| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The past 27 minutes have shown what an interesting Committee stage we will have on the Bill. I hope I can say that we have not been addressing the three amendments, which noble Lords have used to introduce general views on the Bill. I say that because I hope I will be excused for
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1065
responding very specifically to these three amendments and not to some of the arguments and points made on Second Reading.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, seek to modify the description of the Assembly in Clause 1 and to redefine it as an institution that already exists. This could be perceived as true, but the provisions in the Bill redefine the term "Assembly" by splitting the legislature from the Executive, as we have heard. Both sides of the House have welcomed that. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, welcomed it on Second Reading, and reemphasised that point today. As a result of the clause, the Assembly will no longer be a corporate body consisting of a legislature and an executive arm as provided for in the Government of Wales Act 1998; it will be an unincorporated association of its elected members, much as the House of Commons is. Technically, therefore, it is new. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that that the two amendments were probing, and I hope he will not press them after my explanation.
Amendment No. 2, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, is, as we know, identical to the one tabled in Committee in another place. It would rename the Assembly the "Senedd". Since 1999, the National Assembly for Wales has become an established feature of public life in Wales. As we saw from the recent ICM poll, public recognition of and support for the Assembly has increased as time has passed. In the Government's view, it does not make sense to change the name of an institution that has become established in the public consciousness, but I resist with some difficulty the extremely eloquent arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Elystan-Morgan.
The term "National Assembly" is used for legislatures across the world. Four EU member states have parliaments or lower houses that bear the title "National Assembly" in their respective languages. In total, it is used by 62 countries around the world, so Wales is in good company. It is our firmly held view that to change these terms now would risk further confusion even as we try to make things clearer and more transparent. I have explained the Government's position. I do not expect noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments with such passion to accept what I have said, but I hope that they will not press them.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining why there is no real explanation or reference in Clause 1 to the fact that there is an existing Assembly. As I said at the outset, I regarded these amendments as probing; I certainly do not intend to press them. But I am sorry that the Minister did not give me the assurance, for which I asked, that, as we go through this very large and complicated Bill, he would identify where real changes were being made and point
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1066
out what we had before and what we have now. It is very important that we should understand at every stage exactly what we are doing.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I must apologise for not having picked up that point in my speech. We will attempt to do that. We will have discussions with officials and try to do precisely what the noble Lord has asked, because it would be very helpful and eminently sensible for us to follow that course.
Lord Crickhowell: I thank the Minister for that. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy identified an extremely important point—one that I had not fully recognised—that we are transferring power to Ministers. That makes it extremely important that we consider very carefully exactly how the Assembly, which we now have had defined to us by the Minister in explaining Clause 1, will be able to control those Ministers and effectively keep their actions under proper review. That is, step by step, what we will have to do as we proceed with the Bill.
On the question of the name, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was a little rash to take as his precedent the Bill that, after all, was so decisively rejected by the people in Wales at the time—so decisively that the then Secretary of State, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, was clear that had an elephant appeared in his garden at the time it would have been impossible not to recognise it. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, pointed out that the Assembly had chosen to call the new building the "Senedd". Perhaps that was so that it could separate it from its existing building, which I am happy to say is still known by many as Crickhowell House.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that the overwhelming argument against the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and those who spoke, is the fact that this matter has been fully considered by the Assembly and rejected by seven votes to one. Surely, that is an example of where we should listen to the Assembly and its Members. So I go along with the Government's rejection of this point.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I make a rather obvious point. If the decision is to be that of the Assembly, and to regard it as having a sovereign morality in the matter, does the noble Lord accept that if the Assembly took a different view, it would be perfectly legitimate, presumably under Part 3, for that change of name to be brought about by the Assembly?
Lord Crickhowell: When we come to Part 3, we will discover that clause after clause was debated by the Assembly and that all the parties voted in one way and the Government voted in the opposite direction. There were tied votes and the presiding officer had to act as presiding officers do—as the Lord Chancellor does in this House and as the Speaker does in the other place—and vote for the status quo. So I am not sure that the noble Lord will be on entirely strong ground when we reach later parts of the Bill. All I want to say at the
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1067
moment is that I entirely agree that the Government were right to reject Amendment No. 3. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from first "be" to end of line 7 and insert "a Parliament for Wales to be known as the "Senedd""
The noble Lord said: My name is attached to this amendment. Although it is grouped—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): Forgive me; as the noble Lord proposes to speak to this amendment, I must point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: This amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. As it covers a different subject, I seek to move it for the purpose of replying to the Minister. Obviously, I do not expect him to respond. I think that this is in accordance with proper procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was on his feet very quickly to respond to Amendment No. 1 and he withdrew it before I had any opportunity of intervening.
Therefore, perhaps I may I direct the Committee again to Amendment No. 2. The essential thing that this Bill does is entirely to change the structure of the National Assembly for Wales. It has already been pointed out that the Assembly was fashioned as a corporate body, taking corporate responsibility for its activities. The Bill now happily moves on to a structure where the powers are handed over to Ministers and there is an executive and a Parliament of the sort we know. As the Assembly will be of an entirely different status from the way in which it was set up, it seems to me very appropriate that we should take the opportunity to change the name. Further, if Part 4 comes into operation at some future time, it will be as much a legislature passing primary legislation as any other assembly or gathering of politicians anywhere in the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, objected to the fact that the word "Senedd" is used. Bilingualism is in the amendment because it states that there shall be,
That that word has some meaning and some significance is reflected, as noble Lords have said, by the fact that the building is now called the Senedd.
I invite your Lordships to consider that there will really be no difference between the devolved body in Wales and the devolved body in Scotland once this Bill comes into operation. Through use of the "Assembly Measures" that are set out in the Bill, Members of the Assembly will be able to exercise primary legislative powers. The Assembly will operate on the same basis
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1068
as the Scottish Parliament. I see no reason why its proper designation should not be given. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that the Bill must be forward looking and that we must not look back to the past. We have seen devolution take place in Wales in three stages. We saw, first of all, the Welsh Office being set up as a purely administrative body. We then moved to the corporate model. We are now moving to what is known throughout the world as a parliament. If it is an established feature of Welsh life, as the Minister described it, let us call it by its proper name and give it its proper dignity.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |