Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate. Let me first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He will have recognised that 93 of the clauses were recycled from the 1998 Act, so it is not surprising that the other place did not think they ought to spend a huge amount of time discussing clauses which had been considered in previous legislation. Ample time was allowed for proper scrutiny, especially as the Bill follows the policies set out in the White Paper, which were thoroughly discussed and consulted upon. I am not suggesting that this Bill merits anything but the fullest possible discussion in this House. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we will be moving a Motion fairly shortly—I hope it will be shortly as it will be at the conclusion of my speech—to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, we will be discussing it in this Chamber; and so we should. This has been a fitting debate for a Bill that represents a historic step forward in the governance of Wales. The Bill will increase accountability by creating a clear separation between the executive and the legislature in Wales—a separation which I think has been supported on all sides of the House, and certainly by my noble friends. It will enable the Assembly—the legislature—to have the powers it needs to shape ““made in Wales”” legislation to meet Welsh priorities. It will improve the electoral system by ensuring that when voters reject a constituency candidate, they will not see that same candidate re-emerge as their regional member in the same election. These were all manifesto commitments made by the current Government at the general election, and we intend to see them through the House, subject of course to the necessary scrutiny of detail. So far as concerns the Conservative Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—and I first pay tribute to him for his outstanding work on the Welsh language when he was a Minister in the Welsh Office; we all applaud that—was a little unfair to the Government. He suggested that we were adopting a cautious position on referenda—that is from an administration who, in the 18 years they were in power, never thought that there was an issue to be put before the British people in terms of a referendum. So I do not think I will take a lecture from the noble Lord on the enthusiasm with which referenda should be undertaken. The Bill provides for the increase in powers judiciously arrived at through careful consideration under Orders in Council—a process which I freely admit the noble Lord emphasised particularly strongly, but he was followed by many Members in the House saying that they wanted to look closely and scrutinise the Orders in Council proposals and how they will work. We will have opportunities for that in Committee. Perhaps I may dispense with this suggestion that what is being accepted is some arbitrary system. Henry VIII powers have been mentioned. How can Henry VIII powers be applied unless Henry VIII was a democratic monarch living in Cardiff, subject to popular vote? Clearly, these are not Henry VIII powers; they are powers but they are powers vested in a legislative assembly. Of course we should expect a legislative assembly duly elected by the people of Wales to be able to initiate legislation for judicious consideration through the procedure for Orders in Council, bringing in both the other place and this House. It is for this House to make up its mind about how to scrutinise this legislation. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, first addressed this issue and said that she wanted some clarity. This was raised in other parts of the House as well. To clarify, the Constitution Committee has been helpful already. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, chairman of the committee, ensured that it addressed the issue. What did it say? It said that,"““a clear demarcation of roles would be desirable to ensure effective scrutiny and avoid repetition of effort. It will be important for the committee involved to have sufficient expertise and experience of Welsh affairs. Thought will also need to be given as to how the work of this House, and its committees, can complement rather than merely duplicate the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee in the House of Commons””." That is the Constitution Committee’s proposal. It needs to be thought about more fully. I am quite sure that in the development of this House we will get a basis for proper scrutiny of what we recognise is an innovatory development of legislation, an advancement of devolution, to which we all subscribe—though at different levels of enthusiasm. I think the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said basically that somewhat grudgingly his party had adopted a new stance. Everything is new in the Conservative party at the present time—the issue to test is whether anything will last. He certainly indicated that the party was adjusting its position on devolution, when it had blown pretty cold on the issue in the past. At the other extreme is the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who can scarcely hold his breath for the arrival of devolution for Wales, so that he can then establish English for the English against a background—