---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, who has just spoken, has fought for north-east Wales all of his political life. I am delighted to see that he is continuing the fight in this place. I wish him all the success that he has had in the past, which has been surprising, in itself, on many occasions. I also warmly congratulate the Ministers on their new posts on the government Front Bench. My speech about the Welsh dimension of the Queen's Speech must begin with a comment on the changed political map of Wales after the election. I am delighted to say that Wales is no longer a "Tory-free zone". The Conservative Party now has three Welsh Members in the other place, which is a cause for rejoicing; the Liberal Democrats have four—one more than previously; and Plaid Cymru has one fewer than before, with three. We also have a noble Independent Member, Peter Law of Blaenau Gwent, who took one of Labour's safest seats and taught the Labour Party a sharp lesson—never to take their huge majorities in their heartlands for granted. As the Minister said, there will be three Bills and a draft tourism Bill relating exclusively to Wales in this extended Session. The first Bill, which relates to establishing a commissioner for the elderly in Wales, has been welcomed by Age Concern and Help the Aged, although the latter rightly points out that the commissioner will not be able to do anything about the elderly's greatest problem; namely, pensions. We are already familiar with the second Bill, relating to transport, from the previous Session. The third piece of legislation, which was, I think, the only one directly referred to in the Queen's Speech, will, "reform the National Assembly for Wales". The precise nature of that proposed reform is something of a mystery. Mr Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales, has said that the Government, "will introduce a Bill following publication of a White Paper to develop democratic devolution in Wales, with our clear commitment to enhance the Assembly's powers while reforming its structure and electoral system to make a more accountable legislature for the people of Wales". Those are fine words, which were echoed by the Minister. However, Mr Nick Ainger, the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Wales Office, has made some intriguing, off-the-cuff comments to the media which suggest that the Government's commitment is not as unequivocal as it sounds and that the path to further devolution will be littered with boulders and the odd ambush. According to the Western Mail, Mr Ainger said: "If the people of Wales want greater powers, we are providing the vehicle for them to do that but I don't think at this stage there is that demand for full legislative powers or for a referendum for that but we are providing a vehicle for them". What sort of vehicle is that? It sounds like a covered wagon on its way into strange Indian territory. Those rather cryptic remarks have antagonised the die-hard devolutionists who have interpreted them as a betrayal and an abandonment of the proposals put forward in the report from the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. In particular, box 13.5 on page 250 of the report appeared to find favour in senior Labour circles at one stage, but not with Labour MPs who foresaw their role diminishing. Some of the proposals in box 13 appealed to my own instinctive desire to improve the Assembly and its performance. For example, I favoured, and I still do, the replacement of the present corporate structure which diffuses responsibility between the Assembly and its government, confuses the public and results in far too cosy a relationship between Ministers and Assembly Members. The separation of the executive from the legislature would hopefully induce a more critical, adversarial spirit to the Assembly's proceedings and would result in closer scrutiny of the Assembly Government's activities and greater accountability on their part through the Assembly to the Welsh people. On the issue of whether the Assembly should be remodelled on the lines of the Scottish Parliament, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, recommended yesterday, and be given primary legislative and tax varying powers, there are serious reservations, not least because the question of tax varying powers was never put to the Welsh people in the 1997 referendum. It is inconceivable that such powers should be granted without the electorate's consent, which at the moment is unlikely to be given. While the Richard commission rightly argues that taxation powers are desirable but not essential to the exercise of primary legislative powers, the absence of such revenue raising powers would surely be a severe constraint on the power to legislate. Most Bills have financial implications and their implementation costs money. Either the resources are available from the block grant or they have to be raised from extra revenue. If not, there is little point in legislating. Of course, I understand the Government's dilemma, which some of us anticipated years ago. The Assembly's Labour Government have a tenuous majority. Indeed, they were defeated only this evening on student top-up fees. They are already threatened by a take-over from a coalition of other parties, which may well become a reality after the next Assembly election in 2007. How could the new Labour Government here respond to such a situation, especially if the alien, non-Labour Government in Cardiff had primary legislative powers and scant respect for the financial constraints imposed by Whitehall? My guess is that they would be very unsympathetic, to say the least. The scene would be set for a major conflict. The United Kingdom has enjoyed a period of prosperity while the Assembly has been in existence, but there is no guarantee that that will continue indefinitely or that the planned rate of public spending can be sustained. There are already signs that Labour's third term may not be as easy as its predecessors and that the public purse strings will have to be tightened. Furthermore, there are signs that the Assembly Government are already feeling the pinch. The extra moneys that the Welsh local authorities are collecting after revaluation are, I am told, being docked from their grant settlement. Revaluation in Wales, to which my noble friend Lady Hanham referred, is proving to be another stealth tax. I hope that, whatever electoral reform is proposed for the Assembly, there is no tampering or gerrymandering of the PR arrangements that enable minority parties to be represented. Again, I understand the Government's dilemma and their wish to hold on to power in Wales at all costs, but they will be aware that a one-party dominion has inherent weaknesses and cannot endure for ever. In view of all of that, I am not surprised to hear on the grapevine that the Government have in mind the retention of primary legislative power here for the time being. If so, there will have to be improvements in the legislative process and a closer relationship between Westminster and the Assembly. I hope that the Government will consult all parties on the best way to achieve that very desirable end. Wales still has many problems—I have been able to touch on only one of them. Wales has a very low GDP by EU standards and longer hospital waiting lists than before devolution. There has been a bonfire of the quangos, but it is far from clear who or what is to perform their functions. One of the academic architects of devolution, Professor Kevin Morgan, has been devastatingly critical of the bonfire of the quangos, as announced. It is therefore very important—we would all agree—that Wales should continue to engage your Lordships' interest and concern.