Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister said. I understand entirely that putting the clause and schedule back into the Bill is not strictly necessary because the Act has not been repealed, but I advance the argument that it was important to have the two provisions standing together. Unless I am looking at a totally different Marshalled List from everybody else, there is some confusion. It was not Amendment No. 45 that roped back in the sections of the 1998 Act, but the later amendments. The key amendment for me is Amendment No. 34, which provides the power to do anything, subject to the limitations of the clause that is going back in and its schedule. I got a good deal of support around the House for my Amendment No. 35, which deals with consultation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, for his observations. Like him, I entirely agree that there was nothing sinister in omitting the clause and the schedule from the Bill. I also welcomed his support for Amendment No. 35. He made a powerful speech suggesting that the powers of Section 28 and its schedule were not necessary, or should not be there, or should be altered or amended. But that is not what we are about here. That is not up for debate. If he had wanted to do that, he should have tabled appropriate amendments. The Government are not altering or repealing or changing Section 28 now, and probably for the reason that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy declared—that it is still absolutely necessary if the so-called bonfire of the quangos is to go on. Without it, the whole process would be halted. We are not really debating whether these clauses should have been put into the original legislation, or whether particular organisations should have been given protection. They are listed as they are because they are charter bodies. There are appropriate ways of getting rid of charter bodies which are not covered by this Bill, or the 1998 legislation, and which need to be dealt with appropriately. There was a suggestion that these bodies should be subject to democratic supervision. I can only say that, in my time as Secretary of State, the National Museum of Wales, for example, as well as the National Library of Wales and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments, found their expenditure of moneys and so on under pretty close supervision at times by the Welsh Office. I am sure the Assembly has all those powers today. When I took the decision that we should fund the new galleries of the National Museum of Wales, my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Walker, intervened very tightly on how that project was run. So those powers are all there. We had a brief reference to the arm’s-length principle. I happen to be one of those who believe it has stood the test of time. I think that to have an Assembly dealing with detailed day-to-day decisions on a whole range of arts bodies around the country would be a profound mistake. I follow the affairs of the Arts Council of Wales pretty closely. My wife was a member of it for seven, eight or nine years—I forget—and I attended a great many of the functions that it supported and have done so ever since. I am afraid I think that we need to ensure that the safeguards are retained, that people take notice of them, and that the arm’s-length principle is upheld. Therefore, I intend to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 55. [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]