House of Commons
Monday 27 February 2006
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
Mr. Speaker's Absence
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr. Speaker from this week's sittings. Whereupon, Sir Alan Haselhurst, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
I am sure that I express the feeling of the House in regretting the reasons for Mr. Speaker's absence and in relaying the House's great good wishes for his early recovery and return.
Hear, hear.
Oral Answers to Questions
Defence
The Secretary of State was asked—
Afghanistan
The international community's involvement in Afghanistan is aimed at ensuring that Afghanistan will never again become a breeding ground for international terrorism, by helping the Afghan people to rebuild their democracy, their security and their economy. United Kingdom deployment to southern Afghanistan is part of the UN-mandated, NATO-led international security assistance force, which is expanding across the country in support of this commitment.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there are enough troops in Afghanistan, bearing in mind the lessons from Iraq that ground troops are essential in order to complete missions adequately?
Yes, I am satisfied. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the Chiefs of Defence Staff fully endorse the force package we are sending. One of the three or four criteria that I laid down before the move south was that the military configuration and size desired by the Chiefs of Staff should be provided, and that was done.
I understand entirely why we have sent troops to the south, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a clear exit strategy, with an understanding of how multinational forces will in due course take over from the British so that we do not end up in a quagmire not of our own making, but because there is no clarity about the nature of the exercise?
I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not understand it, but there is clarity about exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and in the south. We are in Afghanistan under a UN mandate with the support of the world community, not through a multinational force but through a NATO-led and NATO-configured force—ISAF—to help the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan extend their democratic authority and build their own security forces, and to assist them in their economic development. That is precisely why we are going to the south. It was envisaged for some time that, after we went in, we would do that in stages. This is stage 3, and it is completely in accord with the planning that we have outlined. I do not hide from my hon. Friend the fact that it is more dangerous and difficult than the first two stages, but I recall, as will everyone in the House, why we are there. We are there to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a training ground, a planning arena and a launch platform for terrorist acts such as those we saw in New York—the worst terrorist act in history.
Will the Secretary of State set out how individuals detained by UK forces will be handed over to the Afghan authorities, and the justice procedures that will follow? Are the arrangements common across ISAF forces, and how different are they from those that are reported to apply to US detainees at their base in Bagram?
Yes. Anyone detained by British forces is handed to the Afghan authorities within a very short period. That rule applies across Afghanistan wherever British forces are concerned. I think it also applies to the rest of ISAF, but, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will write to him to clarify the second point that he raises.
Rather than destroying almost the only livelihood of farmers in the Helmand province of Afghanistan and possibly driving them into the arms of the Taliban, would it not be better to try to license their production to be used not for heroin production but for producing diamorphine? As we know, there is a world shortage of diamorphine, and anyone dying in a third world country has only a 6 per cent. chance of getting diamorphine because 70 per cent. of the world supply is taken by seven rich countries. Would it not be a more stable solution to divert production to diamorphine?
No, I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. More importantly, neither do our analysts on the ground or, even more importantly, the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan. I understand his suggestion, but we do not believe either that it would be of general benefit to Afghanistan or, indeed, that we could make such a distinction in the conditions that exist there. We therefore throw our whole weight behind the commitment of the Afghan Government, President Karzai and his colleagues in getting rid of that which corrupts the whole of the country's commerce and much of its politics—the production of opium that eventually ends up as the heroin that is pumped as poison into the veins of so many young people in this country.
May I urge the right hon. Gentleman for the third time to halt the dispatch of small contingencies of our forces to south Afghanistan to undertake incompatible tasks that could not be successfully performed even by 100,000 troops or, as Max Hastings has written, by 300,000? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that in the 1980s the Russians sent 300,000 troops into Afghanistan, but that, several years later, they fled the country, leaving 10,000 dead behind? They were soon followed to their graves by the Soviet Union itself.
Yes, and if I remember correctly the then Government in this country and the United States spent a lot of money funding the Mujaheddin in order to fight the Russians. We are now seeing the fruits of some of those decisions, which the hon. Gentleman supported so many years ago.
I listen to what the hon. Gentleman says about Afghanistan and I read to try to catch up with his prolific reading on the subject, but as I pointed out to him previously, there is a difference on two grounds between this intervention and all previous ones. First, we are there at the behest and with the authority of the world community in the United Nations. Secondly, we are there at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghanistan Government. Those two things are not insignificant in comparison with what happened in previous interventions.
As someone who supported and continues to support the presence of British troops in Afghanistan, certainly following 9/11, and who has no illusions whatsoever about the terrorists who continue to operate, may I ask whether our position would be better if we could persuade the United States that detainees should be charged and not held in Guantanamo Bay and that Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace to democracy and should be closed as quickly as possible? Let us urge that, as a partner and ally of the United States.
Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State will recognise that the question is about deployment in Afghanistan.
Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. People will have different views on Guantanamo Bay, but I think that the whole House will recognise that it was a response to the biggest ever terrorist attack in history, launched from Afghanistan, which is precisely why we are trying to prevent any such terrorist attacks in the future. Like my hon. Friend, I regret not only the need for Guantanamo Bay, as seen from the American point of view but, more importantly, the growth of international terrorism, which has confronted so many of us with the problems that we are now facing in terms of our own freedoms in this country. One of the great debates that we have had, of course, is to what extent we must curtail those freedoms to stop international terrorists using those very freedoms to destroy those very freedoms. Whatever differences and views we have on aspects of this matter, let us recognise where the cause of all these problems lies—with the international terrorists themselves.
First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I fully associate the Conservative party with your good wishes to Mr. Speaker? I am delighted that he chose to be treated in the unit in which I trained in Glasgow royal infirmary; I am pleased that it is still the unit of choice for VIPs.
In Afghanistan, there is no question about the abilities of our troops or their commanders. There is some concern about a potential strategic mismatch. Our troops will be involved in the anti-narcotics operation in protection, lift, intelligence and everything except crop destruction itself. Unless a full programme is in place to compensate Afghan farmers, we might find that the war against opium makes the war against terror more difficult by creating a resurgent Taliban. Exactly what steps will be taken to provide alternative income to Afghan farmers and in what time scale, so that the risks to our troops are minimised?
At the beginning of Defence questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I refrained from repeating your best wishes to the Speaker, but I follow the hon. Gentleman in doing so. I take a great deal of pride and satisfaction in the Speaker's choosing to use a vital part of our national health service in order to effect his recovery, about which I know all hon. Members will be pleased.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if the narcotics trade is undermined as part of economic development, it is important that we accompany our attacks on the middlemen—the mafia—with making sure that the farmers who produce such crops have alternative livelihoods, which is a point that bore heavily on our consideration before we went in. The Department for International Development will put some £20 million into Helmand, and the American moneys allocated to that area, which amount to some $100 million, will continue for at least 18 months. Every effort will be made to ensure that any intervention to cut off income is supplemented by alternative income in the first instance and, eventually, by alternative livelihoods; otherwise, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, we will create not stability, but further insurgency.
Military Technology
We have regular discussions at ministerial and official level with the US Government concerning the issue of technology transfer.
We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans not only on the battlefield, but in the corridors of diplomacy and on the factory floor. Joint efforts to build a replacement for the Sea Harrier are being challenged by a corner of Capitol Hill. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State do what they can to ensure that the necessary technology is shared? Otherwise, we will have two new aircraft carriers, but no aircraft to put on them.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, but I share the view that everyone who meets senior US legislators in Washington and elsewhere should point out that we are their longest and best ally. The Secretary of State has raised the matter directly with the US Secretary of State for Defence in the past two weeks, and that process continues daily through every contact that we can make. I am sure that the Conservative Members who recently visited Washington spread that message, too.
In his comments on the joint strike fighter in The Times today, Lord Drayson states that he has made technology transfer a priority:
"The Government could demand a final assembly and check-out line"
for the building of the joint strike fighter. Is that the case, and will the Government demand such an outcome in order to protect jobs in the north-west?
I wonder whether Lord Drayson's remarks were reported accurately. The matter is vital and detailed discussions are taking place with the US Administration. The strength of our view has been made known and has been articulated time and again from the Dispatch Box and on both sides of the House. We will continue to ensure that we get best value from the project.
It is true that we agree across the Dispatch Box that a failure by the United States to permit the transfer of technology to enable us to service our own aircraft would amount to an unacceptable loss of British sovereignty. However, do not US suspicions about its technology leaching out to France and elsewhere inevitably increase when Javier Solana states that he wants the European Defence Agency to be responsible for at least 20 per cent. of all European military research spending? Ministers cannot have it both ways—protesting in Washington and then sneaking off to Brussels to sign up to technology sharing with our European partners is hardly likely to win friends in Congress.
The hon. Gentleman sets a hare running that has no substance whatsoever. His allegation has no foundation. The fact that some senior representative in Europe expresses his point of view does not necessarily mean that it is our point of view.
Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary) Project
The landing ships dock (auxiliary) project continues to make progress towards the completion of the four bay class vessels. RFA Mounts Bay, the first ship built by BAE Systems in Glasgow and accepted off contract in December 2005, is undergoing her capability trials in readiness for meeting her in-service date in late 2006. RFA Largs Bay, the first Swan Hunter-built ship, is undergoing final preparations for contractor sea trials, which are scheduled to start next month. Build and testing continues on the remaining two ships.
I thank the Minister for that reply, but he conveniently glossed over the fact that the cost of the contract with Swan Hunter is now double the original MOD estimate. I have a freedom of information request that indicates that, as at October 2005, the MOD had already made payments of £295 million to Swan Hunter out of a total revised contract of £309 million. The first ship is yet to be completed. If it has cost us that much to come this far, how much more will it cost to get these ships into service?
I did not gloss over that point, as the question that the hon. Gentleman tabled did not ask me to comment on it. I responded on the progress that has been made on procuring and delivering the ships, which is the most important aspect of all this. I do not deny that there have been cost over-runs. That is to be regretted, and it has implications for the rest of our procurement programme. The important point is that these ships are vital. The negotiations that have taken place not only with Swan Hunter but with BAE Systems on the completion of the contract must remain in confidence. The full contract price will no doubt surface eventually. Many Conservative Members are campaigning to close Swan Hunter—perhaps they should go up to the north-east and say why.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work that the Clyde work force, in particular, has done on Cardigan Bay and Mounts Bay has been exemplary and that they should be congratulated on it? Are not the problems that we have with morale in the British shipbuilding industry caused by those who try to put it down at every possible opportunity instead of trying to build it up to ensure that we remain the force that we are seen to be throughout the world?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he speaks for this country's shipbuilding areas. This is the largest warship building programme that we have had for very many years. The future of shipbuilding is exceptionally bright, and at the end of the process we will have an exceptional and modern Navy. We should congratulate not only those who are involved in procuring that process but, as my hon. Friend says, those who are building the ships, of which we will be proud for many decades to come.
Iran
We continue to assess closely the development of a potential nuclear weapons capability in Iran, including delivery systems, taking careful note of the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has failed so far to provide the international community with the necessary confidence that its nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes, and we remain concerned that it is developing options for a nuclear weapons capability. We await the forthcoming detailed report from the IAEA.
Given that the Iranian President has already threatened to wipe one country from the face of the earth, does the Secretary of State agree that an Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons should be avoided at all costs?
International concern, to which the history of deception about the development of nuclear capacity, as testified to by the International Atomic Energy Agency, gives rise is only heightened by statements such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The international community is united in ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear capacity. That would be destabilising for the whole world, not only one area of it.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the strength of the international resolve to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state? What does he believe the next step should be?
One of the effects of the diplomacy pursued by what has become known as the E3—the United Kingdom, under the Foreign Secretary, Germany and France—has been to build increasing unanimity and solidarity in the international community, increasing awareness of the dangers and increasing regret that Iran has, thus far, not taken the opportunity to try to resolve the matter diplomatically. The next step must surely be for Iran to re-engage in suspending the activities that breached its earlier promises and to try to do that before 6 March, when the next meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency takes place. Like the whole international community, I hope that Iran will take the opportunity to re-engage and try to find a diplomatic resolution of the problem.
In assessing Iran's nuclear capabilities and seeking, as the free world is, a peaceful solution to the serious problem, does the Secretary of State agree that China, Russia and India are probably best placed to take the lead in seeking a peaceful resolution? Will he discuss with our American friends how we may best engage the efforts of those three countries?
The problem is one for the whole international community—that is increasingly recognised. Doubtless particular countries are well placed to encourage, persuade and allow the Iranians to reach such a diplomatic solution. One is obviously Russia. It is therefore regrettable that, at this stage, the Iranians appear to have rejected the overtures that the Russians have made and the avenues that they have opened. The suspicion grows that their position on the Russian efforts merely constitutes delaying tactics. I hope that that is not the case. I am convinced that there is an increasing resolve in the world, including the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to ensure that there is no question of Iran developing the capacity for nuclear weaponry.
My right hon. Friend knows that there are increasing obligations for technology transfer for peaceful purposes. What protections are in place for the development of wider, peaceful use of nuclear power and avoiding the transfer of some of that technology to countries such as Iran, as occurred under A. Q. Khan's regime?
The non-proliferation treaty is the most important element of international agreement that aims at what my hon. Friend outlines. It is worrying for the whole international community that Iran appears to have breached its safeguard obligations under the NPT for some time. I can do no better than quote Dr. el-Baradei, who made it clear in an interview with 23 January thatNewsweek as recently as
"even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgement on the peaceful nature of the nuclear program"
in Iran.
It must be recognised that neither the EU nor the international community as a whole is trying to deny Iran access to nuclear technology. Indeed, the European proposals of 5 August outlined our readiness to consider a number of significant elements in support of a civilian nuclear programme. However, the IAEA has made it clear to Iran that it lacks confidence in the peaceful aims of its nuclear programme; that is the essential element of the problem. We have therefore asked Iran to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activity, as a confidence-building measure. I am afraid that its refusal to maintain that suspension only heightens the suspicions and concerns of the international community, and the sooner it gets back into dialogue to resolve this matter diplomatically, the better it will be for the whole world.
As one of the more sensible and consistent members of the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he agrees with the Foreign Secretary, who says that he can conceive of no circumstances in which military action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons would be contemplated, or with the Prime Minister, who says that he has ruled out no form of action whatever?
I am not aware of anyone who is considering or speaking about military action, certainly not at this stage. I do not think that that is on anyone's agenda. There is therefore an obligation on all of us to try to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. That is precisely why we have made so many efforts in that direction, and why I hope that, even at this late stage before the IAEA's meeting on 6 March, Iran will re-engage constructively with the international community, possibly under the auspices of Russia or through some other mechanism. We all want to see a diplomatic resolution to this matter.
Joint Combat Aircraft
Substantial progress has been made in the system development and demonstration phase of the joint strike fighter programme, with the recent completion of the critical design review for the short take-off and vertical landing variant. Progress in building development aircraft is also on schedule, with assembly of the first development aircraft largely complete, and first flight expected towards the end of this year. In conjunction with the United States and the other international partners in the joint strike fighter programme, we are negotiating the terms of the memorandum of understanding for the co-operative production, support and follow-on development phase. We expect to conclude these negotiations by the end of this year.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but the last of our few remaining Sea Harriers are now being withdrawn, no doubt to be flogged off abroad at a knockdown price. Given that we shall shortly have no maritime fighter aircraft to protect the fleet, what is the Government's plan B if, for any reason, the joint combat aircraft programme does not proceed?
Indeed, I think that the Sea Harriers are being decommissioned today, and we should mark that event because they have provided great service. We have explored the reasons for this decision time and again in the House and I do not want to repeat them. We have also discussed our plan B. As ever, the Ministry of Defence has plans A to Z to deal with every eventuality—
Tell us what they are.
Well, what we shall not do, when we are in the middle of negotiating the best option, is inform the hon. Gentleman what all the other options are, because I am sure that others would put that information to good use.
European Defence Agency
The United Kingdom will play a leading role in the European Defence Agency to ensure that it continues to identify opportunities for co-operation, which will improve European member states' defence capabilities. In our view, the European Defence Agency is about co-operating with partners to leverage the maximum benefit from the money spent. It is not about creating a central budget to fund an EU defence force.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he reassure the House, however, that when he meets his fellow European Ministers in a few days to fix the agency's budget, he will not accept the French Government's suggestion that there should be a common European defence budget?
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House on that point. My view of the matter is simple. First, the European Defence Agency should be an institution that brings member states together to collaborate on projects, not one that substitutes for national discernment and creates a further bureaucratic, central procurement agency. Secondly, it should walk before it tries to run, and any increase in budget should be commensurate with that approach. Therefore, the institution should be more in the form of a dating agency than one that will supplant all the other procurement agencies.
On the subject of dating, when my right hon. Friend met his French opposite number recently—I think that it was at the Ritz or the Savoy hotel—did they discuss the proposal to spend more on research through the European Defence Agency? Bearing in mind the fact that Britain and France contribute two thirds of the entire EU research budget, surely this programme will mean that EU partners will collaborate and the results will be available to all EU partners, which is very much in the spirit of the St. Malo agreement.
On the subject that my hon. Friend raises, I did not discuss that matter with my friend the French Defence Minister when I met her in Admiralty house, which, as he knows, is where Nelson planned the battle of Trafalgar, in Churchill's Cabinet rooms, which we visited together, or, as he correctly points out, when we had tea at the Ritz. I did, however, discuss the matter at the penultimate meeting of the European Defence Agency, where we considered the preliminary advance in the budget from €4 million. I felt that we should move to €5 million and the French felt that we should move to €70 million. We compromised on €6 million, which is the sort of compromise that I rather like.
The Government's document presented to the House in January, "Prospects for the European Union in 2006", states:
"On military capabilities, the EU will start work on developing the Force Catalogue of Member States' military assets".
It also states:
"The European Defence Agency will expand its activities this year".
How far does the Secretary of State expect those activities to expand? What would be the full cost of that? Are we not seeing technology and procurement being used as a backdoor route to European defence integration?
I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's question just before he asked it. So far, we have agreed an increase in the budget from around €4 million to around €6 million, as opposed to the €70 million which some partners were looking for. We very much view the European Defence Agency—which is under the stewardship of chief executive Nick Witney, who is a former Ministry of Defence official—as an agency that brings together willing partners in collaboration. We do not envisage it as some central, major, new European procurement agency. In areas such as research and development and technology, however, we, the French and other major partners could get better value for money from collaboration. Those are precisely the areas in which we can work together constructively.
Afghanistan
UK troop numbers in Afghanistan are currently around 1,600. They will increase in coming months, peaking at around 5,700, and reducing to around 4,700 by the autumn. They will be reduced further next year when NATO headquarters in Kabul is no longer under United Kingdom stewardship.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) a moment ago, the Secretary of State described the tasks faced by our troops as establishing democracy, ending terrorism, achieving security in the south of Afghanistan, helping the economy of Afghanistan and dealing with poppy destruction. Will he now tell us how he will judge when each of those tasks has been completed, how long that will take, and what our exit strategy is?
We will make our judgment on the basis of changes on the ground: extension of central Government control, a reduction in insurgency, growth of the Afghan security forces and economic development. The exit strategy involves one of the entrance aims: the achievement of a degree of success in all those respects in a relatively short time—three years—in the south. As I have said many times, we do not expect the area to become Hampshire, or New Hampshire, but it will be in a significantly better state than it is now. On the security side, for instance, we expect training and capability to have been achieved for between 7,500 and 8,000 more Afghan security forces in the south in three years' time. That is roughly the number of soldiers who have been sent in by the International Security Assistance Force, and it forms the basis of a replacement of our presence by Afghan security forces and our withdrawal.
May I hark back to the discussion on Question 1? I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that if farmers are to be persuaded to give up producing a non-perishable product at a relatively high price and grow perishable goods which they can convey to a sizeable market, Afghanistan must have a good infrastructure. In particular, it must have good roads and bridges. Will the increased number of armed troops help the Afghans to build a better infrastructure?
It is important for the House to understand why we are there and what our role is. We are there to prevent Afghanistan from slipping back to the status of a failed state, which would enable it to be used by terrorists as a Trojan horse. Our troops are not there to seek out and destroy the terrorists; that is being done, under Operation Enduring Freedom, by an American-led multinational coalition. We are there to ensure that, in the medium and longer term, there is a build-up not just of central Government and their own security forces but of economic development.
Our forces are in southern Afghanistan—along with the Dutch, the Danes, the Estonians, the Canadians and others—to provide a security umbrella under which the Afghans themselves, aided by other civilian authorities, can build not only a degree of infrastructure but the beginnings of economic development. I take my hon. Friend's point entirely.
The Secretary of State has told us about the number of troops who are going to the Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, but the Americans found that reconstruction was difficult to achieve because the troops were so thinly spread. Can the Secretary of State confirm first, that non-governmental organisations are poised and ready to act, and secondly, that we will have enough troops to protect them so that that crucial work can be done?
I can confirm both those points. If the hon. Gentleman wants an illustration, I can tell him that about 20 times as many British troops are going to Helmand as there are American troops there now. The number of American troops who are there, and in Urozgan to the north where the Dutch are going, is relatively small. It is precisely because we are there to act as a cover for many other social and civilian activities that we need more troops. Those 3,300 troops—together with about 800 engineers, who will return once the camps are built—are a significant force, and of the configuration for which the chiefs of staff asked. It is perfectly valid for hon. Members on both sides of the House to ask legitimate questions about the force configuration, rules of engagement and so on. It is perfectly legitimate, too, to point out the dangers, but we all ought to be careful not to cross the threshold into despondency and defeatism before we even arrive, because that does no one any good, particularly our very brave troops.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British commander, who is also the NATO commander, will have at his disposal all the assets of NATO countries deployed in Afghanistan? When it comes to the deployment of American assets, will he have to go through the separate American command structure if those assets are to be made available to him?
I confirm that the NATO commander to whom the hon. Gentleman referred is a British general, and is content with the arrangements both for the deployment to the south and to assist him in meeting the needs of the wider Afghan stage. Like everyone else, including hon. Members, he would no doubt like even more forces at his disposal, but he is content with the configuration that has been provided. I am not sure that I understood the hon. Gentleman's question about American forces operating under Operation Enduring Freedom.
No. NATO.
NATO forces—yes. As far as I am aware, the NATO commander who is taking over in theatre from May is content with the configuration. If I find for any reason that I need to qualify my statement about the American forces at the commander's disposal, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, because I would not wish to mislead him.
The Secretary of State should understand that the reason why the Opposition are questioning him and have made those points is that we very much want our deployment in Afghanistan to be successful. We want our troops to succeed, which is why we are questioning the Secretary of State about these matters. Following his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), is he satisfied that the spending by our US allies and the Department for International Development on alternative livelihoods for Afghan poppy farmers is adequate given the scale of the illegal drugs trade? If not, we risk uniting the remnants of the Taliban, the warlords of the south and local populations in a lethal combination against our soldiers.
On the first point, it is precisely because I recognised the legitimacy of his question that I accorded such status to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I was simply warning that robust but illegitimate questioning can aid people who would wish us not to succeed in Afghanistan. However, I accept the sincerity with which questions have been asked—of course I do.
Secondly, I am satisfied that the allocation of resources both by the Department for International Development and by our American allies is significant, and will allow us to ensure the provision of interim incomes and eventually the development of alternative livelihoods for farmers to minimise the chances of their being forced into insurgency. Of course, I would always like more money—that is the case for almost every project—but we have a satisfactory amount. Indeed, that was the second criterion that I laid down when I said that we needed the configuration that our chiefs wanted, supplementary income to provide alternative livelihoods, and the required NATO configuration before we went in. I am satisfied that we have met that criterion.
Education
The Government recognise the need for a stronger supply of skilled research and technology staff, and the defence sector is no exception. The Ministry of Defence actively promotes the education of science, engineering and technology in our schools and colleges through dedicated presentations and visits to schools by technical experts.
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that if we are to maintain a strong defence industry, we need to encourage more young people to study engineering? Will he use his good offices to build strong links between the defence industry and engineering colleges, and will he congratulate Freeborough community college in my constituency, which has just been designated as an engineering college?
I know that my hon. Friend has a distinguished background as a chemical engineer. I agree that we need to value our engineers and encourage young people to go into engineering. Defence and engineering go hand in hand, and there are many examples of how strong links between engineering, training and defence have brought great benefits to colleges and students alike. I certainly congratulate Freeborough community college on having attained the status of an engineering college.
Nuclear Deterrent
The Government are committed to retaining our minimum nuclear deterrent, as currently represented by Trident, for the foreseeable future. No decisions have yet been taken on any replacement for our current system.
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but as our sole nuclear deterrent, Trident, will no longer be viable in 15 to 20 years' time, are we not reaching the point where decisions can no longer be avoided about replacing it? Is not the danger of nuclear proliferation in the middle east reason enough to begin a debate now on the need to update our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantor of our national security?
As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, we are talking about decisions that may have to be taken in 15 to 20 years' time. I do not think that the whole situation has become that much more urgent since the last time I was asked that question last month. Let me make the position absolutely clear: for the foreseeable future, we are retaining our minimum nuclear deterrent. At some stage, preferably in the course of this Parliament, we will have to take a decision about how we wish to continue after that—that is, in 15 to 20 years' time. When I have received papers or advice on this matter, I will begin to share the discussion with the House. I have no doubt that, at the next Question Time, the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject, as he is entitled to do, but at this stage I have nothing more to say because we have not yet embarked on the process of making the decision in principle or in detail.
Naval Procurement
The purpose of the defence industrial strategy is to ensure that the capability requirements of the armed forces can be met now and in the future. As such, it recognises the importance of sustaining the high-end, value-added, systems engineering skills to manage the integration of complex ships and their combat systems, which are critical for national security and sovereignty.
I welcome the Minister's statement. His heart is in the right place, but steelworkers in my constituency are concerned at reports that some in Whitehall want substantially to offshore the building of Her Majesty's ships. Can I be assured that the steel of our new generation of royal naval ships will be built in Britain, that we will avoid the procurement boom and bust policies of the Conservative party, and that we will have a sustained programme of building royal naval vessels which keeps the bulk of the work in the United Kingdom? If the vessels are to sail under Her Majesty's flag, they should be built on Her Majesty's territory.
As my right hon. Friend knows—he is very knowledgeable about all this—the defence industrial strategy is the first serious attempt to ensure that our approach smoothes out the peaks and troughs of what is unquestionably a major shipbuilding programme. When we get to 2016, that high, sustained effort will go into decline. We are seeking to ensure not only that we have continuity in shipbuilding capacity and, hopefully, alongside that, in steelmaking capacity, but that we retain the high-grade skills that are required to put sophisticated systems in place. All those things will have to be judged on the basis of what is best for defence and how industry can best meet those needs. Industry, the work force and the Ministry of Defence strongly support that new strategy. We will have to see how it develops as the years roll by.
Peace-building (Africa)
The Ministry of Defence contributes to the strengthening of African peacebuilding capabilities by training and advising personnel from the African Union and various African armed forces in peace-support operations. That is achieved bilaterally through permanently deployed and short-term training teams in key countries, and also by direct UK support to international training centres. In addition to our network of defence attaches, some 120 British armed forces personnel are based in sub-Saharan Africa to assist in those tasks.
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Given that sub-Saharan Africa is the most heavily mined region in the world, will he tell the House what work is taking place to train African forces in mine clearance?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that problem, which has led to the loss of hundreds—if not thousands—of lives in recent years. We have major training facilities in a number of countries. Indeed, I recently visited and opened a de-mining training centre in Kenya, where people from elsewhere in the African Union—and beyond—are trained in that very important technique. Another major development is the training of sniffer dogs in the detection of explosive devices—an area in which we have expertise. All those efforts will unquestionably save lives in sub-Saharan Africa, and perhaps beyond.
Does the Minister agree that our efforts to keep peace in Africa have been severely hampered by the fact that the Ministry of Defence has had to write off £400 million in the past two financial years, after a series of blunders by its procurement department? [Interruption.]
Someone said from a sedentary position that that was a friendly question; I sometimes wonder where the Conservatives are coming from on this issue. Our defence strategy has led to a massive increase in support in those areas, and there has been a massive increase in international development aid, so we should be credited for all that we are doing. We are taking a leading role among the G8 countries, within the European Union and within the United Nations in developing such initiatives, so a bit of credit where credit is due would not go amiss.
UN Operations (Africa)
The UK currently supports four UN operations in Africa. Those deployments include two officers in Sudan, six in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, three in Liberia and one in Sierra Leone. Our personnel all occupy key positions in the UN headquarters staff who are leading each mission; they are making a vital contribution and giving us unquestioned influence.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What contribution are EU countries making to peacekeeping in Africa in terms not only of armed forces, but of resources and aid?
I did not quite catch whether my hon. Friend said "AU" or "EU".
My hon. Friend comes from a different part of Lanarkshire from me and sometimes the accent changes. The EU is of course very significantly involved, not least in Darfur but in other areas as well. In countries where there are particular issues that have to be dealt with, we are seeking to deal with them. A key example is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the EU's mission is concerned with supporting security sector reform. The AU is also extensively involved and, as has been said time and again, we need African solutions to Africa's problems. Both we and the EU are trying to build the AU's capacity in that regard.
A critical part of peacekeeping in Africa is reducing the number of small arms entering the country, many of which come from Yemen into the horn of Africa. Is any work being done under UN auspices, or bilaterally with the Government of Yemen, to ensure effective interdiction of the small arms trade into the horn of Africa?
Well, effective interdiction is a big phrase. We can set out to achieve that ambition, but there are many porous borders. Whether the arms come from the maritime sector or across land, it is difficult to achieve that objective. Both the EU and the UN recognise that it is a serious problem and significant efforts are being made to combat it. One or two key issues are being addressed to see how we can stop that trade and the movement of those dangerous weapons. Success will be difficult to achieve, by the very nature of the circumstances, but not from lack of effort.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 7 February, the Procedure Committee heard evidence from the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office in relation to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. During that evidence, the Minister said that he would publish a response to the report by the Regulatory Reform Committee before the Standing Committee met to consider the Bill. The Committee is due to start consideration of the Bill tomorrow at 10.30 am, but the Minister has not yet responded to the recommendations of the Select Committee. I have spoken to the Clerk of the Regulatory Reform Committee, who tells me that far from receiving a detailed response from the Government, he has received only a letter, as yet unpublished, which will be put before members of the Standing Committee when it meets tomorrow.
I hope you share my view that that is intolerable. The Government said that they would publish their response before the Standing Committee met. They have not done so and the members of the Committee have not therefore had the chance to table amendments in response to the Government's comments. At a time when the Government talk about bringing Parliament closer to the people, this is evidence that they are doing the opposite by denying the people's representatives the chance to challenge the Government.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one of those who will serve on Standing Committee A tomorrow and who has already tabled amendments, I think it is wrong that a Minister should give the impression—as the Under-Secretary did—that we would be able to table amendments knowing the Government's response to the views of a senior Committee. In fact, we have had to table amendments without the benefit of that advice. Should not the Minister come before the House and explain himself, so that we may prepare properly for tomorrow morning?
I say to the hon. Gentlemen that it is unsatisfactory if the work of the Committee will be impeded by lack of information. I am sure that the airing of that complaint now means that it will have been heard, and that there will be other ways to pursue the Minister in question, so that matters may proceed satisfactorily tomorrow.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it still the convention that Members of Parliament write to other hon. Members in advance if they visit their constituencies? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Last Tuesday, three members of the parliamentary Liberal party, which is 5 per cent. of the total, came to Leicester, East, where they dined with the former Member for Leicester, South at a public meeting, where they consumed chicken tikka massala and Cobra beer. Their satellite navigation system might not have been working or they may have misunderstood the term "constituency week". I take it to mean spending more time in one's own constituency: they obviously feel that it means spending more time in other people's constituencies. I do not mind them coming to Leicester, which is a fabulous city, and I would have been happy to meet them there, but I wondered if that convention was still in existence.
Well, the hon. Gentleman might have spared us some of the detail. However, it is customary that when hon. Members visit another's constituency for political reasons, they notify that Member in advance. The whole House would work on a better basis if that practice were observed. However, if they visit just to eat chicken tikka massala, notification is not necessary.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the circumstances, I feel that I need to make a confession. I regularly visit the constituency of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and I have to tell him that I neglected to write to him on almost all those occasions, but he will of course be reassured because my mother, who is one of his constituents, happens to live in Leicester, East. I can give him my absolute assurance that I have never schemed his downfall in my mother's house.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you sum up, I would like you to bear in mind the fact that if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is correct and has been visiting some constituency, speaking on behalf of some Liberal Democrat candidate, the chances are, based on his record of the past few months, that the candidate will not do very well.
I am sure that the House will have benefited from that timely warning. Perhaps I could say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) that everyone will get an invitation from his mother in due course, so we shall all be on an equal footing in future.
Government of Wales Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 9th January 2006 (Government of Wales Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
1. Paragraphs 6 to 8 shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the Table and in the order so shown.
4. Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
First Day
Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings Amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1 and Clauses 3 to 22. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. Amendments relating to Clauses 23 to 27, Schedule 2 and Clauses 28 to 44. The moment of interruption.
Second Day
Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings Amendments relating to Clauses 45 to 58, Schedule 3, Clauses 59 to 87, Schedule 4, Clauses 88 to 93, Schedule 5, Clauses 94 to 102, Schedule 6, Clauses 103 to 107, Schedule 7, Clauses 108 to 144, Schedule 8, Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 9, Clauses 149 to 159, Schedule 10, Clauses 160 and 161, Schedule 11, Clause 162, Schedule 12 and Clauses 163 to 165; new Clauses and new Schedules; any other proceedings on the Bill. One and a half hours before the moment of interruption.
The programme motion seeks to ensure adequate debate on parts of the Bill that have attracted amendments to be considered on Report. It follows three days in Committee on the Floor of the House, during which the Bill received thorough and detailed scrutiny, particularly of the parts that are genuinely new enhanced primary powers and of proposals for reforming the electoral system.
The House will be aware that 93 of the 165 clauses are based closely on sections of the Government of Wales Act 1998. A further 48 clauses relate to the separation of the legislature from the Executive, a policy that has all-party support. Only 24 clauses are concerned with the new provisions relating to the Assembly's enhanced—and, subject to a referendum, primary—legislative powers. It was thus right and proper for the House to focus on scrutinising parts of the Bill that are novel and which it has not previously considered, while devoting less time to aspects that have cross-party support, such as the separation of the Executive and the legislature.
Despite the points that I have just made, the House will recall that at the end of the Committee, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) objected on a point of order that the House had been unable to scrutinise 133 clauses. Consequently, she asked for more time for consideration in Committee. The House will want to note that at no time was such a request made through the usual channels. Indeed, an intervention from the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), on 26 January was the only suggestion of any kind from the official Opposition that more time might be needed. That point was raised through the usual channels immediately afterwards, yet even then the Opposition did not press a request for more time.
The programme motion for the Committee was agreed with cross-party support. Furthermore, consideration of the Bill was organised to ensure that the House concentrated its scrutiny on provisions that were genuinely new, or controversial. The House will recall that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham expressed particular concern that there was no opportunity for the House to scrutinise the "extremely complex financial provisions" of the Bill, so I was extremely surprised to see that not a single Conservative amendment has been tabled on those provisions on Report. I should be interested to hear the hon. Lady's explanation of that apparent oversight.
The programme motion seeks to guarantee that the amendments on outstanding issues of contention receive appropriate scrutiny. If accepted, the programme motion will ensure that amendments relating to parts 1 and 2, which deal with the legal separation between the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government, will be considered on the first day of consideration on Report. Although some of the provisions that relate to the Assembly's electoral arrangements have been debated in Committee, some of the remaining provisions in parts 1 and 2 have not yet been scrutinised by the House and have attracted amendments. We have therefore sought to ensure that those amendments that have been selected receive adequate time.
Day 2 will allow the consideration of the provisions in parts 3 to 6. The provisions in parts 3 and 4 that relate to Assembly measures and Acts of the Assembly received detailed consideration in Committee. The programme motion will ensure that amendments relating to those parts that have been selected for consideration and those relating to the remaining parts of the Bill will receive an appropriate amount of time for debate.
In conclusion, the programme motion will ensure that the debates on Report and Third Reading will address all parts of the Bill where amendments have been tabled and selected. I commend the programme motion to the House.
I will not take up the House's time at great length for the simple reason that the way in which the programme motion has been drafted means that every minute we spend discussing it takes time from the debate on the first two groups of amendments, where the Government have so thoughtfully inserted a guillotine after two hours. I presume, of course, that the insertion of that guillotine has nothing to do with any meeting that may take place outwith the Chamber, but we must ask ourselves why a programme motion is on the Order Paper today, when there have been no such guillotines throughout the consideration of the Bill.
The junior Minister is right: I did object to the fact that 133 clauses have not been discussed. Therefore, on past record, it hardly seems worth while even to table amendments to the financial provisions, because we can be assured that there will be no opportunity to discuss them in the limited time available on Report and Third Reading.
I do not want to rerun old battles, but it was correct that we asked for more time on the Floor of the House at business questions. I had believed that matters brought to the attention of the Leader of the House on the Floor of the House would be taken seriously. He did not even bother to respond; nor did he write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) afterwards to explain why no time could be given to the Bill. In fact, I think that it was suggested at one stage that we could debate more of Bill in Committee upstairs to enable us to discuss it fully. After all, is not this the Bill that the Secretary of State for Wales has described as settling the business of devolution for a generation? Therefore, is it right that such a large part of it should remain undebated in the Chamber?
The junior Minister's assertion that 93 clauses are based loosely on the original Bill is correct, but that does not mean that they should not be revisited; otherwise why would the Secretary of State be placing the whole Bill once again before the House for scrutiny? I hope that that was not a vain attempt to slip the Bill past the House, with any laxity as far as hon. Members' ability to scrutinise the Bill is concerned.
The time given to the debate on Third Reading is derisory: one and a half hours on a main constitutional Bill. I can only presume that the Labour party once more assumes that very few Labour Members from Wales will participate in the debate and that not too many contributions are expected to the Third Reading debate. The Bill has been notable for the fact that very few Labour Members who sit for Welsh seats have taken an enormously active part in it, which is a great shame.
Without further ado and not wanting to take any more of the House's time, I am afraid to say that I have major objections to the programme motion, and I will ask my colleagues to vote against it.
I am slightly surprised by the Conservative position on the programme motion. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) says that she tried to ring me, but I was in Leicester, talking to my mum. Apparently, my three leadership candidates are also visiting my mother. I will have words to say about that later. Nevertheless, the concern is that she needed to speak not just with me but with the House before we voted on the programme motion initially.[Interruption.]
I do not want to make a very big thing of this, but I personally feel that if I support a programme motion, I am obliged to try to make it work. I certainly do not feel that I am in a position to come back and condemn the Government for a decision with which I originally concurred. The inference is that I made the same judgment as the Government on that occasion, which is why I supported the programme motion. I am sorry to say this because I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but it feels a bit dog-in-the-manger to make a dramatic point of order at the end of the Committee stage to attempt to gain party political points in an environment in which we had considerable differences of view about the content of the Bill, but, to the best of my knowledge, a collective responsibility to make the timings work.
The hon. Lady also asked why there are guillotines now. I do not think that she needs to look very far. Surely the Government, having been criticised in Committee for not having gone through the business, are bound to take away some of our latitude to operate autonomously. I cite the example of Northern Ireland legislation, which is continuously controversial, often involves constitutional matters and is extremely divisive to the House. Nevertheless, the Whip who is usually in charge of the business, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), manages to secure a collective responsibility even at times when, for example, we underestimate the number of hours required in Committee. That occurred with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was so controversial that the Government eventually withdrew it. However, there were no complaints about the timings, even though it became patently obvious to both sides that we had underestimated the time that we needed in Committee.
Although I have never been that persuaded about the principle of programming, I have to accept that, in today's environment, the House collectively, on a cross-party basis, has decided to impose programme motions from time to time, and this is one of those occasions. In the context of what we are considering today and tomorrow, it seems reasonable of the Government to have included the guillotines to ensure that important legislation is discussed.
I appeal to all hon. Members and the Minister to ensure that we are sufficiently concise to handle the issues in the time available, because I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be a shame if any of the strings of amendments were abandoned through lack of time. That does not need to happen. We can rehearse the arguments concisely and effectively enough to get through everything that is to be debated, including the controversial elements. For that reason, if the hon. Lady insists on dividing the House, although I am lukewarm about programme motions, I will have little option other than to defend the Government.
Question put:—
Orders of the Day
Government of Wales Bill
[1st Allotted Day]
As amended in the Committee, considered.
Clause 7 — Candidates at general elections
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 36, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
'(5) The list must not include a person—
(a) who is included on any other list submitted for the Assembly electoral region or any list submitted for another Assembly electoral region,
(b) who is an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
(c) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
(d) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region but is not a candidate of the party.
(6) A person may not be an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region if he is—
(a) included on a list submitted by a registered political party for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
(b) an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for another Assembly electoral region,
(c) a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
(d) a candidate of any registered political party to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region.'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 42, at end insert
'(unless section [Person filling constituency vacancy to be eligible as constituency member or regional member at subsequent general election] applies).'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 8, at end insert
'(unless section [Person filling constituency vacancy to be eligible as constituency member or regional member at subsequent general election] applies).'.
Amendment No. 2, in page 7, line 43 [Clause 11], leave out subsection (8).
Amendment No. 13, in page 90, line 28 [Clause 160], at end insert—
'(8) Section 7 comes into force in accordance with section [Commencement of provisions relating to candidates at general elections].'.
New clause 4—Person filling constituency vacancy to be eligible as constituency member or regional member at subsequent general election—
'A person who has become an Assembly constituency member as a result of an election held under section 10 may be included in a list of candidates for return as Assembly regional members for a particular Assembly electoral region at the subsequent general election even if, at that general election, he is also a candidate to be the Assembly constituency member for an Assembly constituency.'.
New clause 7—Commencement of provisions relating to candidates at general elections—
'(1) Section 7 comes into force on such day after the 2007 election as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(2) But no order under subsection (1) may be made unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has undertaken appropriate consultation with—
(i) the Assembly, and
(ii) each political party represented in the Assembly, and
(b) the Electoral Commission has made a report.
(3) No order under subsection (1) may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
The first group of amendments in the section to be dealt with before the guillotine deals with the position of candidates for the National Assembly for Wales. We debated the matter at some length in Committee, but did not reach any satisfactory conclusion. I am glad that we have the opportunity to re-examine some of the points today. As the Under-Secretary said in his brief speech on the programme motion, there are parts of the Bill with which the Opposition agree. There are several aspects of the Bill, however, to which we fundamentally object. In particular, the proposals in clause 7 are brought into the sharp focus of scrutiny by the amendments.
In speaking to the amendments, I am trying to do one of two things. First, I am seeking to maintain the status quo so that the electoral arrangements, as understood by the people of Wales at the moment, remain the same. If I fail to do that, however, I hope that the option of not introducing those changes until after the Assembly elections in 2007 will give the existing system time to settle down and also afford the Government and the Assembly the opportunity to inform the people of Wales about the proposed changes that they intend to make. There is much evidence showing that people in Wales do not understand the electoral system, let alone the proposals that the Government are now seeking to impose. Conservative Members have argued that clause 7 is a partisan attempt by the Labour party to rig the electoral system to its own advantage.
The hon. Lady said that there is much evidence that the people of Wales do not understand the current electoral system, but I wonder what evidence she has seen because all the evidence gathered by academics that I have seen indicates exactly the opposite.
The Electoral Reform Society, the Electoral Commission and the Bevan Foundation report, which I shall discuss later—the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) successfully introduced the Bevan Foundation report into the debate in Committee—all point to confusion about the system itself. The combination system, which is different from the first-past-the-post system, causes confusion among the electorate.
I am not sure whether that is right. In multi-member local government constituencies, people have the right to vote three times for three councillors under the first-past-the-post system. Opinion polls suggest that the number of people who do not use all three votes because they do not understand that they have more than one vote is far higher than the number of people who say that they do not understand the Welsh Assembly voting system.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 8 of the Bevan Foundation report, which Labour Members have prayed in aid. It states that there is strong survey evidence that people do not understand how the system of elections to the National Assembly for Wales works. I shall go into more detail on that point, but I think that the hon. Gentleman must back down.
indicated dissent.
The Welsh people have not called for the Government's proposed change to the electoral system. Furthermore, it is notable that the Richard commission, which has produced a substantial piece of work on the situation in Wales, did not come up with the change that the Government are attempting to introduce today.
The Government have deployed the argument that the change was in the Labour manifesto at the general election. That is slightly lame, because if they had the best interests of the people of Wales at heart, they would not have made a bald statement in a manifesto and would at least have conducted some research and examined the issues in Wales, which seem to include confusion about the electoral system itself.
When probing amendments suggesting that there is confusion about the electoral system were moved in Committee, the hon. Lady did not agree that such confusion exists, because it benefited her party to adopt that position. Now she is telling hon. Members that there is confusion, so which one is it? She has claimed that the system is somehow rigged towards the Labour party, and many Opposition Members have alleged that the system has been gerrymandered, but does she have any evidence on that point, because she has not produced any up to this point?
I apologise to hon. Members because my voice is gradually fading away and may be reduced to a faint whisper by the end of the debate. I shall pick up those points as I develop my argument.
It is notable that when there was one Labour regional AM we heard no complaints about the system. Now that complaints have been made, we see that there are no Labour regional AMs. That suggests that there is an enormous bias in favour of presenting a political solution instead of one that is good for the people of Wales. When the Welsh Affairs Committee inquired into the Government's White Paper, "Better Governance for Wales", it divided strictly along party lines. The fact that no party other than Labour has picked up the cudgels on this leads me to believe that it is not in the best interests of the people of Wales.
The Electoral Commission is not convinced of the need for change. In its submission to the Welsh Affairs Committee, it concluded:
"In light of the need to encourage voter participation at the Assembly election in 2007, we would caution against any change that is perceived to be partisan and could add to a prevailing distrust of politicians.
On the evidence available to the Commission . . . we do not believe that the case for change has been made out."
I think that the Minister would admit that those words should be taken very seriously; after all, they are from the Government's own commission.
Opposition to the ban was forcefully expressed by the Electoral Reform Society, which concluded:
"We urge the Government to reconsider their proposal to ban dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not been adequately made."
Is the hon. Lady aware of the situation of the leader of the Scottish National party, who, if he stood in a constituency and lost, could then be elected through the list? Not only would a loser become a winner—a loser would become a leader. Is not that a rigged system? He is effectively betting on a three-horse race—he cannot lose.
I love the way we move seamlessly from Wales to Scotland. I would have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman had not this electoral system been devised by the Government. They came up with it, and now they are crying foul.
While my voice holds out, I want to turn to some of the points that were made in Committee. The hon. Member for Caerphilly introduced us to the Bevan Foundation's report, "Public attitudes to dual candidacy in elections to the National Assembly for Wales". I was delighted that he pointed me in the direction of that piece of research. I am hoping that he will intervene on me to answer straightforwardly why, when I asked him how much it cost, who paid for it and where it came from, he did not venture to inform the House that he sponsored it. He argued that it was a completely impartial piece of research—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) trying to intervene?
No, I am just shouting.
The hon. Gentleman should settle down—it gets better.
Point 6 of the introduction to the report states:
"The research was sponsored by Wayne David MP."
One would have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have enlightened the House when he was trying to tell us that this was a completely independent piece of research. He must have sat on his hands. He knew that he sponsored this piece of research, yet he did not have the guts to stand up in the House and tell us. I honestly think that he did not want me to read the research, because when we look at the detail we will see what it contains. It is very interesting.
I give way to the hon. Gentleman to let him tell us why he did not say that he had sponsored it.
This is extremely tedious. If the hon. Lady did not hear my comments during our previous proceedings, she could have read Hansard, which shows that I openly said to hon. Members that I had sponsored the research but that it was independent. Big deal.
If the hon. Gentleman reads his contribution at column 112 of Hansard on 30 January, he will realise that it did not reflect the simplicity of the intervention that he has just made.
Let us consider the Bevan Foundation's research. I shall concentrate on the summary and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a copy because I should like to remind him of its conclusions. It was not based on an enormous sample—indeed, there was
"a predominance of people aged over 45 and of those who were either retired or not working for other reasons."
The relative absence of people under 45 and those working full-time means that the results are not statistically representative—they were not intended to be. One wonders why the hon. Gentleman sponsored work that has such a caveat. However, as he has prayed it in aid, it is right to examine the results.
The report states:
"There is little in-depth analysis or empirical evidence to support the various arguments made both for and against dual candidacy".
That is apparent from our discussions. However, the small-scale project aimed to explore whether the public had views on the issue, as is often claimed. The summary continues:
"We found slightly more of the total number of respondents said that dual candidacy was unfair compared with those who felt candidates should be free to stand in both."
I emphasise the word "slightly". That could mean as much as one in a sample of 47.
The summary goes on:
"This suggests that any proposals about dual candidacy—whether to change or retain the current system—need to be based on sound evidence and be mindful of the differing views amongst the public."
I agree with that. It is obvious that the Government have not based the proposals on sound evidence. The summary states:
"This suggests that there should be clarification of the roles of the two types of Assembly member."
We can all agree with that because there is confusion about the roles, not least among Assembly Members. As expected, those views were part of a wider lack of understanding of the electoral process among many people and a division of views about proportional representation.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly, who prayed in aid the report, has played straight into our hands. Again, I emphasise that there is slight evidence that respondents believed that dual candidacy was unfair. It hardly constitutes an overwhelming piece of research to back up the Government's proposals.
Have you any research that you can impart on how—
Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Lady must sit down. She must not use the second person because when she says "you" she refers to me and I have nothing to do with these matters.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Lady have any evidence that the people of Wales are happy with the safety net that we provide for the dual candidates? I have found no evidence of people being fully supportive of the process whereby winners become losers, or, as the Japanese put it, zombies become winners. Has the hon. Lady any facts and figures to impart on that?
I hope that Assembly Members have noted that the hon. Lady likened them to zombies. [Interruption.] I do not care who called them zombies. The hon. Lady likened them to zombies in the Chamber. The Conservative group is one of the most active and effective groups in the Assembly, so the hon. Lady should be careful before she starts throwing around such words to describe it.
This is all about trying to prove a negative. If the Government are going to change an electoral system that they have only recently introduced, they must do so on the basis of fact, investigation and demand. No such fact, investigation or demand exists, as I am seeking to prove, given the public attitudes to dual candidacy and elections to the National Assembly for Wales expressed in the Bevan Foundation's report, which was commissioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has taken the trouble to read the Bevan Foundation's report. As she knows, I placed a copy in the Library for her to see. As the report states, it is an indicative report that is intended simply to give an indication of the public's attitudes. However, the hon. Lady cannot get away from the fact that its central point is that a majority of the respondents think that the current system is unfair.
I am unwilling to concede that, because the report found that only "slightly" more of the total number of respondents held that view—
A majority.
That could be a majority of just one out of the 47 respondents. The hon. Gentleman should read some of the remarks made by those 47 people in the report. I shall not take up the House's time by reading them out now, but I would recommend them to anyone who is interested in the Bill.
Does the hon. Lady find it curious that Labour Members place such weight on this report, given the small number of respondents it involved? When the Electoral Commission's scientific research was discussed by the Welsh Affairs Committee, Labour Members' response was, "Who are these people? Are they paid? How were they selected?" There was a great deal of scepticism expressed at that time, yet great weight is placed on this piece of research. Is not that strange?
The hon. Gentleman and I are of one accord on this. What seems important is whether the Bill suits the Labour party, not whether it suits the people of Wales or contains what is best for the people of Wales. I was at a Scottish Affairs Committee recently at which some eminent people, including Sir John Arbuthnott, were giving evidence. One of the Labour members of the Committee even wanted to know how many degrees Sir John had. I think that that Member was trying to make the point that Sir John was so intelligent that he could not relate to ordinary people. Well, perhaps that was the case, because I believe that Sir John replied that he had 11 or 12 degrees. That certainly put that Labour Member in his place.
The Government have tried to fall back on the old line that there is widespread and systematic abuse—I think that was how the Secretary of State described the situation—in Wales. If the abuse is so widespread and systematic, why has the Secretary of State failed to respond to letters from Nicholas Bourne, the leader of the Conservative group in the Assembly, written on 4 November and 27 January? Those letters contained a request for information about the Secretary of State's assertions. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), is looking slightly blank. Nicholas Bourne's letter of 27 January to the Secretary of State says:
"I enclose a copy of a letter I sent to you on 4 November 2005, to which I have, as yet, received no response.
I am concerned that you have made assertions regarding alleged abuse by List Assembly Members of their position in relation to expenses. This is a claim that, as far as I am aware, has never been substantiated.
If you are making such a claim it is clearly a very serious one".
The letters of 4 November and 27 January from the leader of the Conservative group regarding the systematic abuse that has been prayed in aid in relation to changing the system have not even received a response from the Secretary of State. I hope that a response will now be forthcoming.
Another argument that the Government have used is that the banning of dual candidacy will end the confusion caused by the present system. However, I am not sure how that would follow. The research that I have seen suggests that banning someone from standing in a constituency system or a list system would not address the problem that people fail to understand that there is a first-past-the-post system coupled with a proportional representation system. That is where the sticking point seems to be with the electorate. Clearly, some analysis and research is needed to back up what the Government are trying to do.
I want to deal with the Secretary of State's arguments in Committee. I was particularly interested in the way in which he responded to the debate on clause 7. He said:
"We should start with the facts. Interestingly, the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Opposition proposals for preventing a ban on dual candidature. That is fact No. 1."—[Official Report, 30 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 122.]
Well, it is not quite fact No.1, because I decided that I would examine the voting and the debate on the relevant amendments to the Bill in the Assembly. If the Secretary of State thinks that the Assembly voted against the idea, he is skating on thin ice. The amendments were only defeated on the casting vote of the Presiding Officer, who was obliged to vote against them under Standing Orders. I do not know how he would have voted had he been free to vote as he wished, but we need only examine the voting of members of his party to discover where his heart might have lain. To say that the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Opposition proposals is therefore to flirt with the truth.
On amendment No. 1, in the name of Lisa Francis, Conservative Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales, the voting was 29 for, 29 against, and 0 abstentions. On amendment No. 5, in the name of Jocelyn Davies, the voting was 29 for, 29 against, 0 abstentions—casting vote. On amendments Nos. 7 and 11, the voting numbers were exactly the same. The Secretary of State's opening gambit in his response therefore takes the biscuit. Given the opportunity of a free vote by the Presiding Officer, we might find that the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Government's proposals. However, the Labour party supports them, and it is its amendments that we are considering.
Labour Members also displayed a lot of partisanship when they said that one of their problems was with list Members setting up rival camps. I am not sure how this change in the system will stop that because there will still be list Members, who will still be able to set up rival camps. The evidence session given by Professor Sir John Arbuthnott and Dr. Nicola McEwan to the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 14 February, which I attended, provided an interesting insight into the psychology of the Labour party. I heard the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), utter the immortal words that are on page 22 of the draft transcript:
"I represent Glasgow Central. I have 11 MSPs interfering in my constituency."
That is the Labour party's attitude to Members of the Scottish Parliament and, I presume, to Assembly Members. That is appalling. We have touched on the real reason for the proposals in the Bill to change the electoral system.
Is it not the case that the Labour party is happy for such Members to set up camps as long as they are not in seats that Labour is rightly in danger of losing?
That is the case. The hon. Gentleman makes the point well. That takes me back to my initial point that this is merely about Labour party advantage, Labour party position and keeping Labour Members. It is not about what is best for Wales and for the people of Wales, which is what Conservative Members want. If the Government are going to make these changes, why not make them later rather than sooner, after a period of reflection or investigation?
The crux of the Secretary of State's argument was that under the present system an Assembly Member who has been elected on the list and wishes to become a candidate in the constituency puts all the resources into that constituency. The intervention from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) was interesting. In my constituency, where we have a Labour Member of Parliament and a Plaid Cymru Assembly Member, his party was very worried about the fact that a Conservative list Member would refer to himself as the base in the constituency. The Plaid Cymru intervention is a little unhelpful and I do not think the hon. Lady should associate herself with it.
The hon. Gentleman almost plays into my hands. If it is just a question of behaviour in target seats, why not change the Standing Orders? Why not consider ways around the problem before going for the nuclear option of changing the electoral system? There is no guarantee that the first person on the list, if he is not of a Labour party persuasion in a Labour constituency, will not set himself up in exactly the same way. I think that that is a red herring. A sop is being offered to Labour Members.
The Government are very keen on consulting. We are told that they are a listening Government. They consult on absolutely everything. They do not take any notice of what is said to them, but they do consult. For example, more than 90 per cent. of respondents opposed the National Offender Management Service, while 0.4 per cent. favoured it. The Government then went ahead with it.
If there is so much evidence out there, why did the Government not go out and consult the people of Wales, and come back with hard evidence which would have informed the debate?
I am sure that the Minister does not want to be reminded of the National Offender Management Service, but it is true that in that instance there was no consultation worth a row of beans. The Government seem to be falling into exactly the same trap in the case of the merger of police areas. They are not listening to the people of Wales, and the political bullying by the Labour party that is now becoming apparent is the hallmark of their latest term of office.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not present as he dealt with these matters in Committee. He said that the Arbuthnott commission would have reached the same conclusion that has resulted in the Government's proposal for a change in the legislation if it had considered what he has called the systematic abuses carried out by list members in Wales.
It was the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) who drew Sir John Arbuthnott on the point. He said
"I should also point out that the Secretary of State for Wales has said that if the Commission had considered what he called the systematic abuses carried out by list members in Wales, he would have reached the same conclusion that we have, namely that a ban on dual candidacy is the only effective solution. Do you agree with his line of thinking? Is the Welsh situation one you have studied in coming to this conclusion?"
Professor Sir John Arbuthnott responded
"Of course we read the material on Wales. The points the Commission took into account on this important issue are as follows: first of all we actually found no evidence that there was a problem for voters in having dual candidacy, nor incidentally, did the Electoral Commission, who have done their own study of this. The idea that a loser is then elected by another aspect or another branch of the proportional representation system is actually a hangover from the first-past-the-post thinking: those coming second are only losers, the only losers in a majoritarian system. The logic of PR is that you actually use the best people as voted for by the electorate and under a proportional system that will not only be the first-past-the-post candidate. As you are aware, I am pretty concerned that we do this on behalf of citizens. Banning dual candidacy would, if you think about it, actually restrict voter choice and potentially diminish the quality of constituency contests."
I think that Sir John has put to bed the myth that he would have arrived at a different conclusion on Wales if he had studied the situation. He obviously did study the situation and I think that the Secretary of State was wrong to put words into his mouth.
I have talked enough, and other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate for which the Government have allowed only a short time. The Secretary of State is trying to amend the system in a way that many people, including myself, believe is cavalier and partisan, with the aim of keeping Labour party members quiet. The case for change has not been made in any substantial research. The Assembly is not crying out for it—quite the opposite, in fact—and the Secretary of State is moving away from what would be its wishes, given the political complexion of the Presiding Officer. I do not think, therefore, that he can argue that the Assembly has been demanding change. Sir John Arbuthnott looked at the situation in Wales, and concluded that there was no case for change in Scotland in light of the information that it provided. The Bevan Foundation research has been prayed in aid and, although flawed, it showed that there is not an overwhelming demand or case for change.
Why, therefore, are the Government messing around again with the electoral system in Wales in such a precipitate way? Will the Under-Secretary wait until after the 2007 elections at the earliest before embarking on that road? I urge him to look at the amendments that I have tabled and, hopefully, accept one of them. If not, he could wait until the Assembly alters its Standing Orders so that regional and constituency Members can resolve their differences. He could at least initiate an education programme about the electoral system, because the Government have failed to educate the electorate.
Why should Wales once again be an electoral experiment? It has three systems—one for Europe; one for Westminster and local government; and one for the Assembly. The system for the Assembly has only been in place for a short while, and it should be given a chance to work before it is changed again. I notice that it is the system in Wales that is changing, not the one used in Scotland. The proposals are not good for the people of Wales, and as they do not result from overwhelming demand or substantial research they are not good for democracy.
I did not intend to speak in this debate until I listened to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has not added a great deal to previous debates on this issue. There should be an opportunity to put matters right in the House, as the people of Wales have the right to understand why the Government and the Labour party have introduced the proposals.
The hon. Lady is terribly confused about the electoral system. It was only a couple of weeks ago that we discussed the top-up system on the Floor of the House. She suggested that we ought not to change it, because it is too early to do so, and she has repeated that assertion today. She said, too, that the Labour party introduced the system in the 1997 referendum, so we should not change it. The purpose of the Bill, however, is to reflect on what has happened in the past few years to see whether improvements can be made to the way in which our country is governed in Wales. That point was completely and utterly missed by the hon. Lady.
There is something else that the hon. Lady has failed to grasp. When we debated the system of top-up Assembly Members she rejected the consultation that my hon. Friends and I proposed so that we could consider whether we should revise a system which, I believe, has been discredited. Today, however, she said that the system was confusing. In our earlier debate, she asked me to talk about e-mails from my constituents about the electoral system. I remind her that hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies do not need to look at e-mails, as we talk to our constituents in markets, pubs, meetings and churches, and they tell us how they feel about different public policy issues, including confusing systems. If she went to Wales a little more than she has done in the past she would undoubtedly hear the same points being made.
As I spent the first 11 years of my life in Wales, the right hon. Gentleman might say that I have spent a considerable amount of time in Wales. If he is telling me that conversations in markets and pubs are the basis for this Labour party legislation on the electoral system, I am very worried for this Labour Government because they have moved away from the evidence base that they always vaunted so loudly. Where is the evidence? There is none.
I do not live in fantasy land. I live in Wales, which the hon. Lady does not. I do not know whether, during the first 11 years of her life, people were taking about these issues in Wales. She was certainly too young to discuss them. All the references to Professor Arbuthnott, electoral commissions and electoral reform societies do not take account of the experiences of elected Members from Wales who talk to people in their constituencies who are interested in these matters. Today, she is saying that the system is confusing. A fortnight ago, she said that it was not. She has to make up her mind what she thinks about the system.
Of course, the system is one that the hon. Lady's party traditionally would have rejected. In fact, I agree with most members of her party that the first-past-the-post system is the best. However, the current system has benefited her party. Under the first-past-the-post system, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) would have been the only Conservative Member in the National Assembly for Wales.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding us that the Conservative party opposes proportional representation, but we play by the rules that are set. I would have been quite happy to be the only member of the Conservative party to be elected under first past the post. I am sure that most of my colleagues, who are supporters of the first-past-the-post system themselves, would have been pleased to see me there.
The hon. Gentleman had better have a word with the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. She seems to be a great advocate of proportional representation—at least that is the impression that the House gained some moments ago.
A moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should listen to the elected Members for Wales. Therefore, why does he not listen to the Assembly? The vote was tied at 29 to 29; the casting vote was made by the Presiding Officer on a Standing Order. Surely, therefore, the Government are not listening to the elected Members. The right hon. Gentleman is going against the will of the elected Members in Wales.
I listen to elected Members of the Assembly all the time. The vote that the hon. Lady referred to was presumably split on traditional party lines. Of course, a fair number of those who voted were Members who were elected on the top-up system anyway. The point that I am trying to make, however, is that to try to deny that there is unease or dissatisfaction about the system is wrong.
There is a much more significant point, however, which my hon. Friends have already raised: this was a manifesto commitment. It was clear as day, in black and white. All of us who were Labour candidates in Wales at the last general election fought on a manifesto that said that we would change the position on dual candidacy.
When the Bill goes to the other place, I hope that Members of the House of Lords will reflect on that issue, too. This proposal has not come out of the blue. The reason for the change is that, initially, the Labour party conference agreed by an overwhelming majority that the change had to take place. That was put in a manifesto to the people of Wales. We won on that manifesto. Therefore, it is the duty of Labour Members in this House of Commons to put that forward. When the proposal goes up the Corridor to the House of Lords, I hope that it will realise that, if it rejects it, it will reject a Labour party manifesto commitment that was crystal clear at the last general election.
I am not sure what the position of the right hon. Gentleman was, but his party clearly did not consider the manifesto commitment on top-up fees to be sacrosanct. One wonders why this particular one should be sacrosanct. [Interruption.] One or two Labour Members supported it, but not the bulk of them.
