a senate.

The man in the street appreciates the term “senedd parliament”. “Parliament” means something that is suggestive of home rule and of a body that operates within a certain set of well established rules. With the new concept of home rule engendered within the turmoil of the past few weeks in Scotland, this may well be the appropriate time to raise the issue, whether the Government agree or not, and for the matter to be debated maturely and fully. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on this. Clearly the sons of Denbighshire had it right in that the forgotten ironmaster, possibly Wilkinson, was responsible for “Senedd”. Certainly, I used the phrase and Lord Hooson used the phrase. It is the appropriate title for a Welsh Assembly/Parliament—but I prefer to call it the Senedd.

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

My Lords, many of us campaigned for a Parliament for Wales for many years and in that context, obviously, the ambitions for a legislative body that has full competence, including tax raising and tax varying, fits with the concept of a Parliament.

The one point that I would make—and undoubtedly the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has thought about it—is that the building in Cardiff is now known as a Senedd, which makes it even more complex, with the differential between the Senedd building and the Cynulliad Cenedlaethol or National Assembly that is within it. We are of course aware that in France the National Assembly is the primary body. Therefore, my feeling is that whereas I have total sympathy with what my noble friend is aiming at, perhaps this, like so many other issues, is one that in the first place the National Assembly itself and its Members should decide on.

Changes have been made, as has been referred to earlier today, with regard to moving from the First Secretary to the First Minister and from secretaries to Ministers; something that was picked up by custom and practice in the first place and then became accepted. I hope that if there is to be a move in this direction it is by the initiative of the Members of the National

Assembly itself. What is most important—I am sure that the noble Lord would agree—is the powers and functions that that body has to serve the people of Wales.

Baroness Randerson (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for his amendment, which seeks to change the name of the National Assembly for Wales to the Welsh Parliament. Clause 4 of the Bill does amend the statutory title of the Welsh Assembly Government to Welsh Government. Since law-making powers were devolved to the Assembly in 2011, the Government have almost universally been referred to simply as the Welsh Government. Our clause reflects that reality. The same is not the case for the National Assembly for Wales, which is still commonly known as the National Assembly, the Welsh Assembly or the Assembly.

My view is that, once the Assembly has the powers of a Parliament, it should be called one. At the moment that is not the case. It is, however, worth pointing out that there are several national legislatures called assemblies. There is the Assemblée Nationale in France, the Quebec Assembly and the South African Assembly. So there is a swap-over in the use of the words.

Honourable Members will be aware that the Silk commission recommended that if the Assembly wishes to change its name to the Welsh Parliament, this should be respected. The noble Lord’s amendment goes further than Silk by simply changing the name of the Assembly in primary legislation—crucially, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, without the Assembly itself what it feels about the issue. I think it is essential that such a change should not take place without consulting the Assembly. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench)

My Lords, I certainly shall withdraw my amendment. There is, however, an irrefutable logic in this situation. Where the name of the building is a Senedd, a person who is a member will be asked, “What are you doing down there in the Bay?” and he will say, “Rwy’n Aelod o’r Senedd”—“I am a Member of the Parliament”—and yet the name “Parliament” is not to be used formally. Anyway, this is a debate for another day, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18B withdrawn.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed.

House resumed.