Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, before speaking on this subject I should like, from a Welsh angle, to pay my respects to Lord Ackner and his family. We heard today that he has, sadly, died. Many noble Lords will know that in the Aberfan inquiry he represented the community with great distinction. In fact, my uncle was the GP in Aberfan in the early 1960s but died before the tragedy. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that Lord Ackner adopted a daughter from a Welsh miner’s family and had a great affinity with Wales. We are very thankful for his life. I should also like to thank the Minister, as a literary man, for quoting R S Thomas, who, although a native of Wales, did not speak the language. I should like to quote—as this defines where I am coming from in this debate—Winston Churchill’s parliamentary tribute to Lloyd George in March 1945. Winston Churchill said that,"““he was the greatest Welshman which that unconquerable race has produced since the age of the Tudors””." Unconquerable—that is where I am coming from in this debate. Wales has not always had a fair deal from its neighbour. Indeed, that is defined in many aspects of our political attitude to this Bill. Welsh Liberal Democrats originally proposed a review of the existing 1998 Act, which set up the National Assembly. Indeed, it was part of the partnership agreement that we had with the Labour Party in the first Assembly government. The Richard commission was set up. I acknowledge the abilities of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the successful outcome of the Richard commission report. The important thing, certainly from our point of view, is that it was an all-party commission. Unlike Scotland, Wales did not have a constitutional convention where all parties came together and hammered out a template for the new Scottish Parliament. That, if you like, was our convention in Wales. The Richard commission said that the National Assembly was to become a parliament with full primary legislative powers and an 80-Member Assembly elected by the single transferable vote, resulting in more effective scrutiny of legislation and the separation of a Cabinet executive from the Assembly legislature. It must be added that that was aligned to a practical and realistic timetable. I regard the conclusions of the Richard commission proposals as entirely the correct procedure to give Wales effective power within the United Kingdom. The report maps out how Wales can achieve its rightful status within the UK. The response from the people of Wales would be far greater national self-confidence than they have at the moment—although I agree with the Minister that we have more self-confidence than we used to have before devolution—and the creation of a much more dynamic society in Wales. I want to acknowledge the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who has had an operation. I know he would have wished to speak in this debate. We wish him well and hope that he will be back for Committee stage. Frankly, the Government of Wales Bill does not measure up to the objectives I have just outlined, which were the conclusions of the Richard commission. There are no primary legislative powers granted directly and only some dim and distant possibility of that occurring if subjected to an extraordinary Westminster obstacle course involving the Secretary of State and Orders in Council. There is no doubt that power will still reside at Westminster. There will remain a 60-member assembly, so scrutiny will be inadequate. The single transferable vote system is rejected in favour of closed party lists for elections. I welcome proposals for the separation of the executive from the Assembly legislature, but even here it would place more power in the hands of the executive Ministers by taking it away from the Assembly itself. On Parts 1 and 2, clearly it was a mistake in the Government of Wales Act 1998 to incorporate executive and legislative functions into one corporate body, the National Assembly for Wales. We agree with the Bill in that there should be a clear separation between the Assembly Ministers, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Assembly itself. That also applies to staffing, with civil servants serving Ministers, and the Assembly having its own separate staff, although that has gone some way already. However, the Assembly is not able to engage directly in primary legislation, as we have heard, and, further, if the Assembly is to lose its executive functions, the balance of power will have moved decisively in favour of Ministers. That, combined with inadequate scrutiny powers for Assembly Members, alters the balance between the Assembly and government Ministers. Primary legislative powers for the Assembly would require an 80-Member Assembly and enable much more legislative scrutiny, as recommended by the Richard commission. Even with the Orders in Council process contained in the Bill, more scrutiny will be required. The overall conclusion must surely be that we all want an efficient Assembly government, called to account by an effective Assembly legislature, with the powers and resources to do the job properly. We believe that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not measure up to those worthy objectives. The advent of devolution for Wales and the creation of the National Assembly have assisted the democratic process and undoubtedly have improved accountability but, as we know, the Assembly possesses only secondary legislative powers. I have been a spokesman for Wales in the Commons and in the Lords for the entire period since Wales achieved its Assembly in 1999. Like many others, I am really dismayed that only six all-Wales Bills passed through Parliament between 1999 and 2005. That has been very disappointing for the Assembly, and demonstrates the legislative logjam at Westminster. I welcome aspects of the Bill that will provide more all-Wales Bills through the Order in Council process. In contrast with the Scottish Parliament, which, I think, passed 72 Bills during the same period since it was created—let us remember that we passed only six in Wales—we have a long way to go to achieve an effective legislature. The urgent needs of Wales will be alleviated by the Order in Council system in this Bill, but if we had primary legislative powers, the Assembly would be a far more effective and efficient legislature. The Bill