Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, I think it entirely reasonable and appropriate that someone like me, who has spent his life in politics representing English constituencies, should speak in this debate, because the measure before us has a considerable constitutional implication on the devolution settlement that is slowly emerging in our country. Perhaps the second reason for my speaking in this debate was touched on in the debate on my Bill, which would disqualify Scottish and Welsh MPs from voting on English domestic issues, when the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, intervened to remind the House that I was born in Newport, which I was. He went on to say that I had managed to conceal this, but far from it. He should read my memoirs; he would find it an improving process. I was born in Newport, Monmouthshire, but everyone in this House will know that, in those days, Newport, Monmouthshire was sometimes in England and sometimes in Wales. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, then intervened and said that I was wrong: Monmouthshire was its own place, and that the United Kingdom consisted of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the county of Monmouth and the city of Berwick-upon-Tweed. He said that I was born neither in Wales nor in England. I am therefore stateless—a position which my tax inspector has not yet recognised. It is an important debate because we are in a process of continuing devolution. As the Minister said in his opening speech, this is more devolution. It is a significant step, which I support, but I go further; I support entirely the proposals of the Richard commission. I thought it was a very wise and sensible commission and that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, set out the reason why a body such as the Welsh Assembly, which has some of the characteristics of a local authority body, should move to become a parliament. I am disappointed that the Government have not taken this opportunity to implement it in full, because one day Wales will have its own parliament and will have power over its legislation. Once you have given that to Scotland, it is irresistible for Wales. We do not have that, however. Instead, we have an extraordinary compromise, which has been described in this House tonight as a fudge and in another place as a mishmash and a dog’s breakfast. There is a very elegant 18th century word which could be used to describe it. Salmagundi was a dish that was prepared from scraps of meat and fish, some old onions and eggs, and served up as an hors d’oeuvre. This is a salmagundi of a Bill, and the Minister should immediately announce a competition for that to be translated into Welsh, if it is not Welsh already. I support more devolution because it is the first step towards a separate parliament for Wales. The essential first step, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, was the separation of the executive and the legislative power. That is absolutely central, which at least the Government recognise. After that, however, the Government came up with this extraordinary fudge. In future, the Welsh Assembly will devise whatever it wants to do for all those devolved matters for which it has total responsibility and which cannot be challenged in the House of Commons, and it will advance proposals, as it has already done. A paper has been prepared showing all the Bills that have been passed since 2000 that would come under this proposal. They all deal with the domestic issues of Wales, such as local health boards, the Wales Centre for Health, the new health and social services inspections regime, and the Social Housing Ombudsman for Wales. I think that those matters should be dealt with entirely in Wales. They are the concern of Wales and of those elected representatives who have a responsibility for Welsh matters. Since 2000, these Bills have had to go through the processes of both Houses. In future, that will not happen. One of the reasons why the Government want that is that it will de-clutter the legislative framework in both Houses. They are so keen on this process because all the legislative detail of these measures will be examined in Cardiff. I am not against that—I believe that that is what should happen—but I do not see why the Welsh Assembly should then ask the Secretary of State for Wales for a tick to be allowed to do all this, and for it all to be done by Order in Council. Those of us who have been in politics for some time know perfectly well that the Order in Council is an extraordinary device. For a start, we do not vote on Orders in Council in this House, so this House, which has passed amendments and discussed all these Bills since 2000, will have no chance at all of voting on any of the detail of these proposals in the future. We learn that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny. I am in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny. I was a member of the Procedure Committee from 1975 to 1979 in the House of Commons, which recommended not only Select Committees but pre-legislative scrutiny. Such scrutiny, however, has not been a very satisfactory experiment. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will know that from his experience of the Ofcom Bill, which was given considerable pre-legislative scrutiny to improve it. The Government, however, simply dismissed all the Select Committee’s proposals. I believe that they waded through them and did not accept a single one, so I hold no great belief that this means the great involvement of Westminster in examining the legislation. I do not think that that will happen, particularly when it can be done simply through a proposal rather than through detailed examination of the Bill. Would a Secretary of State for Wales ever decline a proposal from the Welsh Assembly on any of these matters, such as banning smoking in public places in Wales or providing a tourist accommodation registration system for Wales, if all the Assembly Members wanted it? It is inconceivable, particularly if the Secretary of State for Wales does not actually represent a Welsh seat. It would be a complete farce and a constitutional crisis, so I do not believe that that will actually happen. The Bill almost represents a parliament in another name. Those people who support the Bill have all been saying that this is the step that will take them where they want to go, but you do not need a referendum for where you want to go; this is something that has been devised by the Government. The Government have the power simply to say that the Assembly can move to being a parliament. I gather from all the opinion polls in Wales, although I am not closely in touch with them, that that move is rather popular. The Bill is an extraordinary constitutional compromise, and has within it considerable sources of friction. So far, the constitutional arrangements since 2000 have broadly worked well because the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff has the same complexion as the Government at Westminster; both are Labour. Scotland has a Labour Government and Edinburgh basically has a Labour-supporting coalition, but what would happen if there were different parties? Let us suppose that the Assembly in Cardiff had a Conservative majority one day. I see one or two Peers smiling at this concept and possibly even laughing at the idea and thinking it fanciful, but fanciful things can sometimes happen. If, a fortnight ago, anyone in this House had suggested that rich industrialists would lend £1 million or £2 million to the Labour Party in the expectation of a peerage, it would have been looked on as fanciful and absolutely impossible, so fanciful things can happen. But if that is too fanciful for Members, let us suppose that there is a Labour-controlled Assembly in Wales and a Conservative Secretary of State in Westminster. This is a relationship that has not yet been tested. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, touched on it. It would create a sense of tension in the arrangements that we are going to produce; it would not create a tension as regards Scotland, because Scotland has the right to legislate separately. If a Welsh Labour Assembly came forward with a proposal which a Conservative Secretary of State found totally objectionable, and he said ““No””, that would be a constitutional crisis. That would be quite rightly so, because I do not believe that he should have that power: the representatives in the Assembly should have the same powers as the representatives in the Scottish Parliament, which I hope will one day come about. So why have the Government done this? They have done it for the reason that I have already mentioned—to clear out the legislative logjam in both Houses—but also to give the Welsh almost a parliament, without the consequences of having a parliament. One consequence of having a parliament is that the Welsh representation in Westminster would be reduced from 40 seats to 32. I do not see that as a schedule to the Bill. But in all logical sequence, that is what should happen. I believe that this will create a parliament in all but name, which all supporters of the Bill have said today. There will be a mishmash. When these measures undergo any pre-legislative scrutiny or are even proposed for an Order in Council, I do not see why Members from England or Scotland should vote on them. I do not see why English and Scottish Members should vote on ombudsmen, health councils and local health boards in Wales, and the Children’s Commissioner in Wales. It is the concern of the Welsh. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, ended with a poem from the very great RS Thomas in his early days, which was a diatribe against the English. When he was chairman of Faber and Faber, he published lots of English poets who wrote rather the other way. Noble Lords might remember Christopher Logue, who said:"““If all else fails, try Wales””." I hope that he will now distance himself from that poet’s totally unacceptable comment. If I were living in the land of my forefathers, I would certainly support a parliament for Wales. It will come one day. The Government should have the courage to do it.