The hon. Gentleman can pick and choose from a list of policies if he wants to, but today we are discussing dual candidacy, and Labour's policy on dual candidacy was included in the manifesto. I fought on that manifesto commitment, as did other members of my party.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to send to the other place the message that, because this was a manifesto commitment, it should respect it. Does he not accept that it is entirely inconsistent for him to expect others to honour that commitment, given that, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) rightly pointed out, the Government themselves broke a fundamental promise on student funding? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
The point is being made that this policy simply appeared out of the blue and was dreamed up at the last moment, but it was not like that. The people of Wales knew precisely what the Labour party's policy was and what they were voting for, and in any event, it is a sensible one. If people do not like a particular Assembly Member who has been elected as a constituency Member through the first-past-the-post system, they can vote that Member out of the Assembly. However, if, as happened in Clwyd, West and other constituencies, someone chooses to stand dually—in the top-up AM list and in the constituency—and loses, they can still get back into the Assembly. I am sure that if we asked any of our constituents whether that is fair, they would say that it is not.
Another point that we must ram home constantly is that few top-up Assembly Members concentrate on safe seats. They often concentrate their activities in marginal seats: ones that they think they are most likely to win at the forthcoming election. That may be politically sensible—I am not saying that it is not—but is that the role of an AM who is a top-up Member? No, it is not. The role of an AM who represents a region of Wales is to represent that region equally and properly. That sometimes happens, but often it does not because of the concentration of political activity in marginal seats. Such concentration distorts and perverts the reason for having top-up AMs in Wales.
The best solution is to do away with the system altogether and to come up with a different one. That is a debate for another day, but today we are debating an issue that the vast majority of people in Wales understand: doing away with an unfairness. They were told about this policy during the general election, when a clear manifesto commitment was given. I urge the House to follow the wise advice that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger)—he is not a junior Minister but the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—will give us when he winds up: to vote against these amendments.
The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) added little that is new to this debate, but given that we have already discussed this issue comprehensively, it is hardly surprising that we should go over some of the same ground. I was slightly surprised by the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be arguing as his core case that because this policy was a manifesto commitment, others need to honour it. As I made clear in my intervention, and as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) did in his, it is very difficult to take that argument seriously, given that the Government themselves do not respect their manifesto promises to this country. Such an approach certainly does not add any credence to whatever claims may be made that these changes will increase the democratic effectiveness of Wales as a nation.
I shall go through some of the points that have been made, some of which, hopefully, are new. First, we must recognise that there is an attractiveness in separating the constituency and list candidatures, as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. That looks like a nice way of making it more difficult for opposing candidates from other parties to campaign in marginal seats. Indeed, I would go further: I have some experience of this issue, having observed what goes on in Montgomeryshire. Simply to argue for a change because it makes it easier for the incumbent has nothing to do with the democracy of the system. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it is justified to change the system to make it more difficult for other parties to marshal their resources and provide significant competition in a given constituency. Anyone who did that would be doing what the Government claim they are not doing, and that is gerrymandering the system.
If that were the case, I would wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, Labour Members find it distasteful that the three Opposition parties who oppose the change cannot accept the fundamental principle that losers should not become winners. They hide the fact that the main reason they oppose the change is that they do not have enough members who want to stand and would be decent enough candidates to fill both the list and the constituency vacancies.
The second part of those remarks is simply vexatious mischief. If the change goes through, we will see whether the parties have sufficient candidates. However, the change will harm the minor parties. It will necessarily cause a convergence towards larger parties and it is clear from what the hon. Gentleman says that he is pleased about that. He thinks that it is reasonable to make it difficult for start-up parties to do well in the Welsh system. The more important point is the hon. Gentleman's claim that it is fundamentally wrong that losers should become winners.
The hon. Gentleman used the term "gerrymandering", and the shadow Secretary of State for Wales talked about "rigging". My understanding of gerrymandering is that it involves clear political gain for the party that undertakes it. What is the political gain for the Labour party from the changes? The hon. Gentleman must produce some evidence if he wishes to use such strong terminology.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies in the comments by the right hon. Member for Torfaen. He is an effective parliamentarian and it has always been an honour to work with him, but he highlighted his belief that the change is necessary to reduce the likelihood of various parties focusing their resources in marginal seats. I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if I have misinterpreted what he said, but I am fairly sure that that is the meaning of what he said. We may have a genuine difference of view, but I do not think that that is a good enough justification for altering the democratic system that pertains. It is suggesting that the present system may cause discomfort and heat to the incumbent in a marginal seat, and that is a sufficiently good justification to pray in aid of this change.
My point was that the system distorts the purpose of top-up Members. When the House debated the Government of Wales Act 1998, the purpose of those Members was not only to represent the proportion of votes for parties, but to represent all the parts of the region equally. That has been perverted and distorted because political resources are put into those constituencies where the party can go for both seats.
In his heart of hearts, the right hon. Gentleman surely cannot pretend that this change has anything to do with forcing the regional list Members to represent their regions rather than their immediate locality—[Interruption.] Labour Members, including Front Benchers, seem to object to that, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of how this mechanism will ensure that individuals who have been elected as list regional Members will not tend to use their resources of time and money to focus on the locality within which they live. If the Minister is suggesting that is the reason, why has it taken five days of debate to reach that justification? Why was it merely a sedentary response to my comments?
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, but I want to respond to the more interesting of the points that he made earlier on, which also ties in with something that the right hon. Member for Torfaen said. The hon. Gentleman said that losers should not be winners. What a dramatic change for the Labour party: losers should not be winners. Where does it say that manifesto commitments secured by only a third of the popular vote mean that a party has the justification, in any democratic sense, to force through such provisions?
Labour Members know as well as I do that two thirds of the British population voted for parties that were not Labour, yet when they are talking about democracy that fact seems to go out of the window. Today, it is convenient for Members sanctimoniously to masquerade as keepers of the democratic process, but we should never forget the complete contradiction in the Government's justifying their proposed changes on the basis that there is some kind of democratic deficit in Wales, while forcing through these and many other provisions when they very well know that most of the electorate voted against their manifesto.
The hon. Gentleman is getting into what the House of Lords should do to legislation from this place. His argument seems entirely consistent with what other Liberal Democrats and Conservative Front Benchers have said since the last general election—that they have no intention of standing by the Salisbury convention because they believe that we did not properly win that election. The hon. Gentleman is introducing a second version of losers shall be winners.
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that he felt that I was urging that we have a system that disbenefited smaller parties, but the present system gives smaller parties an extraordinary advantage. My experience in south Wales is that smaller parties are smaller parties because they do not command the support of the people of Wales, and I do not think that we should give them an additional leg up.
The hon. Gentleman is obviously beginning to panic about how the upper House may interpret this debate—as well he might. Sadly, and increasingly of late, the unelected upper House remains the last stand between the authoritarian autocracy of the Government and the interests of the people and democracy as a whole—
Autocracy?
Yes, autocracy—[Interruption.] I will not be drawn on that. The hon. Gentleman should remember that English is my second language—
Not Greek?
Greek is certainly not my second language, but English is, so the hon. Gentleman should cut me some slack if he has issues with my terminology.
I want to focus on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that losers cannot be winners. Today and in previous debates, he and others have claimed as justification that the public in Wales want the proposed changes. However, just as two thirds of the British population as a whole voted against the Labour party in the 2005 general election, so too did a majority of electors in Wales. It is thus obvious that if Labour Members claim democracy as justification for making these changes to our electoral process they are contradicting their own arguments. Most people in Wales who used their vote did not support that manifesto commitment. I do not understand why it is so difficult for Government Members to grasp the contradiction between what the public said then and what the Government are saying now.
Incidentally, I do not want to stray too far from the debate, but if the Government are suddenly so concerned about what the people think, how is it that they ignored the obvious anecdotal judgments of the public about the war in Iraq, about the anti-terrorist legislation or about something that we have discussed already—
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the advice that he has just given to himself.
I value the person who gave that advice, so I will take it and I will stop there. I simply say in general terms that the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they will take the advice on one occasion and not on another.
We hear an age-old argument about the general public's confusion. We are told that they do not understand how the system works. Once again, I simply ask the Government to provide some solid hard-core data to show that people who voted either in the most recent Welsh Assembly election or perhaps even in the one before have genuinely said, "If I had understood the system better, I would have changed my vote."
The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said that, when he spoke to people in the pubs about the issue, there was a certain amount of confusion. Perhaps they were confused because they were in the pubs anyway.
And 24-hour drinking will not help the case of the right hon. Member for Torfaen. While sort of thanking the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, I want to point out that hon. Members are mixing up two things when they cite the public's alleged confusion as a justification for this change, which is nothing to do with changing the list and constituency system. All it will do is prevent individuals from exercising their human right to stand for election on the list as well as in a constituency. At the heart of it, there is nothing very complicated about our difference of view.
To summarise, it happens that it will be convenient in my constituency if the amendment is accepted, but that does not make it right. It is unquestionably convenient for some hon. Members to consider making it more difficult for their opponents; but, once again, that is not a good enough reason to monkey with the democratic system. The greatest irony of all is that the provision will make almost no difference in the way that the Government intend, but it will make a significant difference to the opportunity for individuals to express their democratic right to stand for election on the list and in a constituency.
Does the hon. Gentleman intend to join me, my party and Plaid Cymru Members in the Lobby if I ask for votes on amendments Nos. 1 and 2?
To raise the suspense, I will come to that in just a minute.
To finish off, I ask the Minister to reflect on what he is asking us to do today. Is he really so sure that he will achieve the intended goals and that, if we have such a debate again in the Chamber in four years' time, he will be able to point to evidence and say, "Look at all the things we cleared up"? I simply do not believe that. I do not believe that he really believes it either. This is a sop to bitter Labour Assembly Members who are concerned about the trouble that the Opposition parties cause in their constituencies. Therefore, I suggest that if the Government are serious about democracy rather than opportunism, they will think again. To answer the hon. Lady's question, if she chooses to divide the House on the issue, the Liberal Democrats will unquestionably support her amendment.
Opposition Members have repeatedly alleged that the proposal to disbar candidates from standing for election on the list and in constituencies is in some way to the party political advantage of the Labour party. I rise to suggest that that is entirely incorrect and that we have heard no evidence to that effect at all. On the contrary, one group will be disproportionately affected adversely if the proposal is accepted: Labour Assembly Members.
Labour Assembly Members are the largest group of directly elected Members and, if the proposal goes through, they will be prevented from using the safety net that exists under the current system for constituency Members who wish to preserve their position by remaining on the list.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Opposition parties are being extraordinarily politically generous to the Labour party by suggesting that the system should not be changed, as if it is changed, it will be to the disbenefit of the Labour party? Does that not prove that we are acting from the highest possible motives?
With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, when someone—particularly him—puts that argument to me, I immediately move to preserve my pockets.
To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, the Assembly Member, Carl Sargeant, who represents the same area as me, would, under our present system, be No. 1 on the list, as well as standing for the seat, which would obviously put him in a strong position to retain his presence in the Assembly, but he supports giving that up.
My hon. Friend is right. In north Wales, there are a number of individuals in Labour seats—some of whom are Ministers—who have very small majorities. Those are the individuals who are most at risk of losing their seats. They will not have the safety net that he described if the proposal goes through.
The Opposition, who seem to believe that the mere repetition of an argument somehow gives it logical weight, must concede that they have produced no evidence whatsoever at any stage in this extremely long and detailed debate that the proposals are to the party political advantage of the Labour party.
I have heard the Secretary of State make the same point that the hon. Gentleman is making: Labour constituency Members who might be in marginals will not have the luxury of being on the list. However, looking at the voting trends in 1997 and 2001, that is an irrelevance to Labour because it would not get any seats on the list.
The hon. Gentleman should wait for the outcome of the election, when he will discover that Labour will reassert and extend its current position. I am confident of that.
That involves a slight contradiction: if Labour does even better, it is even less likely to win seats on the list.
But it will gain more constituency seats.
My next point concerns the placement of constituency offices by list Members. With due respect to the Opposition parties, they are confused about the role of Assembly Members, which is to serve their constituents. That is the role that they should fulfil when they are elected. It is not the role of an Assembly Member, or a Member of Parliament, to campaign for an individual political party at public expense. Hon. Members know very well that there are strict regulations in the House about the spending that we incur and what it can be used for. I have been concerned by some pronouncements from Opposition Members that suggest that it is in order to use public money to campaign in individual constituencies for the benefit of political parties. That is at odds with the long-standing conventions and rules of this place and I have little doubt that it is also at odds with the conventions and rules that apply in the Assembly.
It is the role of Assembly Members to represent their constituents. For list Assembly Members, that means representing, to the best of their ability, all the people in the region. It is not appropriate for them cynically to place offices to their own political campaigning advantage in individual seats. I have seen that in my constituency, where Plaid Cymru, when I was first elected, had an office in my constituency. That Assembly Member moved the office to the Clwyd, West constituency shortly before the last Assembly elections. I believe that that was not unconnected with the fact that that individual was a candidate in that constituency.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the answer is that regional Members should have an office in every constituency? The situation would then be even-handed. Regional Members would then be representing the regions that he says they should be representing. A Member of the European Union Parliament can open an office wherever he wants within his constituency. Since the Government entered office, that applies from Buckinghamshire down to Brighton and includes the whole of Wales. I think that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the roles of our elected Members. Should he not be pleased that a regional Member can open an office in his constituency and give more representation to the people, instead of being such a dog in the manger? Or is he like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), who says that he has 11 MSPs interfering in his constituency?
I am surprised that such an experienced Member should make such a protracted and ineffective intervention. I fully understand the role of Assembly Members. If the hon. Lady had been paying attention to what I said earlier, she would understand that my argument was that the role of Assembly Members was to represent individuals within a constituency. If it is Conservative party policy to suggest that every Assembly Member in a region should be entitled to have an office in each individual constituency, perhaps the general electorate should be told that. That may influence people in casting their vote in the next Assembly elections.
There are Assembly offices in north Wales. Does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea that Members should have an office there rather than wasting taxpayers' money having them where they obviously choose to target certain seats?
The essence of my point is that Assembly Members should represent the people in their constituency and not use public money for party campaigning and for political purposes. It is in this respect that the helpful memorandum from Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru was so informative. The memo makes it clear what such expenses have been used for in the past.
I am an old-fashioned type of Member. I believe that it is the role of public representatives to represent each individual constituent, regardless of party political affiliation, to the best of their ability. Accordingly, I believe that the proposal before us will help each individual Member to fulfil that role in a better way.
I shall comment on what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said about what Leanne Wood had or had not included in her letter. Let us remind ourselves that she was fully exonerated by the Assembly Committee. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, or perhaps there is, because that is the sort of bloke that he is. The point is that Leanne Wood was fully exonerated, and that should be placed on record. We have to dwell on this issue to fill a void, because there is no real reason for the change other than narrow party political gain. It is astonishing that he has to pray in aid a young woman who has been exonerated for what she said already. I give way to the sponsor of the Bevan Foundation report.
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am very proud of that report. He referred to Leanne Wood AM. Does he think she was right or wrong to say what she said?
A certain gentleman from Wales was recently on "Question Time". He was asked about matters which he said were dealt with in this place, and he had no opinion on those matters. What we are discussing is a devolved matter. I have no opinion on it. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Opening the debate, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) mentioned the Richard commission. It produced an excellent piece of work. Eighteen months of deliberation, evidence taking and examination of all aspects of the governance of Wales resulted in a very useful report. I shall not dwell on it. My party's view is obvious: its recommendations should have been implemented.
Despite examining all aspects of Welsh governance and taking hundreds of pages of evidence from dozens of witnesses, the report made no such recommendation as the proposal under discussion. The Richard commission considered how many Members there should be in the Assembly and favoured increasing the membership. As we know, the commission recommended primary powers at the next stage, but it made no recommendation along these lines.
The commission was better placed at that time to look into everything. Everyone who wished to give evidence, from all political parties and none, was allowed to give evidence. That was a model way of dealing with the subject. Curiously, no one seems to have given evidence along the lines that hon. Gentlemen are arguing. Had that been the case, it would have been included in the report and the commission would have reached some conclusion about it. If there was the kind of concern that the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) encounters in the pubs that he obviously frequents, the commission would clearly have made some recommendation. We have heard nothing about the matter from the Richard commission, so that concern could not have been expressed.
I have a great regard for the right hon. Gentleman, who says that he has picked up on such concern when he visits his constituents. I can straightforwardly and honestly say that during my travels throughout Wales in the past seven or eight years, the matter has not been broached with me. I will admit that on occasion, one or two people have expressed some confusion about the new system, especially early on, but never from 1997 to the present day has anyone said to me, "This is unfair." I say that in all honesty. I have not heard it. Had I heard it, I would relay it to the House, as it would inform the debate. It has not happened, even during our debates over the past weeks.
Many people out there follow our debates, and they have not seen fit to raise the issue, even now. If there was such unfairness as is alleged, surely during the debate somebody would have expressed some opinion to that effect, perhaps in a letter column or in a local newspaper. Had such a complaint appeared in a local newspaper, I have no doubt that the Government would have used it in the debate today. The truth is that there is no evidence whatsoever, although I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is a truthful man and there may be some confusion on Torfaen. He would not mislead the House, of that I am sure, but I tell him, equally honestly, that I have never had the matter broached with me.
The issue that I have addressed both today and some weeks ago is that the system with which we now elect our Assembly Members is confusing in terms of accountability—who represents what and how people can be elected for different places. Generally, the system is confusing for our electors. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issues that we have been discussing for the past three or four weeks are not generally on everybody's lips in our constituencies. I am not saying for one second that they are, but people who are interested in such matters express dismay at what they see.
As I said, the right hon. Gentleman and myself are as one on the fact there has been some confusion about the system, especially early on. I admit that, but I also point out that, in the past few years, in the run-up to the previous election and since, I have heard nothing along those lines, although there was confusion to begin with.
On the so-called evidence that has been produced by the Bevan Foundation, we have been through all these matters before on 30 January. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has given an excellent synopsis of the rather threadbare Bevan Foundation report. We are told that the report is thoroughly independent and that the Bevan Foundation is politically unaligned. If anybody can listen to that suggestion without laughing, there must be something wrong because it is clearly nothing short of a front for the Labour party.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are members of Plaid Cymru in the Bevan Foundation?
Yes, and one member of Plaid Cymru asked for the annual accounts and was refused them. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] The hon. Gentleman flew into that one. All I shall say is that a sample of 47 people is about as useful as a pair of paper socks, as it does not take us anywhere at all. The process is not scientific. I have heard programmes on which the hon. Gentleman has said about a political sample, "Oh, this is a sample of only 500; it is not indicative of anything." Well, 47 is not exactly persuasive. For all I know, some of the 47 had been in the pub that has been mentioned and were confused before they started. Who knows?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the narrative in the report is interesting? At one stage, it states that a substantial minority of respondents supported dual candidacy and commented that it was fair for people to have a second chance and that it gave voters a choice and spread power. The report says that it was regarded as part of the democratic system and essentially as not a problem. I hope that he will join me in the Lobby if we vote on the amendment.
Absolutely. We are fixed in our view that the premise is unfair and that the case has simply not been made. I recall comments made by the Secretary of State, who is not present, about Sir James Arbuthnott and what would have happened if he had been aware of the Welsh scene. The hon. Lady dealt with that point, so I shall not repeat it, but I think that it was appalling to make such assertions in respect of a highly regarded academic such as Sir James. It was not proper to pray in aid such sneering remarks to try to put together a cogent and believable case—a case that has clearly not been made. The hon. Lady also referred to what was said in response to such assertions, which was definite and clear. We can forget about that strand of the argument in support of this specious and rather nasty change in electoral practice.
The Secretary of State has not been exactly forthcoming in giving good reasons to support the proposed change in the law and he was not very good on police amalgamations either. Both examples show an abject failure to advance a credible case. I have to ask this question: what is the point of the Electoral Commission? Why do we have one? What is the remit of the electoral commissioner and why was he recently reappointed to that remunerated office at public expense? I may be wrong, but I thought that the electoral commissioner was there to ensure safeguards and fair play for all involved in the political system, regardless of party allegiance.
We all know that the electoral commissioner is an even-handed and fair-minded man who dealt with all parties equally when he was involved in the broadcasting scene. His report is definite that there is no case for change, and it contains some strong remarks, including saying that that particular issue did not figure in the extensive research:
"We asked a whole series of questions and sought unprompted replies and this issue did not arise".
That ties in with my point. The report continues:
"what concerns us is that there is no evidence whatever in the White Paper to back up this proposal. There is no evidence at all to back up this proposal and therefore we came to the conclusion that we think that the case for change has not been made".
The hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid various people in Wales, including Glyn Mathias and Lord Richard, who has said that there
"is something wrong in a situation in which five people can stand in Clwyd, none of them can be elected, and then they all get into the Assembly. On the face of it that does not make sense".
Many people in Wales think that that does not make sense. What is the difference between what Lord Richard said and what Glyn Mathias said, and which one of them does the hon. Gentleman support?
It is a question of research and evidence. Lord Richard expressed his personal opinion before the Welsh Affairs Committee, but his report does not refer to the subject. Returning to my opening point, I find it strange that nobody raised the question in the 18 months of consideration, but that is by the by.
I will not labour the point with further quotations: suffice to say that Dr. Scully and Dr. Richard Wyn Jones from Aberystwyth have used strident language in stating that the measure looks like a purely party political move by the Labour party, and the evidence from Barry Winestrobe, reader in law at Napier university, is very clear, too. We did not receive any evidence in Committee, apart from the fabled Bevan Foundation report, and frankly we have not received any evidence today. In Committee, I asked the right hon. Member for Torfaen to bring the paperwork showing his constituents' concerns. I would not and do not doubt his word, but it would interesting to see some extrinsic evidence supporting the point made by Labour Members.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to "The Mount" in Cwmbran on Friday night, where we can discuss the matter.
