Government of Wales Bill

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.