Government of Wales Bill

moved Amendment No. 37:"Page 51, line 2, at end insert ““, but such power shall not be exercised without there having first been full consultation with the Assembly””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (5) of Clause 92 states:"““This Part does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Wales””." My amendment seeks to qualify what is otherwise an absolute authority by stating,"““but such power shall not be exercised without there having first been full consultation with the Assembly””." I appreciate that this suggested amendment will never be carried and that, if it were to be, it would have no effect for the simple reason that the mother Parliament in respect of the Welsh Assembly, Senate or Parliament, whatever we call it, will always have that residual longstop authority. The reality of this was brought home to me very forcefully some 20 years ago when the dominion of Canada became a republic. The British North America Act 1867 was amended by this House, not by the Canadian Parliament. This House had retained the absolute and ultimate authority in that respect. If Australia ever becomes a republic, it will be for this House to pass the legislation. It follows, therefore, that the ultimate authority will always be here. One may well question the point of suggesting any amelioration of that authority. It is this: there are two sides to the coin; one side could lead to abuse and the other could lead to very considerable practical convenience. The abuse would arise if the Welsh Assembly passed a measure in a devolved area with which this House was not happy—let us assume for a moment that Part 4 was in operation—and within a month this House passed legislation that was utterly contrary to it, thereby showing its contempt for the very existence, I would argue, of the Welsh Assembly. The other side of the coin is this. Let us suppose that legislation is needed speedily—for instance, in the realms of housing, roads and education—and that it applies to both Wales and England. If the Welsh Assembly is not geared to deal with that in a matter of days or weeks, as might be necessary, it would be very convenient to allow this House to legislate for both jurisdictions. This is exactly what happens in Scotland. I understand that at Committee stage in 1998, when the Scottish Bill was going through this House, what is called the Sewel convention—which is named after the noble Lord who, as Minister, was dealing with the Bill—was agreed. This convention in no way creates legislation or any contract—it might be described as an understanding binding in honour only—but it is a very powerful development. Its effect is that the Westminster Parliament has undertaken not to intervene in any Scottish matter unless requested to do so by, and with the consent of, the Scottish Parliament. I am asking that the Minister should give thought to introducing a formal convention on the lines of the Scottish model, which I think would be amply justified. It is a case not only of endorsing and protecting Welsh rights, but of protecting in the future what one hopes will be a very fulsome and proper relationship between this House and the Welsh Assembly.