That is a kind offer, and I must look at my diary—I may well be going on a fact-finding tour on Friday evening.
The change has not been proven to be necessary. It will benefit the Labour party and it will disadvantage all other parties. Dual candidature is acceptable in other countries—in some countries, people are expected to stand both in a constituency and on a list—but it has suddenly become wrong in Wales. It has probably become wrong in Wales because Labour Members have done the sums and realised that they will not get anywhere in the National Assembly without cooking the books. However, I tell them that even after cooking the books, they will not get anywhere in 2007.
We have heard Opposition Members claim that this measure is partisan, gerrymandering, rigged, fixed and so on, yet not one has been able to provide any evidence whatsoever.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked why the ban on dual candidacy will apply in Wales whereas other countries with the additional member system do not ban it. He has not done his research. It applies in Ukraine, which people seem to laugh at—[Laughter.] They laugh again. It also applies in Thailand and Mexico.
Very few countries have the additional member system, so there is not a great deal of evidence. Independent commissions in New Zealand and in Canada have raised substantial issues in relation to dual candidacy.
Will the Minister give way?
No, because I have only six more minutes.
In New Zealand, public opinion research conducted by the independent review committee appointed to examine the electoral system found:
"One key criticism was that it was possible for MPs to be defeated in electorate contests but returned to the House through their position on the list."
In New Brunswick, the independent commission endorsed the ban on dual candidacy, saying:
"The Commission heard that in some jurisdictions where candidates are able to run simultaneously on both ballots, voters are displeased with the case where a candidate is not successful in a single member constituency, but is elected anyway by virtue of being placed on the top of a party's list."
That is some of the evidence that is available, but there is more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) quoted Lord Richard on people not liking losers becoming winners. More than that, Lord Carlile, the predecessor of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), said:
"I am sure that many in Wales will welcome . . . the removal of the absurd dual candidacy opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1217.]
What about a Conservative peer? Lord Crickhowell, the former Tory Secretary of State for Wales, said:
"The present arrangements are really pretty indefensible".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1216.]
A wide range of opinion across the political spectrum recognises that it is wrong.
The hon. Lady is aware that I have to wind up by 5.36 pm. She had better be extremely brief, given that she spoke for more than half an hour.
That is because I feel strongly on the subject. I just wanted to quote some of the good people of Caerphilly, who say:
"It is good that people have more than one chance.";
"They should be free to stand in both ballots—that seems fair enough.";
"That means that the power is spread out which can make more of a difference in the end."
They are in a minority.
Absolutely. As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, they are in a minority. Does the hon. Lady want me to quote the others? For example:
"I think it is unfair . . . it's like people can sneak in the back door.";
"It doesn't seem right that they can stand for both somehow. Makes it too confusing for everyday people.";
"They should choose perhaps. They should have to decide.";
"You don't have two bites of the cherry."
Those are the quotes from the Bevan Foundation report that the hon. Lady did not use.
We had a good debate in Committee, where we spent more than two and a half hours discussing the matter. We have now debated it for a considerable time. Let me deal with some of the amendments briefly.
I urge my hon. Friends to oppose amendment No. 1. The ban on dual candidacy was a manifesto commitment and the amendment would reinstate the status quo. That means that dual candidacy and all that that entails would continue.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and new clause 4 would also contradict the manifesto commitment, for which clause 7 provides, by allowing a candidate who has been elected to fill a constituency vacancy at a by-election to stand as both a constituency candidate and a regional list candidate at the subsequent general election. They go further and would enable candidates to stand on a regional list and in any constituency, even outside the region. That would not happen even under the current arrangements.
Amendment No. 2 would enable any candidate who was on a regional list to stay on it and fill a regional vacancy if one occurred. As drafted, it would even cover candidates whose return was void, but I take it that the intention was to cover those who decide to stand in a by-election. Voters clearly do not understand how defeated constituency candidates can be elected through the back door on their party's regional list. The new provision will restore voters' democratic right to reject a constituency candidate. That is as important as the right to elect a candidate but some hon. Members do not appear to appreciate that.
The current system undermines electoral confidence at a time when we need to increase voter turnout. The proposals would affect all parties equally, not least three members of the Assembly Cabinet who stand to lose their seats if there is a significant swing against them, with no parachute, which Conservative Members demand.
As I said, criticism of dual candidacy has come from across the political spectrum. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to withdraw the amendment.
I have listened to the Under-Secretary and I disagree with him. He has not made his case and I should therefore like to press the amendment to a Division.
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
Clause 11 — Electoral Region Vacancies
Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 7, line 43, leave out subsection (8).—[Mrs. Gillan.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Clause 22 — Remuneration: supplementary
Amendments made: No. 32, in page 13, line 40, leave out 'immediately before' and insert 'when'.
No. 33, in page 14, line 2, leave out 'immediately before' and insert 'when'.—[Nick Ainger.]
Clause 23 — Oath or affirmation of allegiance
I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 14, line 15, after 'affirmation)', insert
'or in the form of the Assembly Oath set out in subsection (1A)'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 21, in page 14, line 16, at end insert—
'(1A) The wording of the Assembly Oath shall be—
"I do solemnly swear to discharge the responsibilities required of me to the best of my abilities and faithfully serve the people of Wales whom I here represent".'.
New clause 5—Oath to be taken or affirmation to be made in public—
'An oath required by section 23 or 55 is to be taken (or the corresponding affirmation made) in public.'.
My hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which are self-explanatory and provide an alternative oath for incoming Members of the National Assembly for Wales. Amendment No. 21 provides the wording for such an oath:
"I do solemnly swear to discharge the responsibilities required of me to the best of my abilities and faithfully serve the people of Wales whom I . . . represent".
That is a modern approach to the swearing of an oath. The sovereignty of the people of Wales dictates that elected Members of the National Assembly are voted in by the citizens of Wales, so an alternative oath should be implemented. Ultimately, that may be a matter for the National Assembly itself, but we thought that it would be useful to hold such a debate now. I have nothing further to add, but I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to make a contribution. These are probing amendments, and I can tell the Minister that I do not wish to press them to a vote.
I do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) because, as I said in Committee, I have experience of the Scottish Parliament and am aware that a great deal of legislation is based on bringing Assembly procedures in line with those used in the Scottish Parliament. I do not know how many Members have followed in detail the work of the Scottish Parliament in the past six years, but when swearing the prescribed Oath, members of fringe parties often seek to perform stunts by delivering another oath or affirmation. On one occasion, a Member sought to write a message for the wider public on their hand during the Oath-taking ceremony. I do not accept that such behaviour is worthy of Members of either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. There is no suggestion in the amendments that such activities are planned, but the wording of amendment No. 21 is very close to the wording that members of the Scottish National party have attempted to use in the Scottish Parliament. If Members do not wish to swear the oath to Her Majesty, I do not understand why they cannot be satisfied with the ordinary affirmation procedure, rather than seeking to bring forward some new procedure, which does not add anything to either the process or the solemnity of the duties that they are undertaking.
I wish for a change to be made in regard to the swearing of the oath or affirmation in public. I can see no reason why the ceremony should not be held in public. Indeed, if Members were to engage in public in the sort of antics that I have described, I think that the wider general public would see the respect, or lack of it, with which they treated the institution. Therefore, I, together with other colleagues, have tabled new clause 5, which would require the oath to be taken in public. I hope that the Minister will not have difficulty accepting such a proposal.
Obviously, it would be a free vote if this matter were divided on in the House, but I understand that the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in order to have a debate. That is a legitimate aim.
Speaking in a personal capacity, I have to say that I quite like the Queen and I hope she likes me. In case she reads this, I would want her to know that I am very keen on people having the opportunity to swear an oath of allegiance to her and indeed to the future king of England, currently the Prince of Wales. In that sense, perhaps we have a vested interest in keeping sweet with the monarch.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), it is interesting and valid to suggest that the oath be taken in public. Many of us have benefited from the interest that taking the oath generates at the beginning of a parliamentary term. I cannot see why that would not be allowed. I seek the Minister's guidance on whether there is anything to prevent the oath being taken in public. Perhaps an etiquette could be established. Obviously, it is not for us but for the Assembly to decide whether it is a matter of etiquette, but it would be helpful to hear an assurance from the Minister that there is nothing in law to prevent the Assembly from ensuring that the oath be taken in public.
I disagree with amendment No. 20 because I see it as another attempt to undermine the principle that all parliamentarians should swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. That is very important. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), it is not about whether we like the Queen or, indeed, whether she likes us; it is about supporting the British constitution, which has served us extremely well since 1688. It is vital that we recognise that it is the monarch who is the head of state. I do not think that that could be more vital at the moment, because we appear to have a Prime Minister who sometimes thinks that he is the head of state. That is another reason why I am pleased to read about the thoughts of the person who I hope will be the next monarch of the United Kingdom.
I support the principle of holding the oath ceremony in public. Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to relate an anecdote about how I happened to become the Father of the House in the Welsh Assembly. A couple of days after I was successfully elected to represent Monmouth, I went out to celebrate with the former Member of Parliament for Clwyd, West, who was elected at the same time as me. Waking up in his house in Cardiff, we decided to go to have a look at the Welsh Assembly before we were officially sworn in 48 hours later. We arrived, whereupon an official said, "Now you are here boys, why don't you come and swear the oath in my private office?" We did so. My colleague subsequently resigned. I then became the Father of the House, being the longest serving Member. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is laughing. I had the satisfaction, half an hour after taking the oath, of seeing the leader of the Liberal Democrats with his posse of Members arriving with a load of TV cameras thinking that they were going to be the first to take the oath.
Order. We must now return to the amendment under discussion.
I think that it makes the point that there must surely be better ways of swearing in elected Members of the Welsh Assembly. I suggest that some public ceremony, perhaps taking the form that the ceremony takes when Members of Parliament are sworn in, would be a great improvement. Therefore, I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell).
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are an attempt to alter clause 23. They would have the effect of allowing Assembly Members the option of swearing an alternative oath to
"serve the people of Wales"
rather than to
"be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty".
The wording of the current oath is the constitutional standard that has been established by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. It is the same oath that is taken by Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is the Government's view that this Bill is not the place to challenge that long-standing convention.
Of course, there is a different position in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), it has been recognised across the House, including by Conservative Front Benchers recently in the debate on allowances for Members from Sinn Fein, that Northern Ireland constitutes a special position. On that occasion, the Conservative party proposed that an oath of allegiance to the Queen should not be required for Members of Sinn Fein if they wish to take their seats in this House. However, the Government's position is that, in taking seats in the House and in the National Assembly for Wales, albeit acknowledging the special position of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the oath of allegiance should remain.
New clause 5 stipulates that the oath should be taken in public. As well as affecting clause 23, it would impact on clause 55, which deals with Ministers—we now have the separation of Ministers, the Assembly Government and the Assembly itself— taking the oath of office.
In response to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), it is possible for the oath to be taken in public by Members of the National Assembly. In fact, if what I read in the newspapers is anything to go by, it will be extremely difficult for anyone not to take the oath in public in the National Assembly since all the walls are made of glass in the new building, but there is no reason why the oath should not be taken in public. In fact, at the Assembly Committee that considered the Bill on 1 February, there was a discussion of the oath and a similar amendment was moved by the Conservative Member David Melding. He agreed to withdraw that on the basis of the Minister's promise that the matter would be considered when the Assembly's Standing Orders were discussed in the near future. Therefore, there is no reason why Assembly Members could not take the oath in public.
As I have mentioned, clause 55 is a new clause and is consequential on the establishment of the Welsh Assembly Government. Again, it is in line with provisions for UK and Scottish Ministers.
The only change that has been made to the provisions from the Government of Wales Act 1998 is to specify that, under clause 23(2), the person before whom the oath is to be taken is to be specified in Standing Orders, which is properly a matter for the Assembly itself to determine. The approach that has been taken was agreed during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill in 1998 and the Government see no reason to change the decisions that were taken at that time. The ceremony has been in operation for six years in the Assembly, through two Assembly general elections and by-elections, without challenge, but there is the opportunity, during the discussion of the Standing Orders, as I have mentioned, for the Assembly to look at the matter again. I understand that that is what it intends to do. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) to withdraw the amendment.
I am thoroughly unpersuaded but this is perhaps a debate for another day, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 — Assembly Commission
I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 17, line 17, at end insert
'not belonging to the same political group.'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 14, in page 18, line 11, leave out clause 29.
Amendment No. 3, in page 18, line 14, clause 29, leave out subsections (2) to (9) and insert—
'(1A) The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that in apportioning Members to committees and sub-committees regard is had to the balance of political parties represented in the Assembly.'.
Amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 14, clause 29, leave out subsections (2) to (9) and insert—
'(1A) The members of any committee established by the Assembly under section 28(1)—
(a) shall be elected by the Assembly from among the Assembly members, and
(b) shall, unless that committee exists solely to provide advice, be elected so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the committee.
(1B) The committees established by the Assembly under section 28(1) shall be, as far as is practicable, chaired by members of political parties in proportion to the number of members of the Assembly belonging to each party.'.
New clause 8—Composition and chairing of committees—
'(1) The provision included in the standing orders in compliance with section 28(3) must meet the requirements of this section.
(2) The provision must secure that the membership of each committee and sub-committee reflects the balance of political parties represented in the Assembly.
(3) The provision must secure that, taken together, the chairmen of the committees and sub-committees reflect the balance of political parties represented in the Assembly.
(4) The provision must secure that the Presiding Officer decides questions arising under provision made in compliance with this section.'.
This string of amendments is about political balance and how the Assembly Commission will be set up. I look forward to hearing what other Members with amendments in this string have to say in defence of their ideas, but I believe that we have a lot in common in what we are trying to achieve.
Amendment No. 30 would ensure cross-party representation on the Assembly Commission, which will have various responsibilities and functions, such as those relating to
"property, rights or liabilities acquired or incurred in relation to matters to which the Assembly would otherwise be entitled".
As far as I can see, nothing in the Bill as drafted guarantees such cross-party representation, so I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, which is fairly uncontroversial. It would simply add to clause 27 the phrase
"not belonging to the same political group".
In other words, we are trying to ensure cross-party representation on the commission, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will accept the amendment. I really cannot see for the life of me how they could find it controversial.
On the composition of the Committees themselves, we have tabled Amendment No. 31, which would ensure that:
"The members of any committee established by the Assembly under section 28(1) shall be elected by the Assembly from among the Assembly members, and . . . shall, unless that committee exists solely to provide advice, be elected so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the committee."
It would also ensure that:
"The committees established by the Assembly under section 28(1) shall be, as far as is practicable, chaired by members of political parties in proportion to the number of members of the Assembly belonging to each party."
As I said earlier, other amendments allude to similar issues, but here we are seeking to ensure a fair balance of representation in the Assembly. When the Assembly was set up some years ago, we were assured that it would constitute a new kind of politics. Well, in order to ensure that, it is also necessary to ensure a cross-party kind of politics. We have spent a lot of time discussing the various proportions within the Assembly and Members' concerns about how Assembly Members are elected. Here is a chance for the Government to be consistent and to show that they really do embrace the concept of democracy that was so lauded in an earlier debate.
If the Government intend to refuse to accept Amendment No. 31, they need to assure us that proper cross-party representation will none the less be genuinely enshrined within the Assembly's structures. I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's comments, but I hope that he will allow me to intervene if he tries to argue that the import of amendment No. 31 is already covered elsewhere in the Bill. I do not believe that it is, and I shall be rather concerned if he neither accepts the amendment nor can actually point to a specific part of the Bill in which its import already exists.
I shall conclude with those few words, while retaining the option to respond to the Minister when he winds up.
I wish to state our broad support for amendment No. 30, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and his colleagues. We believe that it makes sense for the membership of the Assembly Commission to reflect the range of parties represented in the Assembly. In speaking to amendments Nos. 14 and 3 and new clause 8, I want also to express sympathy with amendment No. 31, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which aims to achieve a similar outcome.
Our purpose in proposing to replace clause 29 with new clause 8 is straightforward. Unlike the Government, we want to ensure the greatest possible degree of inclusiveness and sharing of responsibility in the Assembly Committee system. As the Bill makes clear, the Committee system will continue to play a very important role in the Assembly's work by holding the Assembly Government and individual Ministers properly to account. However, under the Bill as drafted, the first place on each Committee will go to members of the largest political grouping in the Assembly, which is currently the Labour party. So as matters stand, in addition to having a Labour Assembly Government, the first place on each Committee will go to a Labour Assembly Member. Likewise, if the Conservative party became the largest party in the Assembly and formed the Government, it would have first place on the Committees. We are not making a partisan point—we believe that that arrangement gives an inbuilt and unfair advantage to one party.
The Committees should be representative of the Assembly as a whole. Instead of the complicated system set out in clause 29, we propose a simple formula that would ensure that, in appointing members to Committees and Sub-Committees, regard be had to the balance of political parties in the Assembly. It is worth noting that part 2 of the Bill contains a series of clauses relating to the Welsh Assembly Government under the heading
"'Inclusive' approach to exercise of functions".
We believe that the Committees should operate on the same principle and should be properly inclusive. Indeed, we feel so strongly about this issue that we will press the amendment to a vote, should the Minister not respond to our satisfaction.
The one-time Member for Llanelli, the right hon. Denzil Davies, was never a fan of things Belgian. Indeed, he was never a fan of things European in general. He once told me over a cup of tea in the Tea Room that he believed that Monsieur d'Hondt himself did not understand the d'Hondt system. What proof he had I am not sure, but I believed him at the time and I rather wonder whether applying the d'Hondt system to the Committee structure of the National Assembly for Wales has any merit whatsoever.
Clause 29 seems to place the Assembly in a unique position in comparison with other devolved UK legislatures. Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prescribes d'Hondt arrangements for Ministers, Committee Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen, but not for Committee membership as a whole; nor do the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly require d'Hondt to be used. Strand 1 of the Northern Ireland agreement states:
"There will be a Committee for each of the main executive functions of the Northern Ireland Administration. The Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the Assembly Committees will be allocated proportionally, using the d'Hondt system. Membership of the Committees will be in broad proportion to party strengths in the Assembly to ensure that the opportunity of Committee places is available to all members."
That is the crux of the matter. In my view, it is unacceptable to apply d'Hondt to the selection of Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs, but it is wrong in principle for it to be applied to the Committee places available to Assembly Members.
In Scotland, an attempt was made to apply d'Hondt principles to Committee membership at the outset of the Scottish Parliament, but that was abandoned when changes were made to accommodate the minority parties with a single Member. The d'Hondt principles are, however, used in allocating Members' business and selecting Conveners—the Chairs of Committees. The principles are not used to allocate membership of Committees.
I was unable to find any evidence of other parliamentary bodies required to use the d'Hondt formula for selecting Committees by law, or indeed in rules of procedure. Nevertheless, it may be the case that some legislatures have the d'Hondt principles entrenched, but I have not come across them.
West Germany ceased using the d'Hondt method to distribute Committee seats in the Bundestag in 1970. The current Bundestag website states:
"At the beginning of each electoral term, one of the first tasks of the Council of Elders is to reach agreement on the distribution of committee chairs, and deputy chairs, among the parliamentary groups. The number and size of committees, as well as the system used to determine their composition, which is proportional to the relative strengths of the parliamentary groups, are decided ultimately by the Bundestag. As a rule, it bases its decisions on agreements reached among all the parliamentary groups in the House (cross-party agreements).
Until 1970, the relative strengths of the parliamentary groups were calculated using the d'Hondt method, which was also used to calculate the outcome of federal elections until the Bundestag's tenth term (1983). The result, however, tended to favour the larger parties."
One body that does use the d'Hondt formula to select its Committees is the European Parliament, but this is not prescribed by its rules of procedure.
Scottish Standing Orders were drawn up following the recommendations of the Scottish Parliament consultative steering group, which recommended:
"In making recommendations on Committee membership to the Plenary, the Business Committee must have due regard to the balance of parties within the Parliament. Selection of members must not be on the basis of random selection.
The Business Committee, having due regard to the balance of parties within the Parliament, should propose the political party from which a Committee's Convener should be elected. The Committee's members would then elect their Convener subject to that limitation."
Scottish Parliament Standing Orders state:
"1. The membership of each committee shall be decided by the Parliament on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau.
2. Each committee other than a Private Bill Committee shall have at least 5 but not more than 15 members.
3. A member may indicate to the Parliamentary Bureau his or her interest in serving on a particular committee.
4. In proposing a member to be a committee member, the Parliamentary Bureau shall have regard to the balance of political parties in the Parliament and, where that member has expressed an interest in serving on that committee, to his or her qualifications and experience as indicated by him or her."
However, early in the life of the Parliament, the intention had been to apply the d'Hondt principles. In the debate on the selection of Committee members on 17 June 1999, the then Parliament Minister, Tom McCabe MSP, stated:
"The Parliamentary Bureau asked the four party business managers if they could reach agreement on this potentially difficult issue and they undertook to discuss the matter. In the background of those discussions was the desire that Messrs Harper, Sheridan and Canavan could be accommodated on a committee within the Parliament. Clearly, in determining the size of the committees, we had to strike a balance between the need to manage MSPs' time for their chamber and constituency commitments and the time that they would spend in committee.
We agreed to use the d'Hondt formula for the allocation of committee places. That formula would not provide any places for Messrs Canavan, Harper or Sheridan, but the parties were determined to resist that. In a spirit of fairness, they were determined to find some formula that would allocate a place to each of those three members.