proposes measures to further the legislative process, and enhanced legislative powers are to be given over a period. As I have mentioned, the vehicle to be employed is the Assembly’s secondary legislative powers, but they will be subject to veto by the Government and both Houses of Parliament at Westminster in extreme circumstances where different political parties were resident in Cardiff and Westminster. Great emphasis has been placed on Orders in Council to make new provision or to amend, repeal or extend Acts of Parliament within the Assembly’s current areas of jurisdiction. Although this would be a useful move forward, it would still be subject to the same caveats as secondary legislation, in that Orders in Council can be rejected at Westminster. One does not have to use much imagination to envisage the impact on public opinion in Wales of rejection of legislation by an unsympathetic Westminster government. I do not include the current Government in that scenario, but it could happen in different circumstances. Reference is made also to the Assembly being given, in the ““long term””, general powers to make primary legislation in those areas where functions have already been devolved. A referendum has been mentioned by both speakers so far. The reason for this appears to be that the Government think that there is no consensus on this in Wales at present, yet a number of opinion polls—not just one, as has been referred to—in Wales in the past 12 months unequivocally favour the granting of primary legislative powers to the National Assembly. The real reason for the rejection of the primary legislative proposals in the report of the Richard commission is clearly a result of differences of opinion on the issue among Welsh Labour MPs in Westminster. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will later address the legal issues in the Bill. The electoral system, which has already received quite a bit of attention from speakers so far, is a controversial issue. The Richard commission was clear in proposing an STV system. This could work extremely well in Wales. It would be far more accountable to the electorate and be far more proportional than the system proposed in the Bill. It would provide choice and election by the majority of voters. The proposed combination of first-past-the-post and a closed regional list, even with different candidates in each category, would not offer the advantages of an STV system operating in existing constituencies, for example. As we have heard, the system proposed in the Bill has been severely criticised by the Electoral Commission. It certainly is not acceptable to us either. A vote on dual candidacies has taken place in the Assembly this afternoon. The result was 28 against and 28 for. We could perhaps see some graffiti there: ““The status quo rules OK!”” I have so often heard Ministers in this House say that they respect the views of the Assembly, so there are interesting issues there. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno will address the electoral system in his speech. There is no doubt that the Bill’s proposals move matters forward, but are likely eventually to result in deadlock and dissent between the National Assembly and Westminster; ultimately, this could fan the flames of Welsh nationalism. There will never be a better time to reform the Assembly properly, replacing it with a parliament similar to the Scottish model. MPs should have shown more vision, realising that the granting of primary legislation to the Assembly does not undermine its role. I am sure that they could pursue worthy careers on UK affairs in the other place, without being undermined by giving the Assembly greater powers. There would have been a vibrant alternative in an Assembly with parliamentary powers. That would have provided a clear and strong Welsh voice with an effective Welsh parliament. More power would reside in Wales for the benefit of all our people. There should be no reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, unless and until primary legislative powers are vested in the Assembly. The post of Secretary of State must remain right through the establishment of primary powers, however they are eventually achieved. Indeed, noble Lords will know that we believe in a federal United Kingdom but, as we now know, this can only be achieved through a referendum to be held in the dim and distant future. The two issues of the block grant and the negotiations and reform of the Barnett formula make it imperative that the position of the Secretary of State for Wales continues through this process. A possible review of his position would be made only if these two later issues are resolved. One of the missing links in this Bill is a lack of proposals to reform the Barnett formula. It is strange that, in Clause 70, the Assembly is given powers to borrow, as well as grants. We obviously welcome that, because there are bound to be occasions in Wales when it is necessary to borrow money to keep things going. There is no doubt that Wales is short-changed by the present form of the Barnett formula. That needs sorting out. We have great needs. We have a demography with a great number of older people, many of whom are physically incapable from working long lives in heavy industry and agriculture. It is no wonder, for example, that the Assembly’s health budget has a deficit of £71 million. The threat of NHS service cuts is there, while the demand for NHS services in Wales is huge. I hope that that does not happen. We conclude that the model of democratic governance proposed in this Bill is an unsustainable compromise. It may perpetuate the production of hybrid England and Wales Bills, if there is a logjam. There may be a modest increase in all-Wales Bills, via Orders in Council; we welcome that. But the reality would perhaps result in the Assembly being unable to produce clear, coherent legislation for Wales because it does not have the necessary powers. Although we supported it—because, with other parties, we want progress in Wales—we believe that the original Government of Wales Act 1998 was a compromise; we put down a lot of amendments to try to improve it in both Houses. These proposals incorporate yet another compromise, and time is not on our side. Wales deserves better; but we are not going to try to wreck the Bill. We will try to constructively amend it, to make it a better Bill that is fairer to the people of Wales.