Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, it is appropriate that I should open my remarks with an apology. I have been on leave of absence from this House for 19 years, discharging a public duty. I feel like Rip van Winkle, who went hunting in the woods, fell asleep and came back to his village many decades later to find that the whole world had changed. I am sure that, if there are matters with which I should be better acquainted and have not managed to keep up, the House will show me tolerance. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, is of massive constitutional significance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for the general welcome that he has given to the Bill on behalf of his party, despite certain criticisms. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is not incandescently enthusiastic about the Bill, but I discerned from his remarks that there seems to be some movement in the Conservative Party’s attitude to devolution. In any event, there is ample mitigation for the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He did a splendid job in the Welsh Office in inspiring and developing the delegation of functions for many years, and he did splendid work in relation to the Welsh language. I quote from the New Testament:"““By their deeds shall ye know them””." Indeed, his deeds have been noble and substantial in relation to Wales. In looking at the Bill in its generality, I invite the House to accept that the issue should be considered against the background of three realities. The first is the fact of Welsh nationhood. Wales is one of the oldest nations in Europe. John Milton described it as an ““ancient nation”” just over 350 years ago. I am sure that no Member of the House would gainsay or seek to challenge the fact of the nationhood of Wales. The second reality is that the Bill is in the main track of constitutional developments in the past 40 years. Constitutional developments in relation to Wales in the modern era are more or less confined to the past 40 years. Indeed, Wales did not exist as a constitutional entity before the establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Wales in 1964, thus placing Wales on the same basis as Scotland, which had enjoyed that status since 1885. There had been no status whatever for Wales before that time. It is true that in the 19th century a few Bills were passed on educational matters, licensing matters and so on, but there was nothing dealing with Wales as a constitutional entity. The Act of Union of 1536 states that,"““the Dominion, Country and Principality of Wales justly and righteously is and ever hath been incorporated, annexed, united and subject to the Imperial Crown of this realm””." Tudor draftsmen did not allow any loopholes, as we can well appreciate. It took more than 400 years for that situation to change. Since 1964, there has been a steady process of devolution, brought about by the initiative of several Secretaries of State. We have had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the assistance of the Minister of State, Lord Roberts of Conwy, to whom I have referred, and others. There was a steady process of devolution, which was validly and reasonably carried out. That, more than anything—more than all the arguments—made it possible for the establishment of the Assembly in 1998. The third reality is that the Bill is a tribute to the brilliance, statesmanship and imaginative creative powers of the Secretary of State for Wales and those who have served him. Detractors of the Bill will say that it is a fudge. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, says that it borders on dishonesty. Others say that it is a shabby compromise. Of course it is a compromise. Practically every political act is a compromise, because politics is the art of the possible. Nearly all legislation is a compromise. The only clear example to the contrary that I can think of is the delivery of the 10 Commandments from Moses on Mount Sinai; there was no compromise in that. Be that as it may, a compromise by itself is nothing wicked if it serves a proper and honourable purpose, as I believe that this Bill does. I consider Part 4 to be the heart, core and kernel of the Bill. It will be a massively significant leap forward for this House, if the Bill is passed, to create a constitutional edifice to which the Welsh people can have access—indeed, the key to that place will be offered to them—provided that certain conditions are fulfilled in the first instance. One of those, and perhaps the most important, is that the proposal should be supported in a referendum. I do not regard this as a weakness at all and I suspect that those who have attacked the idea of a referendum would be the very people who would attack a situation where no referendum was placed as a qualifying and precedent event. I have every confidence that in due course the Welsh people will support this leap forward by way of a referendum. However, on a personal note, having had the melancholy experience of leading the yes campaign in 1979, I think that one should be very wary of polls. There is a great saying, ““Place not your trust in princes””. I think that we could say, side by side with that, ““Place not your trust in opinion polls””. Six months before that referendum was held on 1 March 1979, the yes campaign was a few points ahead, but it descended rapidly to defeat from that point onwards. I doubt very much that the same would ever happen again. However, it is clear that the process that is set out in the Bill can take place only if there is a two-thirds majority in the Welsh Assembly, if this House and the House of Commons pass affirmative orders for a referendum and if that referendum itself is carried. I do not accept that there is anything fundamentally wrong or inconsistent with contemplating that the Welsh people should some day enjoy legislative powers in their Assembly. To say otherwise would be to believe that there should be a circle of steel, as it were, around the prospects of the Welsh people. Who would wish to place such a circle around any other nation? It would not be placed around the Scots. There are scores of sub-legislatures in the western world that enjoy such powers. It would be utterly wrong to consider that there is something so fundamentally strange and flawed in the character of the Welsh nation that it should, for all time, be denied this possibility. I hope, therefore, that those who contemplate attacking this procedure as a principle will reflect deeply on those considerations. Those who belong to progressive politics may well remind themselves of the words of Keir Hardie, who, a century or so ago, as a Welsh Member of Parliament—he was the Member for Merthyr Tydfil at the time—said, ““I sometimes wonder what it is that makes men able to oppose home rule for the land of their birth””. I pass quickly to Part 3, as I see that time has almost forestalled me. As far as I am concerned, Part 3 is not really an aim in itself; it is a transitory bridge that enables the whole question of Part 4 to be approached. I hope that not many years will be spent with Part 3. It is only a minor and, one might argue, somewhat minuscule development of the present system of subordinate legislation. The developments in that realm in the last decade or so make this a variant of that policy rather than a substantial extension. The scrutiny powers are all available. I have not had the experience of these matters over the past few years to be able to decide exactly how they should be manipulated, but the choice is wide and I have no doubt that there will be proper scrutiny, possibly by joint bodies of this House, the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly. No doubt some people will say that this should not develop on the fact of a referendum carried by a 6,500 majority only. I remind the House that the Great Reform Bill of 1832 was carried by a single vote, but nobody would wish to go back on that path.