---

Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord that that was a nice try, but it simply will not wash. The essential argument put forward by the noble Lord is that Clause 29 is voluntary by its nature; that is, people will get round in a friendly way to decide on the committees and, if that breaks down, they would then have to use d’Hondt. The noble Lord obviously is not reading the clause that I am looking at. Clause 29(1) states:"““The provision included in the standing orders in compliance with section 28  . . . must meet the requirements of this section””." Subsection (2) states:"““The provision must secure””," and I could go on. However, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, put it in much simpler terms, which I shall repeat. This clause is essentially about contracting out by the rather difficult subsection (8) whereas the noble Lord is implying that it is about contracting into d’Hondt if there are problems. That is not the case. We believe that ours is a better approach. If there are any problems, it essentially leaves these matters to the Assembly to decide in its standing orders. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 181; Not-Contents, 131. [Amendment No. 14 not moved.] Clause 30 [Audit Committee]: