Government of Wales Bill

moved Amendment No. 59:"Page 55, line 25, leave out paragraph (b)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment that seeks reassurance from the Minister in relation to this provision in Clause 100. Indeed, there is a similar provision in Clause 113 in Part 4. Both clauses create an obligation, indeed, a right, for the Secretary of State for Wales to intervene in certain circumstances. The power of intervention in both cases, and thereby the scope of the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction, is enormous. In the first instance, I recoiled when I thought of the enormous influence for evil that potentially rests in these situations. Once the Assembly has been given substantial responsibilities under Parts 3 and 4 and entrusted with responsibilities that are consistent with a considerable development in the constitutional field in relation to Wales, it is utterly incongruous that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, should be invested with powers that belong more to a 19th-century colonial governor than to the present day. The powers with which I am concerned in these amendments are in relation to the possibility of a serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England. On the face of it, that situation could cover a case where a Welsh city sought to aggrandise or increase resources in England and, indeed, bring about the very opposite of the melancholy effect in areas in Wales over the past 150 years. However, I doubt very much whether it was ever intended that the power should operate in that way. The restriction is in respect of the Welsh Assembly. It does not grant any authority in England any greater jurisdiction or powers than it would otherwise have. It restricts what might be called the ““Welsh reaction””—the potential anticipated reaction in Wales. In other words, if there were an attempt to aggrandise further, it would make it much more difficult for the Welsh Assembly to exercise a reasonable measure of self-defence in relation to a Welsh resource, such as water. Water touches a very raw and inflamed nerve in Wales, particularly in rural areas. I well remember the sense of shock and shame—almost of obscenity—some 50 years ago when Liverpool insisted on drowning the Tryweryn valley. It seized the homes of the living and took the graves of the dead. Every Welsh Member of Parliament voted against that happening, and there was a feeling of total outrage. Any reasonable Welsh person reading the Bill—dozens have mentioned this provision to me—says, ““What about the water point?”” It is a very legitimate concern for Wales. I shall speak only briefly on the matter because it has been well rehearsed in the other place and indeed to some extent here. The powers that are already vested in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) are enormous. The powers in relation to water are even wider. In the circumstances, can the Minister allay some of the fears that legitimately and understandably exist in Wales by explaining that these powers would be invoked only in circumstances that would be so extreme as to be almost unique, and that people in Wales can rest assured that there is very little likelihood of their ever being brought into effect? I appreciate that the provisions were in the 1998 Act. There has never been any difficulty since. That argument of course cuts both ways, but I believe that such an assurance should properly be given and would have a very significant psychological effect in Wales. I beg to move.