Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and I have seen his valiant attempts with his modest—I think he would recognise that at this stage—little Bill. Perhaps the Bill is not so modest, but its pathway is likely to be modest. He is at the other extreme. We cannot get devolution fast enough. I was delighted that it was their colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who then put this into some kind of perspective. He argued that there had always been sense in devolution; it had always been right that the Welsh people should develop some form of self-government, but what was necessary is that this process should be subject to proper scrutiny. This Bill is a gradual measure. How could the Conservative Party be against the evolution of gradualists, which this measure represents? I know that that can have a Fabian ring to it at the moderate end of the Labour Party, but I thought that the Conservative Party was not into revolution or dramatic public acts such as referendums. Those are un-English ways, they have sometimes suggested in the past, for going about things. I thought that they wanted the evolution of legislation to be a gradual process—exactly the concept behind this Bill. I heard the rather condemning concepts that this is all about salami tactics and so on. Not so—this is a gradual process subject to public will, initiated by a legislative assembly, which is created by democratic consent and subject to democratic checks and balances under the processes envisaged. We will have the chance in Committee to explore the issues in great detail. No one would expect me to provide in the limited time available an articulation in detail of all the issues raised tonight. I assure the House that we expect to have, and have in the Bill, a framework for the process that we will defend in Committee. Of course, we will listen to the arguments that are presented then—that is the whole point about Committee and subsequent stages of a Bill of this kind. I should be extraordinarily na&-uml;ve if I assumed that a Bill would pass through this House without the detailed scrutiny that it merits, and it will get it. We will have the chance to discuss in great detail the points raised this evening. I reassure the House that the Bill has not been created without very careful thought about the legislative and scrutiny process necessary for the development of the legislation. What the Bill does not do is incorporate the position adopted, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, but reflected by subsequent speakers, and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. We do not incorporate in the Bill a concept of larger membership; of the single transferable vote; or of other dreams of the Liberal Democrat party about how the nation’s legislature should be reconstructed on a different model, because we have a model that is tried and trusted. We recognise the enormous dangers that would be created—after what is, after all, only a limited time for the devolved Assembly—if we changed the electoral basis from that which has obtained in the past in the radical way suggested by Liberal Democrat spokespersons: that the numbers should be greatly increased and that the electoral system should be different. Of course, they will get their chance in Committee to argue that case; I have not the slightest doubt that they will do so. It is an absolute myth of parliamentary language to suggest that Committees deal only with detail; they often deal with formidable arguments of principle and I anticipate that happening about that issue. Let me just say that I hope that noble Lords recognise that principle will be met with principle, clearly identified in the Bill. We will seek to defend our concept. An element raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which chilled the marrow of my blood was that the d’Hondt principle would be subject to detailed scrutiny when it came to the question of the formula for committees. Whenever that phrase has emerged, it has been the subject of extensive challenge and scrutiny and we shall get that in this debate as well. The principle behind it is that there needs to be a formula that guarantees in relatively small Assemblies with relatively small committees that there is appropriate representation for minorities.