The d'Hondt formula would have allocated six places on an 11-member committee to the Labour party. To Labour's credit, it immediately recognised that, as it does not have a majority in this chamber, it would not be fair for it to have six places."
That is the crucial point.
According to the best evidence that I have been able to garner and the advice that I have taken, even if Labour were narrowly beaten in the National Assembly next summer—as I hope—it would still be in the majority on all the Committees. That cannot be right for a democratic institution and I urge the Minister to look again at the whole matter. If clause 29 goes through, it will bring the whole process into disrepute. We have already heard the word "gerrymandering" this evening, but this is gerrymandering writ large, and it is an unacceptable way to proceed. There is an Independent AM in Cardiff, who would never sit on a Committee. However, it would be even worse if the Labour party were to retain a majority on the Committees without being in power. That would be unacceptable to any parliamentary set-up. I hope that the proposal will be reconsidered as a matter of urgency.
The Minister has been shaking his head from time to time while I have been speaking, but I have models that prove what I have said. A Committee of 10 members would provide the best match for the political balance, but 10-member Committees are not normal in the National Assembly because it would mean AMs having to serve on several Committees, given that there are only 60 AMs. Under the pure d'Hondt formula, single Independent Members would not gain a seat on a Committee until each Committee had more than 50 members.
Two models were considered by the Panel of Chairs in December. Both involved six-member Committees. Further options have been considered, some with eight members and some with 10 members. With eight-member Committees and under the pure d'Hondt formula, Labour would have four members, Plaid Cymru would have two and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats one each. That does not come close to reflecting the current party balance. It does not give a minimum number of places to reflect current party group membership for Labour or the Conservatives, unless Measure Committees are also included—but the Conservatives would still be under-represented—and there would be no room for Independents. That model, and the same model with an additional Standing Committee, would not come close to the minimum number of places to reflect the current party balance. The Conservatives would still be under-represented and Independents would not be included.
A 10-member Committee would produce five places for Labour, two for Plaid Cymru, two for the Conservatives and one for the Liberal Democrats, which is closer to the current party balance. However, the Conservatives would still be under-represented and other parties would be over-represented. Such a Committee would give the minimum number of places to reflect current party group membership, but it would not include Independents and would mean a far greater work load, because Members would have to serve on at least two, and possibly three, Committees. There are two further models but, to cut things short, I can find no evidence that a d'Hondt system would reflect the true political balance of the Assembly.
As the Minister knows, in earlier debates we tabled an amendment drawn largely from Scottish Standing Orders. In effect, it would have made it incumbent on Committees to reflect political strengths in the Assembly. With respect, I suggest that that is the way to proceed. I cannot understand why we need to consider such a complex procedure, which has been shown to be unfair to several political parties—although, curiously, it is always over-fair to the Labour party except in one model.
I mentioned earlier the danger that the clause will be seen as gerrymandering. It is insidious. I have had private discussions with the Minister about the clause and hope that he will reflect on it, because it has caused outrage across the Assembly and I feel sure that their lordships will take a dim view of it. Much of the Bill is commendable and acceptable and I want it to proceed quickly, but I fear that the clause will be a sticking point in the other place. The Minister said that he had been discussing it with officials over the past three or four weeks. Obviously, I am not privy to discussions between Ministers and civil servants so I do not know how far they have gone. Suffice it to say that if clause 29 is retained, it will be a red rag to a bull in the other place. It will reflect badly on the whole Bill and make its passage far more difficult and—I regret to say—rightly so. I do not like to use the word, but the clause is nothing short of gerrymandering and has no evidence base. If I am wrong, the Minister can explain why.
When the Minister replies, will he tell me what is wrong with the Scottish model, whereby Committees are formed according to the relative strengths in the Parliament, and on which we based our earlier amendments? That would be the best way forward. It would give some slight latitude, but more important it would provide for minority parties as well as for the majority party. Clause 29 is the wrong avenue and if the amendments are pushed to a Division, I shall vote for them.
I want briefly to make two points. First, many people regard the d'Hondt system as extremely fair. We cannot go into mathematical details, but we can consider the precedents. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the Northern Ireland example and to strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement, which I chaired, and which set up the Northern Ireland Assembly. Often, when the parties were trying to find the fairest system, they fell back on d'Hondt as the fairest method for appointing Ministers and Chairs of Committees.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the system was used in calculating the number of regional list Members of the Welsh Assembly—something we discussed an hour or so ago. It is not a discredited system. He did not say that, but certain people in Wales claim that the system is unfair and discredited. The hon. Gentleman said that it was used to appoint the Chairs of Committees but not for the membership; none the less I am sure that he would be the first to agree that the system as such is not deemed unfair. I spent many weeks discussing it and people came to the conclusion that it was a fair system of allocation.
My second point, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, is that the Assembly, on a two thirds majority, can decide to adopt a different system. A good aspect of the clause is that it would enable people, if they felt strongly about d'Hondt, to arrive at a system that was acceptable across the political spectrum. Under subsection (8) the clause can be overridden in its entirety by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly. It would provide a stable fall-back provision if the parties in the Assembly were unable to reach agreement on determining political balance.
The Assembly can also determine the size and numbers of Committees; for example, there was an argument for small Committees. The most significant point is that the Assembly itself has the opportunity to decide what method of proportionality it uses for Committee membership. It is better for the Assembly to do that than for a method to be imposed, but if that has to be done the d'Hondt system is a reasonable one.
I have been asked to keep my remarks short, so I shall make only one point.
We spent the first two hours of our debates today listening to the Government maintain that changes to the electoral system had to be made because the current system was too complicated. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made a fine speech pointing out that members of the public said that the system was too complicated and that nobody understood it, yet the Government want to make a change to the Committee structure of the Welsh Assembly that will clearly be more complicated than the existing system. Not even the right hon. Gentleman could say that it has been called for by any member of the public. In all my years as a Welsh Assembly Member, no one has ever said to me: "Mr. Davies, I think we should change the way Committee members are chosen and move over to the d'Hondt system." I challenge any Member to say that members of the public have said that to them.
The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, because the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) informed us that people in his local pub said, "We want d'Hondt." Instead of just the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) going to Torfaen, perhaps we should all go, to visit the most politicised pub in the country.
With the exception of the right hon. Member for Torfaen's local, not many people seem to be calling for the d'Hondt system to be imposed on the Committee structure of the Welsh Assembly. It certainly does not happen in Monmouthshire.
Of course people would not say that. I entirely agree that d'Hondt is not on the lips of every one of our constituents, but I think they would say that if the Assembly had the chance to work out a system on which all its Members agreed, they would support that. That is the point of the clause.
With respect, I think people would say that any Government organisation that sets a bar of two thirds to change Standing Orders does so to make such a change difficult. The right hon. Gentleman has many years of experience and knows perfectly well that, just as turkeys would not vote for Christmas, the Labour party in the Welsh Assembly will not vote for a system that would make it harder for its Members to have a majority in Committees.
The right hon. Gentleman said that members of the public have talked about winners and losers, but they will say that it is grossly unfair that the Labour party can be in a minority in the Welsh Assembly while its Members are in a majority on all the Assembly's Committees. That is gerrymandering. It is rigging, and not even someone with the right hon. Gentleman's many years in the House could pretend anything else.
Obviously, this is a very complex matter and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I go through the detail, especially in addressing some of the points made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
On amendment No. 30, which was moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), clause 27 sets up the Assembly commission, thus ensuring that the Assembly has all the property, staff and services that it requires. Amendment No. 30 would insert a requirement that the members of the Assembly commission, other than the Presiding Officer, should not belong to the same political group. The amendment would impose an unnecessary statutory constraint. The Government of Wales Act 1998 has been criticised for placing too many limits on the Assembly, and the Government have made it clear that we intend to give the Assembly as much freedom as possible to make its own decisions about how it will work.
The Government are increasingly schizophrenic. They have introduced some incredibly complicated arrangements, such as the d'Hondt system, while saying that they want to keep things simple. Surely, the Minister must accept that, with something as important as the commission, the Government have a responsibility to ensure statutory cross-party representation. Of all things, the commission should be above party politics.
As I move on through my brief, perhaps I can explain to the hon. Gentleman the fact that we are seeking to allow the Assembly to determine how it wants to set up the commission. Bearing in mind all the work that has gone on in the Assembly during the past six years, I would be surprised if the Assembly commission did not reflect the political balance or certainly include members of all parties.
If the Assembly wishes to ensure that the members of the Assembly commission all belong to different political groups, that can be specified in the Standing Orders. There is no reason why a requirement should be included in the Bill to establish that the Assembly must ensure that each political party is represented. As the arrangements in the Scottish Parliament have been cited at length during the debate, it might be of interest to note that the position is the same in Scotland under the Scotland Act 1998—that is, there is no equivalent requirement in that Act to that proposed in the amendment. Such a provision has not been applied in Scotland; nor is there a requirement to make such provision in the Standing Orders.
The other amendments in the group relate to clause 29, which deals with the composition of Assembly Committees using the d'Hondt formula. It would be helpful to hon. Members if they referred to the Bill, because I shall refer to certain subsections of clause 29, which may help hon. Members to understand. In the new Assembly, Committees will play an important role in scrutinising proposed Assembly measures, which the Administration, in the main, will introduce. The express purpose of clause 29 is to provide a stable fall-back for calculating the political balance of the Committees. I emphasise, particularly to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, that this is a fall-back position.
The d'Hondt formula is widely seen as a fair and practical way to apply political balance. It is used across the globe to determine election results and in clauses 8 and 9, as well as in Argentina, Austria, Finland, Japan and Turkey, as the Conservatives have pointed out in their press release, in which they condemn the Labour party for trying to fix the Assembly's Committees. In the same press release, they liken the proposals in the Bill to those of a "banana republic". Are they seriously comparing the Northern Ireland Assembly to a banana republic? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) was explaining, the d'Hondt system has formed an important part of the Good Friday agreement. The formula is also used in the European Parliament to allocate Committee places and has been used in Scotland to appoint Committee Chairs. The Government have not plucked the system out of thin air.
The Minister stops short. He says that the system has been used in Scotland to appoint Committee Chairs, but he did not go any further, obviously because it does not apply to the membership of Committees. That is the greatest problem that we have, and I was trying to concentrate on that earlier. Is he saying that his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have done something wrong in some way by saying that they reject the d'Hondt system and that they are looking for a more equitable means to distribute Committee seats?
As I go on, I shall certainly quote examples that may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the d'Hondt system and political balance are exactly the same thing in many cases. I shall quote the example of the size of Committees. Perhaps that will give him some reassurance, although I doubt whether he will agree.
The aim is for political parties in the Assembly to reach agreement on the size and make-up of Committees. That is exactly what has been achieved over the past few months by the Assembly in moving to new, smaller Committees. It has moved from Committees of 10 to Committees of eight. Surely, the intention of all parties—I certainly understand this to be the intention of the present party in government in the Assembly—will be to reach such agreement in the future, but if agreement is not possible, a way forward must be found.
We must recognise that the electoral arrangements discussed earlier today are likely to result in a very close balance between the political groups in the Assembly, as we have seen in the past two Assembly elections. There is nothing partial about the reality that the electoral system will produce very close results. All clause 29 will do is to ensure that, if deadlock were to occur, disagreement about Committee membership should not be allowed to create a stranglehold on the rest of the Bill's provisions. There are important flexibilities in clause 29. In fact, the Assembly will have more flexibility over the number and purpose of Committees as a whole under the Bill than under the 1998 Act.
First, clause 29 will enable parties to reach a consensus. The formula can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in the Assembly. I would expect consensus to be the norm, with agreement reached through the Assembly's equivalent of our usual channels. The d'Hondt arrangements will provide a secure fall-back if agreement cannot be reached. Secondly, clause 29 will ensure that every Assembly Member—whether independent Members or those who belong to smaller parties—is entitled to a place on a Committee, subject to there being enough Committee places to make that possible. I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 29(9)(a) and (b).
Applying the d'Hondt formula to 10-Member Committees in the current Assembly gives exactly the same allocation of seats among the parties as was adopted by the Assembly when it was operating Committees of that size. I have here a table—I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with a copy and place one in the Library—that shows the current balance: the Labour party has 48.3 per cent., Plaid Cymru has 20 per cent., the Conservatives have 18.3 per cent., the Liberal Democrats have 10 per cent. and other parties have 3.3 per cent.
Under the d'Hondt system and the present Assembly political balance, four members of a Committee of eight would come from the Labour party, two would come from Plaid Cymru, one from the Conservatives and one from the Liberal Democrats. So the Labour party would have 50 per cent. of the membership. Plaid Cymru would have 25 per cent., compared with its 20 per cent. representation on the Floor of the Assembly, so it would gain. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats would have 12.5 per cent., compared with their representation of 18.3 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively on the Floor of the Assembly.
I cannot see how one could come up with a different political balance. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the same is true of Committees of 10. One could not come up with a political balance by agreement that was better than d'Hondt. The idea that the d'Hondt formula is unfair and unreasonable is not borne out by the table, which I am more than happy to share with him.
I accept that in the case of small Committees, such as a Committee of six, there may be a problem. I know that the Opposition have expressed concern about Committees of six, but, frankly, it is virtually impossible, whatever system one uses, to get political balance on such a Committee. If I were a business manager, I would seek an agreement that the Assembly would never have Committees as small as six.
The Minister is giving us the firm impression that he is the full master of the d'Hondt process. To reassure us that he is not simply reading out a brief, will he describe some of the weaknesses of the d'Hondt system that have shown themselves in other countries' systems and say how he would respond to them? That will ensure that he has given us the depth that he implies that he has.
Absolutely. The d'Hondt system does not work for Committees with small numbers. In that case, there are distortions. However, Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister, has recognised that. He has put it on the record that, if the Assembly wanted to set up a Committee of six, he would not force through d'Hondt on any Committee that small. If it was felt that a Committee of six was wanted, for whatever purpose, I hope that the usual channels would be able to agree the numbers in the way in which they will in 99 per cent. of cases—hopefully 100 per cent. In most cases, agreement will be reached through the usual channels, recognising the political balance. Again, it is up to the Assembly to determine the size of Committees.
If the Opposition are seeking reassurance about the Labour party's intentions, as I think that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) was, I can put it on record now. Two weeks ago in the Assembly the First Minister said:
"I am quite happy to place on record the fact that, in the case of any committee for which we thought it advisable to have six committee members, we would not want to see . . . d'Hondt . . . applied".
I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
The form of the requirement imposed by new clause 8 would leave the Assembly with very little flexibility, in contrast to clause 29. It would oblige Standing Orders to ensure that each Committee and Sub-Committee reflected party balance. There would be little room to cater for different circumstances, or to vary from a strict application of party balance. There could also be real practical problems in applying the requirement to ensure that, taken together, the Chairs of the Committees and Sub-Committees reflected party balance in the Assembly. Every time a Committee or Sub-Committee started or finished its work, the allocation of Chairs would have to be revisited. I think that hon. Members would accept that that would not be a sensible way to proceed.
The problem with amendments Nos. 3 and 14 is that they do not provide any direction about what should happen in the event that the parties cannot reach consensus. Without the fall-back provision—I emphasise again that it is a fall-back provision—that clause 29 provides, the Assembly could end up with a stalemate, unable to choose between the variety of mechanisms available to define party balance. That is not a hypothetical concern: it is based on experience.
Amendment No. 31 would reinstate the existing provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998 in place of the provisions in clause 29. That would be entirely inappropriate following the separation of the legislature and Executive. The existing requirements in the 1998 Act were designed to deal with the possibility that the Committees might exercise Executive functions of the Assembly. Following separation, such functions will lie with the Welsh Assembly Government and not the Assembly and its Committees. In so far as the provision would have any meaning at all, most Committees, other than, for example, those carrying out detailed consideration of Assembly Measures or Acts after a referendum, would arguably exist "solely to provide advice", in which case there would be no requirement in place at all as to party balance on the vast majority of Assembly Committees.
The provisions of clause 29 are a sensible, impartial and flexible way of ensuring that seats on Committees are allocated to political parties in accordance with their overall representation in the Assembly. As I stated earlier, the d'Hondt formula has not been plucked out of thin air. We have ensured that the interests of small political parties and independents are properly protected and provided the ability for the Assembly to override the formula altogether, which, as I said, I expect to be the norm rather than the exception. In conclusion, for the reasons that I have given, I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw the amendment.
I will not withdraw my amendment and I will tell you why, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. So enraged are the true experts on d'Hondt that they are flowing into the Chamber and on to the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Minister makes fun of me for speaking in such detail about d'Hondt, but I fear that, by contrast, he spoke with very little passion, but from a brief that suggested that he ought to speak up for a system that I suspect fails on the confusion criterion that the Government used only one hour ago to get rid of the split candidature, which they said that the public would not understand.
The Minister dug his own grave in his speech. He said that he wanted to allow the Assembly to come up with Committees as it sees fit and then that he would be extremely surprised if the Committees did not have cross-party representation. I assume from that that his expectation is that the Assembly will see the importance of fair cross-party representation. Further than that, I assume from the tone of his comments that he thinks that there is a moral obligation on the Assembly to ensure proper cross-party representation. Why, then, is he so afraid to enshrine that important moral expectation in the commission's structure in the Bill, rather than simply leaving the matter to fate and hoping that the Assembly decides to have the right format?
The Minister prayed in aid of his argument the fact that no similar provision existed in the Scotland Act 1998. However, in response to a question from, I believe, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who pointed out that Scotland had rejected d'Hondt, the Minister had nothing to say about the fact that he was forcing something different on Wales. In simple terms, the Minister cannot claim that something is right because it is done in one way in Scotland and then ignore the claim that something else is not right because it is done differently in Scotland from Wales. I am afraid that, on that basis, he was entirely implausible. Based on that argument, we have to press amendment No. 30 to a Division. If the Minister thinks about his own argument, far from opposing the amendment, he should show that he is consistent and vote for it, at which point he will have won the undying admiration of all true democrats in the Chamber.
On cross-party representation on the Committees as a whole, I spoke to amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 3, introduced by the official Opposition, is supported by Plaid Cymru. The principal amendments, Nos. 31 and 33, are the same. However, they are very different from the d'Hondt system for the reasons that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) so eloquently outlined. It seems that we have the assurance that we do not need amendments Nos. 3 or 31. Rhodri Morgan has assured us that if there are six members of a Committee, he will ensure that the d'Hondt system is not applied.
That is a dramatic revelation on two bases. First of all, Rhodri Morgan has an opinion about something that Westminster is due to decide. Clearly this is much more important to him than the questions put to him about the Iraq war, but we shall pass over that. The second important discovery is that far from the reassurances that we have had that Rhodri Morgan intends one day to retire, it seems that he will go on for ever, simply to ensure that the promise that he has made as an individual—not ex officio—will be sustained in perpetuity. Rhodri Morgan has no jurisdiction to commit his successors to ensure that the d'Hondt system will not apply if there are six or fewer members on a Committee.
In effect, the Minister has given us a promise from his mate that as long as his mate is the First Minister, everything will be all right. That is no way to frame legislation. That cannot be done on the basis of who happens to be in a job at present. I am sure that the Minister knows from his slightly ashen appearance that he has committed a monumental gaffe in suggesting that Rhodri Morgan's word is sufficient to convince the Opposition to fall back from amendments Nos. 3 and 31. There are many holes—
Is it not the simple fact that, given that the Labour Administration in Cardiff, for their own reasons, want to engineer a deadlock on this issue, which they can, the d'Hondt system has to come in? The mere suggestion then that a two thirds majority—a supramajority—could suddenly overturn d'Hondt is fantasy and nonsense.
It is almost as weak as being offered an assurance from someone who does not have the jurisdiction to make such commitments.
As the hon. Gentleman says, as I have suggested myself and as those on the Opposition Front Bench have pointed out, these arguments have not been advanced plausibly. The Minister falls back on hearsay assurances from individuals who are not qualified to give those assurances. The only hope that these debates would carry water or weight is the assumption that the verbiage of the debates would be the more powerful than the interpretation by any future Administration of the law itself. That is no way to frame legislation. That, by the Government's own admission, will have to carry us through well into the 21st century, when it comes to Welsh devolution.
For that reason, I feel that I have to put amendment No. 32 to the vote. It will be a matter of shame if the Government still feel obliged to oppose such a common-sense proposal. If the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) chooses to press amendment No. 3 to a separate vote, my colleagues and I will have no alternative but to support it.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Amendment proposed: No. 3, in clause 29, page 18, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (9) and insert—
'(1A) The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that in apportioning Members to committees and sub-committees regard is had to the balance of political parties represented in the Assembly.'.—[Mrs. Gillan.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Clause 35 — Equality of treatment
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 21, line 40, leave out from 'effect,' to 'to' in line 41 and insert
'save in exceptional cases where it is not reasonably possible to do so'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 18, in clause 61 , page 36, line 14, at end insert
', including the implementation of any of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993.'.
Amendment No. 19, in clause 110, page 60, line 35, leave out from 'Welsh' to end of line 37.
New clause 10—Welsh language legislation—
'(1) Sections 106 to 112 and 114 shall come into force on 1st April 2007 in respect of subject 20 in Part 1 of Schedule 7 (the Welsh language).
(2) Section 102 shall not apply to the commencement of subsection (1).'.
The amendments and new clause were discussed in Committee, but we believe that further points need to be made.
Amendment No. 17 deals with Assembly proceedings under clause 35, which concerns equality of treatment. The amendment aims to make it clear that treating the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality is the norm and that any deviation from that practice is exceptional. The Welsh Language Act 1993 states that the Welsh and English languages should be treated on the basis of equality, where it is
"reasonably practicable and appropriate in the circumstances",
but it is arguable that that puts the onus on people who want to see material in both Welsh and English to make the case that that is reasonably practicable and appropriate.
