Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, speaking after 19 years away, perhaps I should start by congratulating him on his quasi-maiden speech. It was fluent, as we all expected it to be, and I very much look forward to his participating perhaps more in the future. Having listened to the debate so far, I am reminded of my grandfather’s funeral. He was a Welsh preacher in Carmarthenshire and, when he died, six preachers insisted on preaching—three in the chapel and three at the graveside. There was a certain amount of repetition in those six contributions. Although the motivation behind them was clearly good—it was to send my grandfather’s soul up to his due reward—it was a cold day, it rained, as it often did in Carmarthenshire, and it was not the happiest ever of occasions. I start by declaring an interest—as has already been mentioned—as the chairman of the commission that looked to the powers of the National Assembly. At the same time as I declare an interest, I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Rowlands is here. He was an extraordinarily valuable member of the commission, from whom we are to hear a little later tonight. When the Statement on the White Paper, the forerunner of this Bill, was made on 15 June last year, I gave it a qualified welcome. It seemed to me to recognise the important principle that the National Assembly needs greater legislative competence—to use a fairly neutral phrase—than it has at present. I am grateful that the Government have recognised this and have now provided proposals to put it into effect. The Bill’s proposal to change the status of the Assembly from a single corporate body with its own legal personality to a structure that recognises the division of functions between the Assembly Government and the Assembly itself is very much in line with the suggestions in the commission’s report, and I am sure that it is right. The present system is confusing and needs to be clarified. The Bill does so and sets a structure for the Assembly infinitely clearer than the one that exists at present. I likewise agree that Ministers in the Welsh Assembly should no longer sit automatically on the subject committees. This is an important point in the operation of the Assembly. It seems to me that the scrutiny function of the committees is considerably lessened if the Minister who is being scrutinised is a member of the committee itself. If he is, then the relationship becomes perhaps a little over-cosy. I did not detect that there was ever any great terror on the part of Ministers appearing in front of a committee of which they were a member. There is, of course, a strong case for allowing Ministers to appear before committees as and when this might be considered necessary. It is also sensible to clarify the number of Ministers and Deputy Ministers who can form the Assembly Government. If the number of Ministers is eight and the number of deputies is four, then it would follow that, when Ministers are withdrawn from the subject committees, manning the committees adequately will become a problem. That was one reason why we concluded in the commission that with the growth in the legislative capacity of the Assembly the present membership of 60 would not be sufficient. I regret that the Government have rejected that recommendation. The meat of the Bill is in Part 3 and Schedule 5, and the suggestions for enhancing the Assembly’s legislative powers. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I do not take the view that this is just a minor step forward from the present position of the Assembly. Our proposals in the commission were for an interim stage between the present situation and the devolution of primary legislative powers, during which framework legislation would give the Assembly greater powers than it has at present. If that can be categorised as the starting point, the addition of the Government’s proposal to legislate by Orders in Council is an interesting second-stage device, which will give the Assembly greater legislative competence without formally devolving primary legislative powers. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, with very great interest. At the end of his speech, I was not sure whether he was in favour of greater legislative competence. He also attacked the Orders in Council procedure as if in some way or another it was hypocritical or not acceptable for the Government to use it. One of the things that I have learnt in 40 years in politics is the virtue of stealth. If the result of the operation of these powers is that greater legislative powers come down to the Assembly, whether they come stealthily or with banners flying and bands playing I mind not. The important thing is where the powers are, where they come from and to whom they go. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy—although I understand the conservatism of his approach and his natural caution, which emerged very clearly in the speech that he made this evening—at the end of the day will come to the conclusion that the Assembly deserves the greater legislative powers that we in the commission—