House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Feb 1998 (pt 12)

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman before he gets into his swing. Two, totally different, ideas are dealt with in this group of amendments; one group is about what people will be called, the other is about a cabinet system as opposed to a committee system. If we felt it appropriate, could we have a vote on an amendment relating to the cabinet system?

The Temporary Chairman: That would have to be considered at the end of the debate, but of course it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman formally to propose an amendment. Standing Orders allow the group to be broken up in that way.

Mr. Livsey: As I was saying, the amendment refers to the possibility of there being a Prime Minister rather than a First Secretary. To give the Welsh assembly higher status, we may need to change the title, First Secretary.

If there is a First Secretary, he will on occasions have to speak to his opposite number in, for example, the Federal Republic of Germany, where each Land has its own Prime Minister, and we think that Prime Minister status would be appropriate. Such a situation would arise on many occasions. It would be nice to think that the leader of the assembly could discuss and even negotiate--perhaps with the motor regions--on an equal footing with leaders of other areas. We think that the title Prime Minister would be appropriate.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): I am intrigued. The hon. Gentleman said that the leaders of the Lander are Prime Ministers. I am sure his German is very good. What is the German title? There is no Prime Minister in Bonn as far as I am aware.

Mr. Livsey: I am not a German speaker. I speak French and halting Welsh, and my knowledge of German is not adequate to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question accurately. All I can say is that when Peter Walker was Secretary of State for Wales and met the Prime Minister

2 Feb 1998 : Column 743

of Baden-Wurttemberg, he was described as such in the British press. If they got it wrong, they got it wrong, but that was the description. I remember that well.

The other amendments that we have tabled in this group, including amendment No. 5, refer to a cabinet system rather than a committee system, but unfortunately they were consequential on amendment No. 11A, which has not been selected. I hope you will not rule me out of order, Mr. McWilliam, if I briefly say that the head of each Committee would automatically become a member of the Cabinet. It would therefore be a hybrid system. All the amendments refer to a Cabinet in that context. It is somewhat disheartening to have to say that, although the amendments refer to there being a Cabinet, they do so in that specific context. We believe that the amendments that refer to a cabinet system remain linked with the current selection in the sense that they are probing what a cabinet system would be like in relation to the assembly.

As we know, there has been much discussion in Wales about the possibility of a cabinet system rather than a committee system.

Mr. Ancram: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman right? Did he say that many of his amendments are merely probing amendments? We had understood this to be a matter of some significance and importance to the Liberal Democrats. We take it seriously ourselves. In the light of what has been said previously by his party, I should be surprised if these were just probing amendments.

Mr. Livsey: I mentioned at the outset of my speech the context in which the references to a Cabinet are being made. No doubt during the debate the ranking of a cabinet system compared with a committee system will be debated at some length. Some hon. Members may wish to put this matter to a vote at the end of the debate. If that is so, it is so.

We Liberal Democrats have examined the possibility of a cabinet system compared with a committee system. Committees of the assembly will represent different subject areas, different regional areas--we hope--in Wales, and other aspects of government in Wales. That being so, our party feels that we need a decisive decision-making body, which could be of the Cabinet type, where decisions will be made directly as a result of good, honest, democratic debate in the Committees. We believe that that could produce a more rapid system of decision making and clearer accountability, which is an important issue in relation to how the assembly will function. We want it to function efficiently and effectively within a democratic framework.

There are attractions in a cabinet system. It would give the assembly more status. It would also mean that Ministers in the Cabinet were able to take on responsibilities. Indeed, the functions of the First Secretary or the Prime Minister would be devolved to them and they would become more accountable.

We would not wish to diminish too much the participation of Members of the Assembly in the committee system, where they would contribute significantly to the day-to-day running of the assembly and have input into the running of the Government in Wales, depending on the political configuration of the

2 Feb 1998 : Column 744

assembly. We believe that it is right to table these amendments. We need a good, honest, debate on them to find out whether hon. Members can be persuaded that a cabinet system might have some distinct advantages over the committee system as proposed in the Bill.

Several hon. Members rose--

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I should like to apologise to him in case I might slightly have misled him. I suggested that amendments could be moved later; I must caution him that amendments now selected may fall if intervening clauses run against that line, so he may not get to that point.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. McWilliam.

It is on clause 58 that the substantive question of a cabinet or committee system arises, but unfortunately--I do not criticise the selection; we are not encouraged to do that--the selection of amendments does not allow debate on an amendment to clause 58 that deals with the cabinet system.

One of the most controversial aspects of the Bill in Wales is whether we shall be governed by a committee or cabinet system. It seems--if my interpretation is right--that we can have a debate on clause 52 on the name "Cabinet", but not on any of the substance of the clause in which related issues arise.

The Temporary Chairman: I want to be clear for the Official Report. That is exactly right.

Mr. Wigley: I therefore assume that you will be fairly tolerant, Mr. McWilliam, if hon. Members go beyond the purview of clause 52 because we are bound to get into the substance of a cabinet system.

Amendments Nos. 200 and 199 deal with the right to choose an appropriate title for the officials of the assembly; they deal with whether we should have Ministers or Secretaries. The assembly should be allowed the freedom to choose the title; it should not be prescribed in the Bill. The amendment would allow the assembly to choose, rather than have a decision imposed on it. Once the assembly is up and running, there is no reason why it should not have the power to change the nomenclature of its officers. In view of the spirit in which the Government introduced the Bill, I should have thought that they want to encourage that. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about why that freedom cannot be allowed.

Next Section

Index

Home Page