Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that these were labyrinthine and serpentine proposals. He, at least, has been crystal clear. He has reflected the deep doubts in the Conservative Party about devolution. That is what the amendments reveal: they have reduced the Assembly to the status of a parliamentary committee, every measure passed by the Assembly requiring approval by both Houses of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated, he may have some doubts about aspects of devolution and the proposals in the Bill, but he can recognise a denial of the concept when he sees it. Requiring measures to be ratified by Parliament would not just stop the present state of power in Wales; it would be a step backwards. It would place the Assembly under restrictions more stringent than exist in the current settlement. There is little point in a process of controlled devolution to the Assembly if the legislation it passes has to be approved by Parliament before it becomes law. We should not be surprised at the challenge from the other side because, although we got four different approaches to devolution from the Opposition Benches at Second Reading, there was no security in their position. That has now been revealed as they challenge this Bill in detail. As things stand, the Assembly can make its own secondary legislation without recourse to Parliament. Using framework powers, such as those contained in the NHS Redress Bill—which has been considered and approved by this House—the Assembly can make laws similar in scope to an Assembly measure. There is no ratification requirement, such as that proposed in the amendment, because that Bill becomes an Act of this sovereign Parliament, allowing a framework in which decisions can be taken in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seems to find the principle behind that objectionable. I have not heard him or his colleagues object to framework Bills passed by this legislature, but perhaps they are getting round to that. There is no difference between the proposal in the Bill and the framework provisions in a Bill like the NHS Redress Bill: Parliament deciding on the principle and the Assembly deciding on the detail in Wales, on behalf of the Welsh people. The party opposite did not present opposition to the NHS Redress Bill, but approved it. There are one or two other matters that I think deserve serious consideration in response to this debate. I recognise an old Swansea alliance when I see one because my noble friend Lord Anderson reflected anxieties expressed in the Commons by his erstwhile colleague the Father of the House about conferring primary legislation. That is not the case; what is being sought and provided here is that the provisions for the Assembly should be within the framework of the powers given by the Orders in Council in the first instance. It is then open to the Assembly to present proposals for enhancing its powers but, as noble Lords recognise, that process would take a considerable period of time and be within the framework of this Bill and the 1998 Act, which clearly define the limits of the Assembly’s competence. As for the power of the Secretary of State to intervene on proposed measures before they are approved by the Queen, we are not talking about the Orders in Council, which potentially enable the Assembly to propose measures; we are talking about measures that the Assembly proposes in areas that have been vouchsafed to it by previous Orders in Council. We are then talking about the Secretary of State being able to intervene if, in his judgment, what is being contemplated by the Assembly raises significant and serious issues. That provision obtains in the Scotland Act in relation to the Scottish Parliament, and it was the judgment of this Parliament—of this House and another place—that this reserve power is necessary. That is not the same as saying that we are going back to a parliamentary process of scrutiny because that would be to destroy devolution entirely; it is to say that there may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State reaches a judgment that is different from that of the Assembly in certain areas. We had an extensive debate yesterday, and we are destined to debate further ramifications later today regarding the crucial issue of the resource of water—we all know there is a particular relationship between the amounts that obtain in Wales and the amounts of which the English nation has always been able to avail itself. Areas such as that have particular significance above and beyond Wales. Therefore, there must be some element of reserve. That is all that is reflected there. So this provision does not suggest full parliamentary scrutiny. It does not mean that; it is a reserved position. But, overall, the Bill creates the opportunity for increased measures of self-governance with regard to Wales, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, despite the extremely attractive manner in which he presented the amendment, is bent on wrecking.