Amendment No. 17 turns the tables on that argument. It establishes that bilingualism is the norm in the proceedings of the Assembly, in which case the argument would have to be made why it is exceptional that bilingualism should not apply.
I am surprised, because so far as I am aware, every Assembly publication is bilingual. I have never seen any other kind of Assembly publication—indeed, I question whether it is necessary to translate documents in some cases.
Not everything is bilingual.
I thank my hon. Friend for his sedentary intervention. The argument concerns why things should not be bilingual rather than why they should be bilingual. When the Secretary of State discussed that point in Committee, I gave him examples of circumstances in which it would be exceptional for documents to be produced bilingually. For example, if a document is likely to be superseded within a couple of months, it would clearly waste time and money to translate it, but such circumstances are self-evidently exceptional. I seek a reassurance from the Minister that bilingualism is the norm in the Assembly and its proceedings. The point may appear to be a fine one, but fine points that go missing between cup and lip can cause dissatisfaction.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to a point made by Mr. Hugh Rawlings of the Assembly's constitutional affairs unit. Will the Minister explain the difference between the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Bill? The 1998 Act states:
"The Assembly shall in the conduct of its business give effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that the English and Welsh languages should be treated on the basis of equality."
However, the Bill concerns:
"the conduct of Assembly proceedings".
Will the Minister explain the difference between the two wordings? Mr. Hugh Rawlings has pointed out that the Bill could be construed to be narrower than the 1998 Act. "The conduct of business" is a broad point, whereas "the conduct of proceedings" might be confined to the proceedings of the Assembly itself.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman sticks to that point. In my ministerial experience, there is a civil servant somewhere who has made that distinction for a good reason, which the House has a right to know.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We want to clarify the matter to avoid argument and dissent. Language is an important issue in Wales and tempers get frayed, so it would be useful if that point were clarified.
Amendment No. 18 is straightforward. We merely seek a reassurance that anything that the Assembly Minister does to support the language will include the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993. The Secretary of State addressed that point in Committee, but if the Minister were to provide such a reassurance, it would be helpful.
Amendment No. 19 refers to clause 110—there has been a mistake, because it refers to line 28 rather than line 35. Its purpose is to ensure that Bills passed by the Assembly are in both Welsh and English and that there are no circumstances in which a Bill might be passed in Welsh only or in English only. We think it important that the principle of equality applies to the use of both the languages of Wales—English and Welsh—in the Assembly. Again, an assurance would clear up the matter.
New clause 10 is possibly the most contentious provision in the group. It would allow the Assembly to pass a Welsh language measure now as primary legislation without holding a referendum. I accept that that might be contentious, but I hope that the new clause signals to the Minister the importance that we place on that particular issue, because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Wales about the operation of the Welsh Language Act 1993.
In Committee, I referred to the great strides taken in 1993 and 1967—in 1967, the then Labour Government passed the Welsh Language Act 1967—but the 1993 Act is 13 years old and the situation has moved on. One would expect any Government to review social legislation in the light of ever-changing circumstances and perhaps to introduce new proposals. The Assembly has given the 1993 Act some attention and introduced its plans, but, as I have said, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Wales, because people see that the 1993 Act does not go far enough given the change in the nature of language use in Wales.
Use of the Welsh language is growing, especially among young people. About 30 per cent. of young people speak Welsh, compared with about 20 per cent. of those aged over 65. Welsh is a younger, growing language. Not only that, but the proportion of Welsh speakers who live outside the traditional heartland areas is growing every year. Nowadays, 40 per cent. of Welsh speakers live in the south and east, in areas where the Welsh language is not socially prominent and one cannot assume that one can speak Welsh merely because one is a Welsh speaker. In my own town of Caernarfon, I would not dream of using English in a greengrocer, whereas I would consider doing so in Monmouth or Cardiff.
We need to make much more explicit the absolute right to use Welsh. People should have limited rights for using Welsh in some public services. As regards speech therapy, for example, why should Siôn have a different standard of service from John? John will find it extremely difficult to get speech therapy in English but Siôn will find it impossible, in most places, to get it in the medium of Welsh. There should be parity of treatment and a positive right in respect of that aspect of a public service. I do not think that any of my colleagues, or anyone in Wales, would say that there should be an absolute right for everything to be bilingual—that would not be a practical proposition at present—but that is an example of the dissatisfaction in Wales about the working of the 1993 Act, and why a reasonable Government would review whether the rights could be extended.
Let me explain why some aspects of the 1993 Act support my case for new clause 10. Like many hon. Members, I have recently done a great deal of work on tax credits. That is difficult enough as it is, but, as the Minister will know, Revenue and Customs has found it impossible to generate letters in Welsh with its current computer system, so letters in English are produced, sometimes sensible and sometimes not so sensible. If there were to be a move in language legislation, one would hope that the production of such material in Welsh in Wales would become the norm rather than the exception, so that hon. Members would not waste their time banging the counter at Revenue and Customs and pushing for their constituents to have such material in Welsh.
Last year, I had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), about the forms for licensing. When people were applying for licences before the passage of the Licensing Act 2003, the forms were available only in English. The Minister was very reasonable and said that he would move as quickly as possible to provide them in Welsh. In a written reply to me about two weeks ago, he told me that a working party had met and was discussing the forms, and that that might lead to a statutory instrument some time in the spring, followed by the forms in the summer. That will be one full year after the forms were available in English. I am not trying to ascribe any blame, but that is what happens when the provision of bilingual services in Wales is not the norm, so that almost by default people are denied the right to use the Welsh language.
I will not say much about the variable standards of service from the privatised utilities or the difficulty of getting answers in Welsh from Swansea about the pension system. However, I mention in passing the difficult issue of third parties acting for local or central Government. Private organisations working for local government are supposed to be subject to the provisions in the local authority's language scheme, but that does not often happen. To give a humorous example, during a case in the local Crown court that was conducted in the medium of Welsh, when the order came, "Take him down", everybody in the court moved apart from the two private guards, who had come from Liverpool and had no idea what was going on. That third-party service was not subject to the Welsh language.
As I said, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. At the very least, I would like the Minister to give some indication that the Government take that seriously and will think about how we can effect, through discussion and agreement, a positive change that would confer to Siôn rights to some limited public services through the medium of Welsh and ensure that third parties are subject to Welsh language schemes. Central Government Departments should be encouraged to see bilingual provision in Wales as normal, so that, for example, the Welsh language could have an explicit statement that it is an official language. In 1993, when Lord Roberts of Conwy was Minister of State at the Welsh Office, he said that the Welsh language is official and has always been so. However, it would be useful to have an explicit statement that Welsh is a legitimate occupational qualification.
Unfortunately, the Governments here and in Cardiff have already said that not a moment of Government time will be available for such legislation. We have in Cardiff a National Assembly for Wales that Labour Members say does not have much to do. In Committee, it was said that there is no problem in staffing committees in Wales because Members are sitting on their hands most of the time. The National Assembly has the interest, expertise and personnel to consider such legislation, so why should not we enable it to do so?
I am a realist and I do not expect the Minister to be immediately persuaded by my words, but some indication that the Government are prepared to take these issues forward would be most acceptable.
I rise to support the thrust of what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said, although I am not sure that the amendments are the ideal way in which to achieve his aims.
One of the most heart-warming facts of recent years has been the recovery of the Welsh language from a dying one to a living one. It is crucial for the continuance of the variety of culture in the United Kingdom that the Welsh language be supported. I pay tribute to all those who have made that a success. In many ways, it is probably the most successful attempt at recovering a language. The reason for that lies deep within the Welsh cultural tradition, which is very much a vocal tradition, in singing, in poetry, and in the great works of Welsh art.
It behoves the United Kingdom Parliament to take seriously what is said about the Welsh language because, for our convenience, we have long insisted that English is the only language that is spoken in the Chamber of the House of Commons. That is necessary. We might gain less understanding and knowledge of Welsh concerns if Welsh Members always spoke in Welsh. It would also give the Minister some difficulty, which would be unfair. We therefore need to right that balance by leaning in favour of the language in Wales. It is difficult to understand how the House of Commons can provide enough time for the evolution and the reflection of the growth in importance of Welsh, especially, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, among young people and outside its heartland.
When my father learned Welsh, he was thought to be odd. It was not something that a young person did. He did it to be able to sing in Welsh, which one cannot do well without knowing what the songs mean. One can make terrible mistakes and that would have been embarrassing to a clergyman, which my father later became. He liked to know what he was saying or singing. He therefore took an early step in what became a much wider movement.
I have great sympathy with the amendments' intentions, which are to provide that it should be assumed that the two languages are the languages of Wales. I would have been unhappy if the Welsh nationalists had tried to suggest that English was not as much a language of Wales as Welsh. However, we who speak English and not Welsh—learning Welsh was for only one generation; I am English on both sides—must remember that the submerging of the languages of the United Kingdom is a symbol of conquest by the English. We who are English should also remember that the best compliment that we can pay and the best statement about the difference in attitude nowadays that we can make is to ensure that, when languages have survived despite the appalling effort to destroy them, they are encouraged, not least because, unless they are perceived as automatically equal—as the amendments propose—the cultural base that is so important in the Principality will be greatly eroded.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As he rightly observes, the cultural conquest was largely the attempted extermination of the language. Does he agree that a key goal of the political strategy that we must adopt is to ensure that Welsh has parity of esteem with English, especially in the eyes of younger people? On some occasions, I observe people who feel a little awkward about speaking Welsh because, due to the cultural history that he outlined, it is downgraded in the communities where they live. To that extent, the amendments are in line with achieving parity.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. We need to make it clear that the two languages of Wales are equal and, whenever possible, they should be presented as equal. I therefore want to ask the Under-Secretary two questions. First, if he does not support the amendments, does he acknowledge the concern that lies behind them? If so, will he ensure that the language used in future is generous and not mean? I use generous in the sense of ensuring that the emphasis is on ensuring the parity of languages, and not giving an impression that a concession has been squeezed out of any political party. That is why I intervened to support the point of the hon. Member for Caernarfon about the difference between words. The difference in the meaning of the words "business" and "proceedings" may be difficult to imagine, but its existence gives rise to concern, which has a pretty good basis in historical fact. It is therefore important for the Government to be seen to be generous in the matter.
Secondly, I am sure that the Government could ensure the withdrawal of new clause 10 if they would undertake to listen regularly and seriously to proposals for changes in the way in which the language is offered in the Principality that arise from genuine changes in society. If the Welsh Assembly knew that time would be found to give voice to proposals that are made on the basis that Welsh is a living language and that the position changes year by year, I am sure that the extension that the new clause suggests would not be pressed. However, if the Government say that they will do nothing about the matter and that they will not undertake to grant extra time, it would be understandable if the Welsh nationalists felt that the new clause should be pressed, simply because it covers an important issue in the Principality that should be aired in this imperial Parliament. It is a proper matter for the Member of Parliament for Suffolk, Coastal to comment on because it is important to our culture as a whole that we do not lose the culture of a part of the United Kingdom.
If the United Kingdom is to mean anything, we should be as proud of the fact that there is a culture that is special and particular in Wales as I hope the Welsh would be of our culture in the east of England, especially Suffolk. I hope that they would perceive it as important to them, even though the current Government are trying to snuff it out through their regional policy.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that the matter is as relevant in Suffolk as anywhere else. After all, we are considering a language that was called Brythonic and was once the language of Britain before various waves of Angles, Saxons, Danes and Norsemen came to England and pushed it further west. "Cumbria" and "Cymru" are descended from the same word. Hon. Members will guess from that that I have an enthusiasm for the language, which I am told that I have learned to speak with some proficiency.
I am sorry to say that I must stop short of supporting the amendments because I have some concerns about them. I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Government who rightly did so much to protect and preserve the language. It has started to grow even in places such as Monmouthshire. People used to joke that I had doubled the Welsh-speaking population of that county when I learned Welsh, but I assure hon. Members that that is not the case.
Overall, there is a positive attitude to the language, but concerns have been expressed not only by those who want more Welsh, but those who feel that there is too much at the moment. Some people complain about the cost of road signs and of translating every document. I have some sympathy with some points about road signs; the policies could be tailored slightly more to the areas in which they apply, but I would not generally argue with the comments about the positive attitude to the Welsh language. However, if we go too much further and start giving the Assembly powers to legislate without the same amount of scrutiny that applies to all other legislation, is not there a danger that we will begin to turn people against the Welsh language, especially in the anglicised parts of Wales?
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) pointed out that statistics show that 20 per cent. of the population speak Welsh. I am not sure about that. I believe that 20 per cent. have a knowledge of Welsh, but whether one in five could hold a conversation in Welsh is another matter. He underlined the problem when he used the example of speech therapy. There is a huge general shortage of speech therapists in Wales. One cannot legislate for more speech therapists and certainly not for more who conduct their treatment only through the medium of Welsh.
I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. One can legislate for more Welsh language speech therapists. For example, one can offer incentives to students to study speech therapy. On almost a monthly basis, I am confronted with the problems of youngsters who need Welsh-speaking speech therapists.
To follow the comments of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), the Welsh Language Act was passed in 1993, but since then only nine Departments have adopted Welsh language policies. Last year, wearing my lawyer's hat, I had to advise somebody who had been refused forms to apply for legal aid through the medium of Welsh. Much remains to be done without offending non-Welsh-speaking people. Obviously, their good will needs to be kept, but much work needs to be done.
I would rather look at the bigger picture. There is a danger that we might end up going a bit too far and alienating the many people in Wales who do not speak the language but who have a very good attitude towards it and are prepared to support policies such as compulsory Welsh up to the age of 16 in all state schools, which is something that I have a problem with after key stage 4.
I am not going to go so far as to say that I support the amendments, but I do support the Welsh language. Years ago, my great-grandmother, who came from west Wales, caused shock and horror by saying that she thought that it was important to learn Welsh in order to be able to communicate with the servants—[Laughter.] I am sure that I am going to regret sharing that. However, if we were to go to some parts of Cardiff nowadays—particularly the Pontcanna area, which is inhabited by quangocrats—we would probably find that it was the other way round, and that people would have to learn English in order to talk to the domestic servants. I shall finish by reminding people of the Welsh phrase, "Gan bwyll mynd yn bell", which roughly translates as "Go a little bit more slowly and you'll get a lot further in the long run."
This has been a good debate, and the fact that it is now 8.11 pm and we have all this time to debate this issue proves what an excellent programme motion we tabled. Most of the issues were discussed in Committee, and I know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is seeking some reassurance on them. I hope that I shall be able to help him. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) also made some points on the amendments, and I hope to be able to reassure him as well.
Amendment No. 17 would alter the obligation on the Assembly to treat English and Welsh equally in the conduct of its proceedings so that, rather than using the formulation in the Government of Wales Act 1998 that everyone accepts has worked well, the Assembly would have to do so
"save in exceptional cases where it is not reasonably possible to do so".
The Bill provides minimum legal requirements with which the Assembly must comply. The new legislature should have some limited discretion to decide on its own procedures in this respect, which is what clause 35 proposes. We are not in a position now to say what will not be "reasonably possible" in relation to treating the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality, but that is what the amendment suggests, by including the condition relating to "exceptional cases". The hon. Member for Caernarfon tried to come up with an example of an exceptional case, and he suggested that a document that was about to be superseded by a new one would present just such a case. However, that would not be exceptional at all; it happens quite regularly. It is actually quite difficult to provide examples of cases that would be considered exceptional.
It has been suggested that the amendment would enhance moves towards full equality of the two languages in the Assembly, but good and continuing progress is already being made under the existing provision. Last year, for example, the Assembly began producing part-bilingual verbatim transcripts of its Committee proceedings on a routine basis. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
The hon. Gentleman sought reassurance that issues relating to the Welsh language would be taken forward, and that there was a commitment to bilingualism in the Assembly. I can give him that assurance. Clause 61 already gives Welsh Ministers the power to do anything that they consider "appropriate" to support the Welsh language. Together with the Welsh Ministers' functions under the Welsh Language Act 1993, this provides a broad basis for promoting the Welsh language.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length to new clause 10. We believe that the new clause is unnecessary because legislative competence for the Assembly on matters relating to the Welsh language could be sought under the Order in Council process in part 3 of the Bill. Immediately after the part 3 powers come into effect, following Royal Assent, in May 2007, it will be possible for an Assembly Minister or a Committee of the Assembly to ask for powers relating to the Welsh language to address any of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, including those relating to speech therapists.
Will the Minister confirm that that relates only to devolved matters, and that some Welsh language matters are retained here at Westminster?
I believe that the only retained function relates to the use of Welsh in courts; that is virtually all that is left. I accept that there might be problems in regard to a particular Government Department producing bilingual forms, and we are all aware of what happened with the Licensing Act 2003. Clearly, such problems need to be addressed, but they can be addressed directly by an Assembly Minister making representations to his counterpart here in London. Many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised will be able to be addressed immediately after May 2007, through the part 3 procedures. One of my concerns about new clause 10 is that it would provide a move towards giving primary powers without a referendum, whereas everywhere else in the Bill, such a move requires a referendum.
I have great sympathy with that argument, but does the Minister accept that the fact that it took a year for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to produce a Welsh form, when it ought to have been automatic—it really should never have got to that stage—undermines the confidence of the House in the ability of Ministers here and in the Welsh Assembly to get the simple things done? It would be helpful if he could promise that these things will not happen in future, and that such documents will be produced automatically.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the production of the licensing forms. I believe that the Department responsible has apologised for not getting that right when it would not have been too difficult to get it right. The powers to address such issues are in part 3 of the Bill. We want a streamlined system because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it can often take too long to sort these problems out. The Order-in-Council procedure will enable the Assembly to take powers in regard to any Welsh language responsibilities that it wants to change or enhance. Use of the part 3 procedures will get rid of the logjam that we now face whenever we want to make significant changes to the Welsh Language Act 1993.
I want to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and I met the Minister to talk about the Welsh language forms required under the Licensing Act 2003, and we warned him in the kindest and most respectful way about the issue six months before the cut-off date. That was in the November, but the problem carried on for almost a year. That is not good enough. Had the competence for these matters been in Cardiff, they would have been able to move a darned sight more quickly.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. As I said, I think that the Department has apologised for that. For the production of something that was not particularly difficult, the process was far too long.
I want to reassure the House, and particularly the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, about the commitment of the Welsh Assembly Government, and this Government, to the language. Perhaps I can draw his attention to the report produced by the Welsh Assembly Government on Iaith Pawb, its policy to promote Wales as a bilingual country. It builds Welsh language considerations into all policy developments. There is lots of evidence that, certainly since the Assembly's inception, the language is taking its place in the hearts of the Welsh people and in the administration of government at all levels in Wales. We have made significant strides and continue to do so.
I hope that I have been able to give the hon. Member for Caernarfon the reassurances that he was seeking.
It would be useful if the Minister could respond to my point about "proceedings" and "business".
I am glad that the name of Hugh Rawlings has featured in our debates, because he has been an important member of the Bill team. That team has worked hard over many months to get to where we are today. I want to put on the record my gratitude to Mr. Rawlings and all the other members of the Bill team for their excellent work in supporting me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The reason why we changed from "business" to "proceedings" is that "business" was used to cover the existing Assembly when it was acting as both a legislature and an Executive. The change reflects the separation. When the Assembly acts as a legislature, the term "proceedings" will be used, as in Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. "Business" will now equal "proceedings" plus the Executive functions. I hope that that explains the change, which is basically due to the separation of the Executive from the legislature. We will now use the same sort of terms as we use here.
Will the Minister assure the House that nothing that the word "business" would have comprehended will be left out because of the use of the word "proceedings"? Does "proceedings" cover everything that was covered by "business"?
Yes.
Having reassured the hon. Member for Caernarfon, I hope that he will now withdraw the amendment, so that some of us can have something to eat tonight.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment. This has been a positive debate, and I thank Members who have contributed and the Minister for his response. These issues will not go away, and my colleagues in the Assembly will be looking to use the part 3 powers as early as possible to address the language issues there. I still have concerns about the matters retained here, and we will return to those issues in future. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Bill to be further considered tomorrow.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a major constitutional Bill, which the Secretary of State said would define the Government of Wales for a generation, it cannot be satisfactory that so much time for debate is lost, even giving regard to the Minister's need to eat. If the programme motion had allowed us to move on to the next set of amendments, pressure that might be exerted on tomorrow's business would automatically have been relieved. Large parts of a major constitutional Bill will now go unscrutinised.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an additional point. People outside will feel that we have had too much time and have not been able to fill it. The real problem, however, is that the way in which it has been apportioned means that we have had too little time in certain areas and too much in others. Dealing with that would be a great help.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am shocked. We cannot win on this matter. We give sufficient time for proper scrutiny, but when the Opposition do not take up that time, we are criticised for giving too much time. It is up to the Opposition to table amendments and scrutinise the Bill. We have given them sufficient time to do it, and they have decided not to take up that time.
I sense that I have been a little generous in listening to those points of order, because it was starting to become a debate. The Chair can only point to the fact that the House passed a programme motion earlier, and we are governed by that motion, which could only have been effected by negotiations with the usual channels beforehand. The motion that we had was approved, however, and that is what controls proceedings.
