| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Government of Wales Bill
3.36 pm
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are probing amendments. This is a Bill that starts by declaring that there is "to be" an Assembly when there already is an Assembly. In due course, we will come to clauses that establish what happens to that existing Assembly. It is reasonable to ask, however, why the Bill is drafted in this way. As this is in part a consolidation measure and in part new legislation, it may be argued that it is tidier and simpler to proceed in this way. However, there is a danger: this is a big Bill. There are some easily identified clauses that we can all recognise as important. But there is a risk that we will miss or fail to detect other clauses that make changes which may be very important.
It is also a fact that as events have moved on since the Bill was drafted revision of some clauses may be required. We already have government Amendments
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1059
Nos. 5 and 6, for example, which do just that. It is very desirable that the Minister should clearly identify, clause by clause, and as we proceed, where the drafting simply replicates existing legislation and where changes are being made and for what reason. My amendment provides an opportunity to make some general points that have not been addressed at Second Reading. I made my general position very clear during the Second Reading debate. I do not think that we should go back to the structures in place before the referendum. I think that our job is to attempt to make the post-referendum Assembly Government more effective, in so far as we can do that, by building on the experience of the existing Assembly, and so long as we do not go beyond the authority granted by the Welsh people in that referendum.
The previous legislation, in my judgment, went too far in seeking to impose procedures on the Assembly that would have been much better decided by the Assembly itself. If we are to have an Assembly with wide powers, surely it should be allowed to decide its own procedures in the light of its own experience. Parliament should limit itself to imposing procedures that are required to ensure constitutional propriety and to prevent it acting beyond the powers that have been granted to it by Parliament, but should not attempt to impose other matters on the Assembly. The Bill removes, or relaxes, some of the procedural restrictions, but we will need to consider whether the Government have got the balance right, and in particular whether the role given to the Secretary of State is appropriate. There are some Liberal Democrat amendments that raise that issue with which I have some sympathy.
The report of the Constitution Select Committee of this House comments on that subject in paragraph 18 on page 10, when it points out that Clause 29 requires the Standing Orders of the Assembly to make specific provision on the party political composition of committees. It tells us that there is no comparable provision in the Scotland Act 1998 in relation to committees of the Scottish Parliament. It concludes:
"It may be thought that clause 29 is an inappropriate incursion into matters that should be left for the Assembly to determine for itself".
That is exactly the kind of interference that I have sought to identify, and we should look to see whether there are other cases.
The performance of the existing Assembly has been mixed. Much of what it does is, I fear, barely recognised by the people of Wales. That may be the fault of the media, which is not exactly comprehensive in its coverage of the Assembly's activities. It is probably better known for what it has got wrong than for its achievements. One Assembly Member has told me that at least in part that is due to weaknesses in the present structure and the procedural limitations to which I have already referred. Clearly, the situation will be considerably helped by the separation of the
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1060
Executive role from the legislative and scrutiny functions. That is a change that I warmly welcomed at Second Reading.
There is an important need for arrangements that make clear where responsibility lies, but that does not mean that it will always be wise to take within the responsibility of the Assembly all the functions for which it is responsible. Even if their nature may change, there will still be a useful role for quangos and for the contribution of individuals with wide experience who are prepared to offer their skills in public service. Time alone will tell whether it has been wise, for example, to absorb within the Assembly the work of the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Language Board. I have my doubts about that, particularly in the case of the Welsh Language Board.
There is a need for arrangements that enable Assembly Members to challenge, and if necessary bring to heel, Members of the Executive. That has been amply proved by the extraordinary conduct of Mr Pugh, whose treatment of Geraint Talfan Davies—whose contribution to and knowledge of Welsh culture and the arts far exceeds his own—has in my judgment been disgraceful. The manner in which he has dealt with the Arts Council of Wales and arts funding has caused well-justified and widespread anger and concern. I cite that simply as an example of where there is a need for independent and separate judgment by Assembly Members of the actions of the Executive.
The changes that we make to the Bill may not prevent in the future ministerial folly or incompetence. But as we move from one form of assembly to another, we can ensure that the lines of responsibility are clear; and that the elected Members of the Assembly are in a position to prevent abuse and to keep the people of Wales fully informed about the way in which Government are being conducted in Wales.
On Amendment No. 2—it will be moved shortly from the Liberal Democrat Benches—the proposition having been debated in a committee of the Assembly, it was rejected by seven votes to one with two abstentions. If we are to take the Assembly seriously, perhaps we should take its advice on this matter. I beg to move.
3.45 pm
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: In proposing Amendment No. 2, it is necessary for us as a party to state where we are coming from as regards the kind of assembly we wish to see. Our amendment would insert that there should be,
For a long time we have stuck to important principles. We wish to see created a Welsh parliament with primary law-making powers; we want that parliament to have 80 members; and we want to see it elected by the single transferable vote. If that is the case, it is entirely logical for that body, which would have primary legislative powers, to be called a "senedd". Indeed, Her Majesty opened the senedd on 1 March of this year. There was some controversy before that very fine occasion but it was reported in the press that she
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1061
opened the senedd. We believe that that is the correct way to go ahead and that it should have the name "senedd".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, are eminently sensible. They clarify the situation. There is a need to spell out the obvious: that there is indeed a National Assembly for Wales at present. That is a fact. That is clarified by those amendments.
Our proposal in Amendment No. 2 is simple. We wish to see the legislative body called the senedd.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: I am persuaded so far by what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said in respect of what is, and what is to be. I look forward to the Minister's response.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said that his amendment related to what sort of parliament "we wish to see". That is an aspiration. As the Bill is drafted, even if there were 80 members, and STV, that would not alter its nature. Words have a baggage; they have a meaning. A parliament is very different from an assembly. A parliament may come in time but even with the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, the body could not amount to a parliament.
As regards the word "senedd", some of us who attended the opening of the new building at the beginning of March were a little concerned about the use throughout of the Welsh words rather than the English. I yield to no one in being in favour of bilingualism. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord who introduced the Welsh Language Act some 10 years ago and the way in which that has effectively defused what could have been a highly combustible debate within Wales in respect of the language. The Conservative Party did a great service to Wales as regards that Act, preventing, say, the language division of Belgium and several other countries. Yet the Assembly has chosen to use the Welsh word for "chamber", for example. If we believe in bilingualism, we should be consistent. The sad thing is that those who were responsible for the naming of the parts of the Assembly have chosen Welsh words, suggesting that their commitment is essentially to monolingualism. I raise that matter as a pointer and a danger, but I hope that it will be recognised that it is not in the spirit of the Welsh Language Act and not in the spirit of bilingualism. I suspect that the noble Lord on the Benches opposite will have a certain sympathy for it.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |