Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. It was my happy duty to work for devolved government for Wales alongside her for many years. I congratulate her upon her successful work. I followed closely the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. I recommend most highly his marvellous memoir, Right from the Start. I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. I felt a twinge of regret that I worked so hard to prevent him being elected in his now famous by-election; he triumphed. He is here, I am glad to say, and made a splendid and genuine reference to the late Lord Ackner; he spoke for all of us. As a Wales Office Minister, I campaigned for a ““Yes”” vote in the 1 March 1979 referendum. On the eve of the poll, I had the privilege of opening a new primary school in Blaenau Ffestiniog. To my surprise, the dinner ladies of Maenofferen Primary School gave a united, vigorous thumbs-down to our historic constitutional offer to the Welsh people. Thereafter, the concept of a Wales assembly lay on the back-burner of Welsh governance for a whole generation, or thereabouts. The time was not ripe; the electors were not ready; we, the advocates of devolution, were unconvincing. As every month passes, surely my noble friend Lord Richard’s commission proposals are shown to be shrewdly and cannily made. This Bill, as proposed by the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, will facilitate the noble Lord’s commission’s objectives: not if, but when—probably to target, which may be by 2011. The Wales Assembly is young. The recorded history of our country is well over 1,200 years. Yet, in a few short years, remarkable devolutionary strides have been made. The actual handover from Whitehall to Cardiff was well orchestrated—indeed, quite seamless—and a credit to our civil servants and Assembly Ministers. Constitutional history was made, and the Assembly continues to mature. Surely, then, it has earned the additional powers now offered by the Secretary of State for Wales in his Government of Wales Bill. I take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: it has earned it. On 1 March, Her Majesty the Queen, accompanied by the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Cornwall, opened the new Assembly building. This was not only a unique historic occasion, but surely a seal of approval—a coming of age of the concept of devolved government in Wales. It was a remarkable day, and all those present will have found it unforgettable. It was an impressive ceremony in a brilliantly successful and graceful building. I had the chance to offer my own congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside. None of us can foretell the future, but governments change, even when of the same colour. Should a government lack a majority, then considerable pressures develop. Some of us have been through decades like that. Governments lacking a majority may come under pressure, especially in de facto coalition situations. So we should watch this space, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, implied. It is a changing scene. Will this Bill enhance the governance of Wales? Surely it will. It will certainly boost the confidence of the Assembly as a provider. This legislation is surely a distinctive signpost towards primary legislation, and a measure acceded to by Westminster MPs led by a Secretary of State for Wales with a longstanding record of support for Welsh devolution. Surely the popular and successful First Minister of the Wales Assembly government will see this measure as an acceptable three-quarters of the devolutionary loaf. However, I offer some cautionary notes from, first, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, a professor of government, in 2004; secondly, Mr Peter Riddell, the sage—and tart commentator—of The Times in February this year; and, thirdly, the combative and consistent Mr Alan Williams MP in January 2006 in the Government of Wales Bill debate in another place. Professor Bogdanor said:"““For devolution threatens one very fundamental principle which has lain at the basis of British social democratic politics from the time of the Attlee government. It is that the benefits which the individual derives from the state, and the burdens which the state imposes upon him””—" or her—"““should depend, not upon geography, but upon need””." He went on to say:"““It was for this reason that Aneurin Bevan””—" who was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport—"““so strongly resisted the creation of separate Welsh and Scottish health services””." That was what the professor of government said. Mr Riddell, in a recent issue of The Times,said:"““For a start””—" this is an article refuting in part what the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said—"““ the over-representation of Welsh MPs relative to English ones should be ended. This happened last year in Scotland but Wales needs to lose a fifth of its current 40 MPs, especially after the devolution of greater powers in the Government of Wales Bill””." That is his view, but it is cautionary, and part of the context in which we will consider the progress of this legislation. My former colleague in another place, Mr Alan Williams, who has a long record on this issue, said:"““In the atmosphere that has been partially created by the act of devolution—making the Welsh more Welsh and the Scottish more Scottish—there is a seeping effect of making the English more English. I suspect that there is a limit of how long the English electorate will put up with the situation where Welsh and Scottish votes determine what they get, especially if there was a Government with an overall majority but only a minority of votes in England””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 55.]" That point was made from the Opposition Benches. I bring those to your Lordships because we need to know the context of our debate. To summarise my argument, there are risks. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, implied, nationhood beckons. He may say that, but I judge that continuing accretions of powers are irresistible and inevitable. I think that the political conditions are favourable, and here is a Fabian solution. This measure is a launch pad towards primary powers. What the implications for the United Kingdom are, I do not know.