---

Government of Wales Bill

The noble Lord has rendered the Committee and the people of Wales a very considerable service by tabling this amendment and by setting out the arguments so fully. Previously in Committee, I touched much more briefly on the issue. I referred then to the way in which Mr Geraint Talfan Davies had been treated. Apparently, he was dismissed largely because he represented the views of the council of which he was chairman in opposing the decision taken by Mr Pugh, the Minister with responsibility for these matters within the Assembly. I understand he was also criticised for the fact that the Minister did not consider that the Arts Council had been doing enough to ensure the attendance and participation of all sections of the population, a matter referred to by the noble Lord. The evidence on which that charge was based was a survey carried out by the Arts Council of Wales, expressly at the instigation of Mr Geraint Talfan Davies, its chairman. So it was a particularly strange argument to advance for getting rid of him. Incidentally, Mr Geraint Talfan Davies, when chairman of Welsh National Opera, played a leading role in extending, by a very considerable extent, the activities of Welsh National Opera in exactly that field, in schools and local communities, for which it is now very well known. I suppose I should declare an interest in that for half a century or so my father served on the Court Council and Arts Committee at the National Museum and my brother was president of the National Museum and Galleries at the time of his death. My wife also served for many years on the Arts Council of Wales and in another capacity was responsible for introducing into Wales that admirable charity, founded by Lord Menuhin as he became—Yehudi Menuhin—Live Music Now, which has probably done more to take music to places and to people who would not otherwise hear it in Wales than any other organisation. I speak with particular feeling about these issues. I can speak too as having been known, as Secretary of State, for the enthusiasm with which I funded the arts and having launched the great new building in the heart of the National Museum of Wales, which now houses the Davies Bequest. That work was carried on by my noble friend Lord Walker, who I am glad to see in his place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who played a leading role in extending arts activities into the valleys as part of the valleys initiative. With that background of taking a keen interest in the arts and arts matters, I support every single word uttered by the noble Lord. I looked at this clause with considerable concern when I saw this apparently very extensive power that could be applied, not only, incidentally, to the public bodies to which he referred, but also to other bodies, such as the National Trust, on which one would like a little elaboration. After all, the National Trust has responsibility for buildings and places of historical or architectural interest in Wales and there are other obvious organisations that might be affected by these powers. I am firmly of the view that the arm’s-length principle is an important one. To bring together the funding of these six bodies in this way, so that such a large part of the finance going to arts organisations in Wales comes from a single source—a single Minister—has dangers. The noble Lord spoke of them in very cautious and reasonable terms. I shall certainly not suggest for one moment that the example of Soviet Russia will be followed. He was quite right to dismiss that allegation. However, there are real threats. If all the arts organisations, covering theatre, writing and every form of the performing arts, are funded from a single source, people will feel under obligations. They may feel that they have to listen to suggestions put to them, however discreetly, about the way in which they operate and the kind of performances that they put on or should not put on. It is no defence to say, ““Ah well, it will all come under the general supervision of the Assembly”” if the Minister is perhaps answerable to a party with a substantial majority in the Assembly. If only to get rid of any suggestion that undue influence is being exerted in this way, one should have the arm’s-length principle as a protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, told the Committee, Mr Pugh and the Welsh Assembly Government sought to circumvent the limitations of Section 28 by looking to Section 32 of the 1998 Act. Those are exactly the powers that we are now considering. So surely it is right that, if protection should be specifically written into the legislation to ensure that charter bodies are not taken over in this way, there should be no doubts allowed in another clause that might be used to overrule it. We must recognise that we are dealing with bodies with a well deserved reputation. For many years, organisations such as the National Library of Wales and the National Museums and Galleries of Wales have built up their reputation because they have been governed by people with a huge range of scholarly expertise and management skills. They hold a high reputation today because of that. Of course, Welsh National Opera has an international reputation in its field. We are dealing with bodies that cannot be under threat—if that is the right word—from interference by Ministers because they fail to perform. Many of them have performed outstandingly well. I therefore hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, which would be the best way out, or at least give us assurances satisfying us that the powers in this clause could not be misapplied in the way described by the noble Lord, and which were attempted under the previous Act. I hope that the Minister will take his noble friend’s amendment extremely seriously. That is what it deserves.