Government of Wales Bill

moved Amendment No. 34:"Page 36, line 6, at beginning insert ““Subject to the limitations of section (Reform of Welsh public bodies) and Schedule (Public bodies subject to reform by Assembly),””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the second day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, moved an amendment concerning the future of the Arts Council of Wales and the Assembly’s right to give financial support to various bodies under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, has explained to me that, because of important prior engagements, he regrettably cannot be here. That is a great pity. I want to refer briefly to the long speech that the noble Lord made then, which set out the circumstances in some detail. He spoke of the importance of the arm’s length principle, which has been with us since 1945 and, as he reminded us, was introduced by Jenny Lee. He then drew attention to Section 28 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which gave the Assembly the power to abolish a range of public bodies or absorb them into the Assembly. He pointed out that the exception provided some protection for a number of public bodies, because it debarred the Assembly from removing any function from organisations unless it was done with the consent of the body concerned. He quoted quite extensively from documents issued by the Labour Party before the introduction of the Act and specific undertakings given by Ministers in the other place that royal charter bodies such as the Arts Council of Wales, the Sports Council for Wales, the National Library of Wales, the National Museum of Wales and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments—bodies created by charter or royal warrant—were all protected in that way. He then described the circumstances that had arisen in the Welsh Assembly where Mr Pugh, the Minister concerned, sought to circumvent the restrictions in Section 28 by using the power to do anything that the Assembly considered appropriate to support a number of organisations, which are now contained in Clause 61. They were then in Section 32 of the 1998 Act. During the extensive debate that followed, the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, asked a very shrewd question. He asked what has happened to Section 28 of the 1998 Act. We were then told that it had not been repealed but was still in force. That brings me to my various amendments. It is rather unfortunate that the section, and the schedule which accompanies it, have not been repeated in the Bill. The equivalent provisions were placed very close together in the 1998 Act and anyone considering the powers under Section 32 would immediately have recognised that restrictions on those powers were provided by Section 28. In the light of what has happened, and the major row that developed in the Welsh Assembly, it is rather important that we do not separate the two provisions completely and tuck away Section 28 and the schedule in another Bill with which people will probably not be so familiar. My Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 would simply put Section 28 of the 1998 Act and its schedule back into the Bill. They are altered only by the deletion from Part I of the schedule of bodies that have already been abolished or absorbed. I have checked and got my information from the Welsh Assembly as to what those bodies are. Otherwise, Section 28 and its schedule are put back exactly as they were. Clearly the Government cannot have any objection to the section and the schedule, as they have not been repealed. It is simply a question of whether it is helpful to have their provisions in the Bill so that there is absolute clarity about the position. My Amendment No. 34 would do something new. It would make it clear that the power to ““do anything”” under Clause 61, which I put back into the Bill, cannot be used to overthrow the safeguards of the replaced Section 28. It would simply make it absolutely clear that the power to ““do anything”” does not override the restrictions in the section and its schedule. Having said that, I have discussed this with Mr Geraint Talfan Davies, the former chairman of the Welsh Arts Council, who I must say was not well treated on that occasion, but we have already covered that ground. He reminded me that it will still be perfectly open to the Assembly to provide grants to arts bodies and other organisations covered by Clause 61 so long as it does not do so on such a scale that it in effect abolishes them or so weakens them that they can no longer function. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that if it went that far, it might be open to legal challenge as to whether it had gone too far. There is certainly a power, and rightly so, for the Assembly to provide grants on occasion to arts bodies. I did so when I was Secretary of State, as did a number of my successors. I supported the Welsh National Opera and various theatres in Wales when it was important that they should have one-off grants to deal with particular situations. I am not arguing in any way that that power should not be available, but my Amendment No. 35 does require the Assembly to consult the relevant bodies if that power is used. That is important. If you are going to give a grant, you will want to consult the relevant organisations on the effects of doing so. That provides a form of discipline so that the powers are not used unwisely and recklessly. That is the purpose of the first four amendments. Prompted by the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, we sought to inquire how much else of the 1998 Act had not been repealed and was still in force. I must say I was pretty startled when I got the schedule from the Minister. It appears that 36 sections of the 1998 Act and some six schedules—I think I have the calculation about right—still exist in whole or in part. Many of them have been amended, and some of them are being amended by the Bill that we are debating now. That will clearly create quite a problem for those who administer the law in any form, both in the Assembly and outside it, because in order to be sure of what the powers of the Assembly and the scope of the activities are, one has not only to refer to the Bill that we are debating today or indeed to the 1998 Act as it was, but to go through the extremely difficult and complex process of discovering how the many sections have been subsequently amended by changes not only by this Bill but by a whole list of Acts that have been passed in the interval. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister referred to just such an amendment to a section or schedule when we debated an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Noakes. My final amendment is simple: within a year the Government should produce a consolidation measure. That would bring together in one Act a clear position on which people can base their judgments. Rather happily, we started the proceedings today with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introducing a consolidation measure on other legislation. He pointed out that it is a simple process. It was moved without any dissent in the House and will be looked at by an appropriate committee. Therefore, there cannot be any great obstacle to having these two measures consolidated in this way. I have to confess that when I first looked at this Bill, in ignorance I thought that it was in effect a consolidation measure. I thought that it would cover all the matters that concerned the Welsh Assembly, which would be brought together in a different Bill. It was a bit of a revelation to discover how much of the 1998 Act would not be touched and would float around in its previous existence, although in a much more complex form because of the various amendments and repeals of individual sections. That is the basis on which I move my final amendment. I believe that the case originally made out by the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, was powerful. There are grounds for concern about these important bodies, which should be provided with appropriate protection. I therefore hope that the House will support that view. I beg to move.