| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Hanson (Delyn): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: I am happy to do so, if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about rugby.
Mr. Hanson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both the bodies named in the amendments were established by royal charter and that the only reason why they are not being brought under the control of the democratic assembly in the Bill is that the arrangements can be changed by invitation via the royal charter procedure? That is the only reason--it is a simple technical matter. We do not disagree with Opposition Members or with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on the principles of the Bill. This is a simple technical matter which can be dealt with outside legislation.
Mr. Hayes: The problem with that thesis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has pointed out, is that the two bodies are no different in that respect from several others which are treated entirely differently in the Bill.
Mr. Hanson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: No, I will not give way again because I wish to be brief and I have been generous to the hon. Gentleman once. The message being broadcast to these communities is that they have been deliberately excluded, and that must be unhealthy. I could go on at length about the Government's cuts to the arts, but I have been moderate, sensible and reasonable. Let us make this work properly by bringing the bodies within the compass of proper procedure. Let us make them accountable and, therefore, in the eyes of the public, respectable.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): I am not sure that I can follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)--certainly not about rugby. I must endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has said. I find the drafting of schedule 13 odd for a number of reasons, not least because I have looked at similar legislation dealing with audit.
My understanding is that the Government are looking to extend the scope of auditing. It seems odd to me that the Arts Council of Wales and the Sports Council for
Wales should not be included, given the nature of those august bodies. It would be helpful to those bodies if they were subject to full audit, because their awards are the subject of controversy--not from an audit point of view, but from the point of view of those who do not receive awards. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of the controversy surrounding the awards. It would be in the interests of those bodies if they fell within the schedule. For that reason, the Minister should look at the schedule from the point of view of those bodies.
Mr. Swayne:
I have essentially only one point to make--it is to distance support for the amendments from the case made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). The amendments are purely about financial accountability, and I reject entirely the case made by the hon. Gentleman that this is meat and drink for the democratic process.
It would have been no more appropriate to go further and take those bodies into the heart of the assembly, with Committees dishing out the funds for the arts and sport, than for a Committee of this House to undertake such a function. It is outrageous. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) wants me to give way, I shall happily do so, but he must not continue mumbling from a sedentary position. I cannot hear what he is saying.
Putting such powers in the hands of politicians would be most dangerous. It is outrageous to suggest that the task could be properly done by politicians, who do not have the expertise for it. As for the suggestion by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) that this was merely an anomaly that the Government had inherited and with which they had to live, that is extraordinary. For a Government who are turning the constitution on its head to say that this is an anomaly is rather weak. They will have to do better than that.
Mr. Hain:
This is starting to be quite fun. What I expected to be an extremely technical debate has opened up into a wide-ranging one.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on a very effective contribution from the Front Bench. If he keeps that up, he will soon be challenging his hon. Friends for positions on the Front Bench. I seem to recall that, in a previous incarnation, he was a chief spin doctor for the Conservative party--indeed, that he might even have operated from Conservative central office. I congratulate him on bringing his talents to the Dispatch Box tonight. I also congratulate him on regarding me as likable and amiable, but I assure him that flattery will get him nowhere in this debate.
I respond directly to the Conservative Members who intervened with great eloquence in the past few minutes--I am sure at very short notice--to make some arguments about the amendments. Obviously, the short notice has encouraged them to overlook a central fact about the debate, about which I am sure that, in retrospect, they will be very embarrassed.
Mr. Hain:
I shall let the hon. Member for Tewkesbury intervene in a moment.
The chief executive of the Arts Council of Wales would have been able to instruct the hon. Gentlemen on the details of its royal charter and on why the amendments are unnecessary.
Mr. Hain:
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is extremely sore about the fact that I ran out of time to give way to him last time, so I shall generously let him in this time.
Mr. Ancram:
I am grateful to the Minister for his unusual generosity in giving way in one of his winding-up speeches. His remarks about the father of the wife of the leader of the Conservative party came rather strangely from the Labour party, because I had understood that the Labour party did not believe in nepotism. We do not; does he?
Mr. Hain:
I am still trying to follow the relevance of that point, but I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to keep up that type of spirited intervention. I thought that nepotism was the product of the Conservative party over the years. While we are getting rid of the Conservative quango state, any trace of nepotism will be got rid of in this context as well.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
rose--
Mr. Hain:
I think I was due to give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.
Mr. Laurence Robertson:
I remind the Minister that I described the arts council as an august body. I was suggesting that the measures contained in the amendments would add weight to those bodies and take nothing from them.
Mr. Hain:
I understand the point. I was merely suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that, had he had time to obtain detailed guidance during the few days in which I am sure that he has been preparing his speech, he would have had the chance to consult Mrs. Ffion Hague, who I suspect is an expert, not just on the Arts Council of Wales, but on all of Wales. Given that she occupied a very senior position in the private office of the Welsh Office and, as I understand it, did extremely well and landed up marrying the former Secretary of State, she could have
I appreciate that these may have been probing amendments; perhaps they were probing speeches as well. [Interruption.] Ah, we are going to get a Division at last, are we? I relish the prospect of a Division. We have been champing at the bit for a Division all evening. It is a measure of the fact that the Conservative party has adopted such a low-key approach to the Bill. Indeed, at times tonight the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)--Ribble-on-Wales--actually seemed to praise elements of the Bill. I welcome his conversion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Office--and, I am sure, the Welsh assembly--will carefully consider resurrecting the Mumbles railway.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |