Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I well remember the Second Reading eight years ago of the first Government of Wales Bill, when, in arguing strongly for the principle of devolution, I felt bereft of support on these Benches. But I have to say that today I am delighted at how my colleagues have come out to say that in principle they strongly support devolution, and a suggestion from my noble friend Lord Baker even for a parliament for Wales. The only thing they really object to is the process of stealth and deviousness. We would have to agree in this House that the National Assembly has been a success. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, in chairing his commission and producing his report, came to that conclusion two years ago. If anything, the evidence since then is even stronger. All parties and Members of the Welsh Assembly have made a commitment to see it succeed. It has been very innovative, with the Children’s Commissioner, the Welsh baccalaureate and so forth. It has strengthened the sense of Welsh national identity, and I took very much to heart the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he said that the preservation of the language is central to the concept of Welsh devolution. It has not led to the break-up of the United Kingdom, as was predicted by some, and because of its obvious success it has gained support. I shall not go over the statistics, but one that has not been mentioned was in the ICM poll. When people were asked who should have the most influence over the way Wales is run, 60 per cent responded that it should be the National Assembly and 20 per cent the UK Government. Even though I strongly disagree with the political stance of certain policies taken by the Assembly Government, I am nevertheless equally convinced of the value of devolution. Indeed, it could be said that the Bill is necessary only because of the success of the Assembly. The fact is that a devolved government of Wales has established itself as a permanent feature of the UK constitution and all parties are committed to making it work. I recognise the fact that the main opposition party in the other place tabled at Second Reading a reasoned amendment, and at Third Reading voted against the Bill, and that Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament have asked for health to be returned to Westminster. I hope that this does not create a misunderstanding and give the impression that Members on these Benches are constantly dragging our feet. It is clear from reading the debates that, as my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy said earlier, the Leaders of the Conservative Party both in London and in Cardiff have come out strongly in favour of the principle of devolution. However, the devil lies in the detail, and that is the reason for the opposition which the Bill has met. I want to comment on a few aspects of the Bill, starting with the virtually unanimous agreement expressed in this debate on the need to separate the executive and the legislature. The original model for devolution was complex, confusing and contained structural defects. I well remember that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy pointed them out in the debate eight years ago. They were foreseen at the time. The idea of the Assembly being a corporate body that would facilitate inclusive and consensual decision-making was always a triumph of hope over reason and, frankly, flew in the face of our experience here in Westminster. It was because of that that in February 2002 the Assembly voted unanimously that it should effectively de facto be separated. The Richard commission supported that in its conclusion. That major defect in the Bill led in turn to other problems—the lack of time and resources to develop and scrutinise proposed legislation; the superficial nature of the subject committees; ineffective scrutiny of quangos; lack of consistency in how legislation for Wales was framed and so on. Therefore, I think we would all support—I strongly support it—the separation of the executive and the legislature, which will enhance democratic accountability in Wales. Secondly, one issue that has come out in this debate—I am not a constitutional lawyer and I am not sure that I really understand it—is the details of Orders in Council and the process, which the Bill has, of strengthening and accelerating the legislative process. Here I disagree with some of my colleagues. I believe that the key to this issue is the recognition that devolution is a process and not an event. The Richard commission summed up the matter well when it said that,"““the evidence demonstrates that there is now in place an evolving legislative relationship (between Wales and Westminster) based increasingly on the expectation that, in principle, the needs and wishes of the Assembly should be met””." The Bill is developing the Orders in Council and the scrutiny process. It is an evolution. As somebody who is rather conservative, with a small c as well as a big c, I rather like that evolutionary process. It is building on the strength of success and it is not going for something radical. Frankly, I would be very nervous about a referendum at the moment. I wonder what kind of question you could ask which would excite and engage the people of Wales. What if, heaven forbid, it came out negative? That may be black and white and a clear result but it would throw the past 10 years into complete confusion. I therefore think that the time has to be right before we advance. I am not opposed to a referendum in principle but it seems to me that the present is not the right time. If the Bill were to propose granting tax-raising powers to the Assembly, an increase in the number of Members and a change in the electoral system to STV, those would be fundamental changes. If they were proposed, a referendum would be essential. But it seems to me that the Bill passed eight years ago contained the process of evolution that we are now seeing. My feeling is that if you buy a car, you need to put petrol in the tank to get it to move anywhere. This Bill is putting petrol in and accelerating the process of devolution, but I do not believe that it is changing it in any fundamental way. Thirdly, how robust is this Bill? The Secretary of State in the other place said that,"““The Bill delivers a lasting settlement that will settle the constitutional argument in Wales for a generation or more””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 32.]" I take a generation to be 20 years; I take a generation or more to be nearly 30 years. Immediately I read that sentence, I said to myself that I doubted whether anyone of Welsh stock could display such self-confidence. It seems to me that a lasting settlement has to be a robust settlement, not just for fair weather but for rougher storms. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, laid that out very clearly. Given what is happening nationally, and given what is happening in Wales, where next year you could easily have a coalition that has defeated the existing Labour Government, there could well be a different colour of party in London from that in Cardiff. Then the question arises: what would happen? How would the differences be resolved? It is not clear to me that, if there were a head-on clash between these views, we have a mechanism at present by which it could be resolved in a reasonable way. I am not in favour of a referendum regarding proposals to introduce the Order in Council but if there was one argument that would change my mind it would be the prospect of a head-on clash that then necessitated calling a referendum to resolve the issue, and the referendum debate becoming not simply devolution in Wales but the issue on which it had been called. That would muddy the waters, confuse the situation and again set back devolution. Fourthly, as has been mentioned, I have great reservations about the powers that the Secretary of State has carved out for himself—or, in future, maybe herself—in Clauses 94, 100, 149, and so on. I find it curious that on the one hand the proposal regarding Orders in Council assumes a professional, competent and responsible legislative body in Cardiff which is trusted and to which the Government are prepared to give more power, yet on the other hand, the powers the Secretary of State has in the Bill suggest that perhaps Wales cannot really be trusted with the power given to it. Either there is an inconsistency intrinsic in the Bill or else there is a lack of trust in Wales as if it is a teenage child growing up that still needs a great deal of parental control. I refer to dual candidacy. One has to have some sympathy with the voters of Clwyd West, who, out of five candidates, choose one only to find that three others show up in the Assembly. As has been said, the proposal in the Bill is to ban candidates from standing in both the constituency and the Assembly elections. The dissatisfaction with the system is based on two claims. The first is that the electorate vote not only for someone but against others. It is confusing, therefore, to see defeated candidates appear as successful Assembly Members. Secondly, the system has been open to systematic abuse as list Members have set up constituency offices and deal with constituency casework in competition with the local Member, possibly targeting vulnerable seats. I have yet to find any evidence to support the first claim. I have read everyone who has written on this subject but I have not yet come across any solid evidence regarding what voters have found insidious about the system. I can conjure reasons for what they might think but I have yet to find hard evidence. On the second claim, a ban on dual candidacy—as has already been said—will not prevent list Members setting up constituency offices. The simple fact is that AMS as a system is very different from first-past-the-post and is confusing for an electorate who are used only to first-past-the-post. A system that produces two classes of Members can be remedied only by changing the system. Meanwhile, a ban on dual candidacy—Members of the Labour Party associated with Wales must trust me on this—would certainly make it more difficult for minor parties to put first-class candidates into the Welsh Assembly. In conclusion, the Government are to be credited with introducing a Bill that strengthens and speeds up devolution but which avoids calling for an immediate referendum. The Bill, however, needs significant revision. The commitment of the Government to making devolution a multi-party issue based on a consensus in London will be judged on their flexibility in having the Bill amended.