Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, to follow my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, who has moved from splendid isolation on his Benches to a new consensus, to welcome back my noble friend Lord Rowlands after his operation and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, after his long period of hibernation. I speak as one who, during the 1970s, was a member of what was called the Gang of Six. In my judgment, circumstances were very different at that time. The experiment of devolution in a unitary system was wholly untried; there were clamant voices for separation, drawing on a somewhat 19th-century view of national independence. I believe that the concerns that I and some colleagues raised at the time were valid and that there were justified fears of a slippery slope to a form of separation. I also believe that the circumstances today are fundamentally different. The Assembly is now a fixed part of the political landscape in Wales. The separatist tide has ebbed and fears about the fragmentation of the United Kingdom have not been realised. On the country, it can plausibly be argued that the union has been strengthened by devolution. However, there are some legitimate concerns about the increasing numbers of England-only issues that will result from the process that is under way, a process that could thereby encourage English nationalism—hence the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking—with results that cannot be predicted. Also in the process is the likelihood that there will be a reduction in the number of Welsh seats at Westminster, which could reduce the possibility of a Labour Government. That will be welcome to certain Members like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, but others may just be sleepwalking. Now that the Assembly has been established, it would be wholly wrong to suggest that its powers were fixed in stone in 1998. No political institution is static; all are dynamic in development. There have been creative but somewhat ad hoc attempts to remove the rough edges of the 1998 settlement. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Rowlands and other members of the commission for drawing attention to that. Those efforts include joint consideration of Bills, pre-legislative co-operation, such as with Clause 17 of the NHS Redress Bill, and various other informal means of breaking down the barrier between Members of the Assembly and Westminster. Such brave efforts, however, have their limits and a more radical approach is clearly appropriate. The Order in Council procedure under Part 3 is an ingenious way of proceeding. It overcomes the problem of finding slots in the Government’s legislative programme, for which there is intense competition. Yet, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, the real test will come when different parties or different coalitions of parties are in control at Westminster and Cardiff. In such circumstances, can we rely on the traditional British pragmatism? A former Irish Prime Minister said of the British constitution:"““It works in practice, but does it work in theory?””" This may be an example of such working in practice, but we cannot be certain of the future. I am not sure that a satisfactory answer has been given to the Swansea West problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, mentioned. That is the problem—raised by my friend and former colleague the Father of the House of Commons—of the new political boundaries. The continuing incremental, step-by-step accretions of power could give the Assembly so much additional power as to make the promised referendum irrelevant. I accept, of course, that there could not be a proper referendum on the current proposals, but the question must be posed: where along the continuum from the current proposals to a position that would require a referendum would it be appropriate to have a referendum? Therefore, there is at least the scope for bypassing the proposal for a referendum. The Government appear to accept that the same destination as would require a referendum can be reached, albeit over a longer period. The choice, therefore, is a fast train or a slow train—no stop and no reverse. Of course, there is no easy answer. Where are the barriers or the stopping points on such a development? There are no constitutional barriers, as there would be in a federal system, with a written constitution and a supreme court to adjudicate. I see colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches nodding in agreement on this, which is their policy. I suppose that the only answer is political and lies in the good sense of Cardiff and Westminster. The question remains: can we rely on good sense alone? How firm are the safeguards in practice? It may not be difficult to obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly. I shall say only this on the public opinion polls: the noble Lord, Lord Elystan- Morgan, has already given his bitter experience of 1979—put not your trust in opinion polls. The public can be very fickle and one cannot negotiate with the public.  It is clear that almost two-thirds of the Welsh electorate now appear to favour some form of devolution within the UK. It is sad that, according to the latest poll, the majority also believe that the Assembly has made no difference in education and in the economy; the plurality have a similar belief about health. Perhaps humility is needed in the light of the 1997 referendum result: 50 per cent voting, with 25 per cent for and 25 per cent against. That result was carried in the slipstream of a massive Labour victory, with all the major forces in Wales, with the exception of the Conservative Party, supporting the yes vote. So I favour the Order in Council procedure, but it is clear that there will need to be adequate scrutiny. I fully accept the points made by a number of noble Lords. A helpful model has been given to us, but much will depend on goodwill. It would be a rash Westminster government of whatever political complexion that capriciously withheld consent to a request from the Assembly for increased powers. That would be wholly counterproductive and would provoke a hostile reaction within Wales itself—a very unpragmatic and very un-British response. On the technical resources available to the Assembly, I understand that the Government assume that there will be roughly six Orders in Council per year. That requires additional technical drafting experience at the Assembly. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that position has been addressed. The most controversial part of the Bill is, of course, Part 1, which relates to the electoral system. The STV system, proposed by the Richard commission, has many advantages, although the Members of the Assembly would almost certainly thereby lose any constituency link. Some claim that the bar on standing both in the constituency and on the list is partisan, but that is not necessarily so. It depends on the outcome of the election. I genuinely do not have strong views on that. I accept the position mentioned by several Members that the Assembly could be deprived of scarce political talent if a candidate is shut out altogether when he or she loses in a constituency; 17 of the current 20 list members elected in 2003 were losers in constituency elections. Under the current system, voters cannot get rid of unpopular representatives when the parties put them high on the list. They will necessarily be elected. I can cite not only the Clwyd West example. I recall on election night looking at the result from Llanelli, where at one moment the very able candidate who had just lost appeared to be shedding copious tears; an hour or so later I saw the same candidate rejoicing in Carmarthen when the list result was declared. I felt in my bones that that was not really democratic. I confess that I do not know how this can be avoided, but losers will laser-beam particularly vulnerable constituencies within the region. Overall, I welcome the Bill and give it at least two cheers, but nagging questions remain about where the ultimate destination lies. Perhaps the only answer is political: the destination is as far off as the people of Wales want it to be. The Assembly has used its powers well, but it clearly still needs to convince the majority of people in Wales that it has made a real difference. As a matter of democratic principle, decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level. I hope that devolution means just that and not simply an accretion of power at Cardiff. A real effort should be made to devolve power from Cardiff wherever appropriate to make our local authorities as vibrant as possible in key areas. In short, the Bill is a pragmatic next step—yes, it is a consensus and, yes, it is somewhat confused—in giving more powers to the Assembly. This debate has shown the need for further debate and clarification. The settlement of 1997–98 has worked reasonably well, but it should now be modernised and brought up to date. This Bill, albeit not for a generation, will help to achieve just that.