Culture, Media and Sport
Ordered,
That Mr. Tim Yeo be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Philip Davies be added—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Petitions
Bus Services
For many, public transport is not an optional extra but essential. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know how difficult and damaging it is when a bus service is cut, especially for vulnerable, older and disabled people who rely on it. This petition was compiled by Mr. Howard Norton, a worthy campaigner, and it comprises around 500 signatures. I congratulate and thank everyone who signed it and sincerely hope that it will be successful.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of the residents of Castle Point and others,
Declares that the Petitioners wish to formally record their objections to the removal of the No. 12 bus service from Pitsea to Benfleet by First Essex Buses Limited because there is no alternative service and the removal will cause great inconvenience and hardship to those residents who rely solely on public transport and that this loss is unacceptable and particularly hurts vulnerable people in our community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to accept the views of local people and find a way to encourage the Bus Company to maintain the No. 12 service.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Pedestrian Crossing (Furtherwick Road)
There is a new political and public acceptance that road safety for all, particularly older people and children, must come before motorists' convenience, especially around schools and shopping areas and where there are fast roads to be crossed. I am delighted to present a petition with about 1,000 signatures, which was organised by Mrs. Margaret Finch, a lady who cares about people and about her community. It was signed by many people, to whom I pay tribute and give sincere thanks.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons,
The Petition of residents of Canvey Island and others,
Declares that the petitioners are deeply concerned about road safety around the parade of shops at the seafront end of Furtherwick Road. And further declares that the petitioners are aware of the relatively high speed of traffic and a number of near misses and great danger, especially for elderly people and children and notes that there are no reasonably accessible means of crossing the road at this point.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to impress upon Castle Point borough council and the Highway Authority the importance of serving local people by providing a pedestrian crossing to improve road safety, particularly for children and elderly people on this stretch of road.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Civil Service Widows (Pensions)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
The circumstances of tonight's debate, and the timing thereof, remind me of another happy occasion some years ago, in the early 1990s, when I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on opencast mining. On that occasion, too, the House's business had finished rather earlier than expected. I am pleased to report that we did a thorough and proper job of scrutinising the issue and that the Minister rose to reply at the appropriate time of 10.15 pm. I am sure that the thought is now crossing the Minister's mind that there is a way for him to prevent a similar fate from befalling him tonight. He need only intervene on me at any point to satisfy my requests to be assured of an early night so that he can get on with revising for his intensive Committee work tomorrow.
This is a serious matter, which affects thousands of people in our country today. It involves the pension arrangements for civil service widows and widowers under the co-called classic pension scheme which operated before the introduction of the premium pension scheme in October 2002. Under the classic scheme, if surviving spouses of civil servants remarried or decided to cohabit, they would automatically lose all rights to a civil service pension. At least, that would happen unless their new relationship also unfortunately ended as well, in which event I understand the pension could be reactivated. The current arrangement, the so-called premium scheme, allows for a pension for life. Widows or widowers of civil servants who remarry or cohabit in future will not lose their civil service pensions. The fundamental problem for which I seek redress is that someone can be married to a civil servant, go through life with that husband or wife, lose that person, be entitled to a widow's or widower's pension, but—if owing to changed circumstances he or she decides to remarry or cohabit—lose the pension at some future date.
A number of principles are involved. The situation, which is of serious concern to many widows and widowers, was drawn to my attention not by a civil service widow but by one of my constituents, Mrs. Gillan Cooper, who happened to be the widow of a police officer. She wrote to me at the time. When people go through life with a partner, whether they are married or not, they live their lives together, but often also live their jobs together. By the very nature of a partnership, they experience all the travails, worries and difficulties that people encounter in their daily work. That is shared with a partner; it is something that partners go through.
At the end of the relationship, when a partner dies, it is impossible to wipe out at any stage in the future the fact of the marriage or partnership—the fact that the two lived their lives together and were involved in a job together. One person may have undertaken the job—whether as a civil servant, a police officer or a member of the armed forces—but the other had lived with that person as a partner and had experienced all the concerns and heartaches of job as well. They supported their partner in their activities and their work, and are thus entitled to a pension as a widow or a widower. When someone who has lived with their partner for a long time and who has experienced their job is widowed, they are entitled to a pension. There is something fundamentally wrong if, as a result of the act of remarrying or cohabiting, all that history, everything that they have been through and their entitlement to a pension, is suddenly removed at a stroke by the enforcement of a pension regulation. That is very unfair indeed.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We have taken a number of measures over the years against discrimination, but does my hon. Friend agree that the operative word for this pension provision is "discriminatory"? A married couple—in this case, a civil servant and his wife—may be married for a long time, and the wife ultimately expects a share of his pension because of the hardship, which takes various forms, that she experiences as a widow. Surely, the measure is discriminatory, especially as only about 10 per cent. of women are entitled to a pension.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. It is a matter of entitlement. The spouse of a civil servant, a police officer or an officer in the armed forces effectively achieves entitlement to a pension when they are widowed. The removal of that entitlement at any stage is a fundamental injustice that goes against the grain of the British sense of fairness.
The regulations say that the pension will be taken away if the individual remarries or cohabits. It is quite simple to prove that someone has remarried. Indeed, because everyone knows that it is possible to discover whether someone has remarried, people will write a letter to officials saying, "Hands up, I know that I will lose my pension, but I wish to inform you that I have remarried." Although they do not like it and disagree with it profoundly, they accept that the pension that they receive as a widow or a widower will come to an end. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that that happens in all cases of cohabitation? How do the Government know whether someone is cohabiting? Does the Duchy of Lancaster employ an army of individuals who go round the country late at night or in the early hours of the morning to discover whether the widow or widower of a civil servant, a police officer or an Army officer is cohabiting? Do they go out once or twice in the middle of the night to discover whether they are cohabiting? Unless someone puts up their hand and says that they are cohabiting, there is not the faintest possibility that the Minister or his civil servants will know whether someone is cohabiting and should not claim a pension.
Individuals may do something to alert the authorities dealing with pension payments to the fact that they are cohabiting. For example, a widow and a widower who both receive civil service pensions may start to cohabit and provide the officials administering the pension scheme with the same address. Under those circumstances, the officials might put two and two together and work out that the couple are cohabiting. Alternatively, anonymous phone calls might be made, and officials could respond to them. The reality of the situation, however, is that if a widow or a widower remarries they will lose their pension, but if a widow or a widower cohabits they probably will not do so—so the Government are effectively discriminating against people who remarry.
I do not believe that the state should give people financial incentives to marry. The Government have been right in saying that it is not their responsibility to interfere in people's relationships and say that people should or should no, marry. If people want to live together outside marriage, that is fine. Equally, the state should not give people incentives to co-habit rather than to marry. However, that effectively is what it is doing. One can prove marriage very easily—to prove that someone is co-habiting is much more difficult.
I do not know what the cost of the proposal to bring back the pension for all those who have lost it in this way would be. I have seen a number of figures. I have heard that a one-off payment of £3 billion would have to be made. I find that a little difficult to get my head around. It must extend beyond civil servants to all public servants in this situation. It must assume that people in these circumstances will be paid the pension that they lost over the years after they remarried or cohabited.
I accept that that would be a substantial sum of money and perhaps another thing that the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance would not press for, but I see many different figures for providing a pension from now on to the people who have lost it, or for in future not taking away the pension of people who remarry or cohabit. The Civil Service Pensioners Alliance has given me the figure of £300 million over 30 years. According to its estimate, that would add 0.4 per cent. to the current pension cost. If a further demand for a pension for post-retirement marriage widows and widowers were accepted—I understand that widows are not entitled to benefits if they retired before 1978 and widowers if they retired before 1988—that would add another £75 million over 20 years, or about 0.14 per cent. to the cost. Therefore, about 0.5 per cent. in total could be added for both proposals. It does not seem an awful lot of money.
When I asked questions of the then Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), in October 2004, I was told that in the previous two years only 325 widows or widowers' pensions were suspended due to remarriage or cohabitation, and that to reinstate all the pensions that were suspended over the previous 10 years would cost about £50 million. It does not seem that we are talking about enormous sums of money.
Is there not something fundamentally wrong with a system that says to someone, "If you are going to go into a new relationship, we are going to financially penalise you for that. We are going to make you choose whether to go into that relationship without any income of your own and to rely on your new partner absolutely, or whether to accept that you cannot go into a new relationship because the financial penalty imposed on you is so great that it is not worth while"? Forcing people into that dilemma—the choice between the pension that they were entitled to because of their previous spouse's employment and having a new relationship—is fundamentally wrong. The state is interfering in matters, albeit not by design but by effect, in which it should not be involved. It should not be putting people in the position of having to make that appallingly difficult choice.
My final point must have crossed the Minister's mind. He must have got copious briefing from his civil servants about it because it is about equal opportunities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) said, the Government have to address that issue seriously. We have a very good record on equal opportunities across the board on a series of matters.
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I touched on earlier. The Government have a very good record on equal opportunities, but a report will be published tomorrow or the day after on equal pay for women. It seems that what he has described affects not only men but women. It could be seen as a sanction. If we think about it, the two things are linked. Nine times out of 10, it will be the woman who will face the sanction and be forced into a situation where, as he said, she does not declare the fact that she is cohabiting. Perhaps she will just decide not to have a relationship. At the end of the day, she made a major contribution through bringing up a family for 30 or 40 years. Does he agree that things have to be looked at in a broader sense?
I agree entirely and my hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, today's report deals with the inequality between women's pay and men's pay, and the Government have rightly expressed concern about that issue and spoken of the need to address it. Of course, pay is not something that they can directly influence in every circumstance, but they can directly influence pensions because it is within their remit to do so.
The Government recently dealt with the equal opportunities problems to which the 85-year rule for the local government pension scheme has given rise. In general, women do not serve in local government for quite as long as men because their service is often broken, so they cannot benefit from the 85-year rule to the same extent. The Government have therefore said that because the rule disadvantages women, it is fundamentally unfair and must be removed. However, here we are talking about a rule for civil service widows and widowers that by its very nature discriminates against women, because the fact is that the vast majority of those who lose their pension in this way are women. The Minister doubtless has the precise figures, but we know that to be the case. This rule significantly disadvantages women because more widows lose this pension entitlement than do widowers.
I suspect that if the Government applied to the rule for widows' and widowers' civil service pensions—and elsewhere in the public sector—the same test that they applied to the 85-year rule for the local government pension scheme, they would objectively conclude that the former rule is equally discriminatory. I urge the Government to re-examine it because it is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair because it removes a right that a person has built up over time by being married to someone who was in a job that, in a sense, the couple shared during their lives together. That entitlement should not be removed. It is unfair because it requires people to choose between keeping their financial entitlement and entering into a new relationship. It is unfair because it discriminates between those who remarry and those who cohabit. Ultimately, it is unfair because it discriminates against women in a way that could be subject to challenge in the courts under equal opportunities legislation. It would be much better if the Government accepted responsibility and removed this rule, rather than leaving it to the courts to do so.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing a debate on this important subject. In my time in Parliament, I, like others, have come to know him as a diligent worker on his constituents' behalf; this is but the latest example of that work. Indeed, he mentioned—in a modest fashion—the work that he has done on behalf of Mrs. Cooper, his constituent, in the past two years or more. I was also pleased that we had a chance to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who, equally, continues to raise such issues on his constituents' behalf when he feels that they are not getting a fair deal under the current regulations. Indeed, he has a reputation throughout the House for standing up for his constituents and the industry in his constituency. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has allowed me almost an hour and three quarters to sum up; that is very kind of him. I am sure that he will understand if I do not take the full time allocated to me.
Before dealing with the specific matters raised by my hon. Friend, I want to stress, as I have done before, that the Government are committed to enabling all our pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. We have introduced a variety of measures since 1997 to achieve that aim and I will touch on them later. The Government have, of course, recently reached an agreement with the public service unions that aims to put public service pension schemes on a more sustainable footing. We have agreed that pensions for existing staff will continue to be calculated under the current rules and we are negotiating with the unions on the form of the scheme for new entrants. But we have made it clear that the costs of the civil service pension provisions as a whole must be contained within an agreed cost envelope. That is intended to deliver savings of £2.1 billion to the taxpayer over 50 years. So any improvements in one area of pension provision must be funded by further savings from elsewhere.
Turning now to the substance of the debate and the specific points that my hon. Friend raised, I want to outline how the rules for the payment of pensions to spouses of members of the civil service pension scheme have evolved over the years. In the past, as now, the Government have sought to provide their staff with pension arrangements consistent with those of other good employers. While some of the historical provisions may seem very restrictive now, at the time they would have been seen as unremarkable or, indeed, as relatively generous.
Widows' pensions have featured in civil service pension arrangements since 1949. At that time, there was no legal requirement for an employer to provide any benefits whatever to its employees' widows. The Superannuation Act 1949 introduced widows' pensions provided that the marriage took place during the civil servant's period of service. That was seen as consistent with the role of a good employer at that time.
Attitudes and social legislation have developed. Since April 1978, as my hon. Friend mentioned, pension schemes that contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme have to pay a widow's pension whenever a contributor dies and leaves a widow, irrespective of the date of the marriage. The civil service scheme was changed, but only in relation to service from 6 April 1978. Only service from that date counted for a widow's pension where a member married after leaving civil service employment.
The situation for women was slightly different. Female civil servants were not required to pay contributions for a widower's pension until July 1987. That change anticipated the requirement from April 1988 for contracted-out schemes to pay a widower's pension, irrespective of the date of the marriage. Again that was not applied retrospectively and only service from April 1988 counts for a widower's pension where the marriage has taken place after the woman left civil service employment.
The intention behind the payment of pensions to widows and widowers was to provide some measure of financial compensation for the loss of financial support that the beneficiary had received from their late husband or wife. So, if the beneficiary remarried or cohabited, the expectation was that they would look to their new spouse or partner for financial support. The UK state scheme has similar provisions. It was on that basis that the civil service pension scheme was costed and member contribution levels set. Some 127,000 widows' and widowers' pensions are currently payable under those provisions. My hon. Friend mentioned some specific facts and figures, but it is my understanding that some 150 to 200 pensions a year are stopped because the widow or widower no longer meets the conditions for payment.
My hon. Friend asked specific questions about how the Government track eligibility for payment of widows' and widowers' pensions. In the past, widows and widowers were sent an annual statement of entitlement to complete. If the individual did not respond after two reminders, the pension was stopped. However, some 20 years ago, the Treasury, which was then responsible for civil service pensions, decided to abandon the annual statement of entitlement exercise. Since then, all pensioners receive an annual letter from the payroll authority, which includes a reminder to all recipients of a widow's or widower's pension that they must notify Capita—the payroll authority—if they have remarried or begun cohabiting. As my hon. Friend suggested, notification may come from a third party, at which point the certificate of entitlement is sent directly to the person receiving the pension. In practice, some relationships may end prematurely. The civil service pension scheme rules allow the restoration of widows' and widowers' pensions if a new marriage or relationship ends.
As I said, some of the provisions may appear out of date. When we introduced a new civil service pension scheme in October 2002, the deal agreed with the unions was that the entire cost of the scheme improvements would be met by members paying higher contributions. The new scheme, which as my hon. Friend rightly said is called the premium scheme, provides higher pensions for members and improved provisions for dependants, but members of the premium scheme pay contributions of 2 per cent. more than those in the former scheme, now called the classic scheme. The difference is that contributions are 3.5 per cent. compared with 1.5 per cent, which, for the average civil servant in the premium scheme, means extra contributions of about £300 a year after tax.
Although the new scheme was intended for new entrants, it is important to note that we gave civil servants in service when the new scheme was introduced the option to transfer to the premium scheme, if they were prepared to pay the higher contributions. Those who chose to transfer all their service across also agreed that it would be reduced to reflect the improved, and more costly, benefits.
Inevitably, comparisons have been drawn between the more generous provisions of premium and the benefits paid under classic, which apply both to those who left the civil service before October 2002 and to the majority of serving civil servants who opted to stay put rather than transferring to premium. My hon. Friend understandably made that comparison this evening.
It is true that premium is more generous in certain aspects of the benefits available to widows and widowers of members. It provides a pension based on the member's entire service, even if the marriage began after the member left service. It also provides for a pension for life for a widow or widower, even if she or he remarries or cohabits, and pensions for unmarried partners.
Many other improvements have been made to public service pensions over the years, which, it has been argued, should be applied retrospectively. They all have clear benefits for members so it would be difficult to implement some and not others.
Did my hon. Friend say that notification by an individual or a third party is the only way that the rules can be enforced and that the Government do not have a proactive policy for finding people who may be in breach of the rules? Can he give a breakdown of the number of people whose pensions have been taken away due to their remarriage or cohabitation?
I will be happy to provide the information that we have on those points. My hon. Friend's interpretation of what I said earlier is right. Previously—about two decades ago—the Treasury actively sought confirmation from recipients that their marital or cohabitation status had not changed, but it was faced with the challenge of responding to about 100,000 requests for information. The decision was taken, under the previous Government, not to continue with that process. My hon. Friend is right to conclude that the current process relies on recipients notifying the authorities of their changed status. He can of course try to reverse the position if he wants to do so. If there is additional information about the tracking procedure that I feel it necessary to provide, I will write to him.
The costs of retrospectively improving benefits above those originally promised to members are substantial. I cannot verify the figures cited by my hon. Friend, but the scheme actuary estimates that if the civil service scheme were to pay widows, and widowers, pensions for life, rather than stopping them on remarriage or cohabitation, we would face a one-off cost of about £300 million, plus an ongoing cost in respect of current members of about 0.1 per cent. of pay, which would be £15 million for the civil service scheme, but £150 million annually across the public services.
If the Government were to agree to a taxpayer-funded improvement in civil service widow and widower pension benefits, it would inevitably lead to pressure to provide similar improvements for other public service employees. My hon. Friend was generous enough to acknowledge that, if such a principle were included in the civil service scheme, there would be pressure to apply it across the public sector. For the whole public service, the Government Actuary's Department estimates the one-off cost at about £3 billion. Of course, in both cases there would also be a year-on-year cost to cover the build-up of further liabilities.
I am trying to get the figures correct. The figure of £3 billion is in the public domain, but most people scratch their heads and wonder how it is calculated. Does it include the cost of paying back the pensions to which people would have been entitled if the rule had not existed in the first place? It is difficult to understand how there can be a one-off cost if all that happens is that people's entitlement is restored from now on.
My hon. Friend identified in his opening remarks some of his own estimates from a retired civil servants' organisation, and rather than discussing the methodology this evening, I undertake to share with him some of the analysis of how the Government Actuary arrived at those figures. I hope that he will find that the most appropriate way to deal with the issue.
Of course, the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and the issues on which the Civil Servants Pensioners Alliance, which my hon. Friend mentioned, are campaigning will be considered during negotiations with civil service unions on the wider public service pensions reform agenda. There is a commitment to discuss these matters with the civil service unions, as part of the wider reform of civil service pensions; but of course, as before, any change must be met from within the existing cost envelope.
On support for pensioners more generally—of course, including those who are former civil servants—the Government have listened to pensioners and taken numerous initiatives to address their concerns. Reforms to state pensions and other measures introduced since 1997 have helped virtually all pensioners and targeted substantial resources on those most in need. The Government are setting up a £300 million fund over the next three years to provide pension credit recipients with free central heating, and providing discounts of £300 on central heating systems for pensioners who do not have them. Of course, we are continuing with the winter fuel payment, which is popular among hon. Members on both sides of the House and in all constituencies. I understand that there are about 18,500 recipients of the winter fuel payment in my hon. Friend's constituency.
We are also spending about £10 billion extra in real terms on pensioners, following the introduction of pension credit: £7 billon more in 2005–06 than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings since 1998. Pension credit was in payment to an estimated 6,300 claimants in my hon. Friend's constituency towards the latter part of last year. From April 2006, people aged over 60 and disabled people will be entitled to free off-peak local area bus travel in England, with separate arrangements already in place for Scotland. That will benefit up to 7 million over-60s.
We all appreciate the tremendous efforts that the Government have made with issues such as pensioner poverty and pensions in general, but will my hon. Friend clarify something that he said earlier? Some spouses are unable to claim civil service pensions because they get married again. He knows that, very often in trade union negotiations, 1 per cent. might be traded off a wage increase to get something else, perhaps relating to pensions. Will such things be part of wage negotiations, or will there simply be a general discussion with the trade unions?
My hon. Friend was a trade union official, so he talks from experience. I have no idea whether the processes have changed since he was at the height of his powers as a union negotiator, but I am happy to confirm to the House that we are content to discuss the pension entitlement of widows and widowers in the event of remarriage or cohabitation with the relevant trade unions as part of negotiations on the wider reform of civil service pensions. The matter is an aspect of pensions negotiations, rather than wage negotiations. However, before my hon. Friend takes too much heart from that statement, I reiterate that negotiations on civil service pensions must progress with regard to the existing cost envelope.
I thought that the Minister was going to say that. He made a key point when he said that there was a ceiling on the amount of money that could be spent. As he and I know, one does trade-offs in such a situation. I asked the question in the first place for clarification on whether the matter was being considered as part of wage negotiations, or as a separate issue relating to civil service pensions, and I think that he has answered me.
We cannot hold such negotiations on the Floor of the House, although I sometimes think that if one wants to keep a secret, this is perhaps the best place to say something. If civil service unions feel strongly about the matter and wish to enter into dialogue with us, we are happy to hold a discussion, albeit on the premise that we keep to the existing spend and cost envelope.
Let me draw my remarks to a conclusion, albeit earlier than I promised. In 2006–07, as a result of the Government's measures, pensioner households will be on average £26 a week better off than they were under the 1997 system. The poorest 10 per cent. of pensioners in our constituencies will be £42 a week better off. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations on pension reform, civil service pensioners and their dependents will benefit from the measures that I have outlined.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe for giving the House the opportunity to have this debate. He raised what he rightly called an important issue and brought a technical debate to life with his passionate contribution. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South for taking an interest in the debate and participating in it, and hope that I have explained the Government's position effectively.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Nine o'clock.