---

Government of Wales Bill

It falls to me to say a few words in conclusion about this amendment before I seek leave to withdraw it. I say that for the comfort of my noble friend Lord Richard and my other noble friends. I have to confess that, after listening attentively to my noble friend’s reply, I am more concerned about this matter at the end of the debate than I was at the beginning. I thought I gave out quite a bit of concern in the course of my few words. I am very grateful for the support given to the amendment by both Front Benches from the noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Roberts, and also from a former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who—I know we agree on the subject—spoke a lot of sense. Why am I more concerned now than I was then? I believe that the Minister’s reply flies in the face of any constitutional principle involved in the matter. I specifically and deliberately moved the amendment on the basis that this Parliament, and your Lordships’ House, had a responsibility for this devolutionary measure. I then set out the background to it, which creates certainly political difficulties and potentially legal difficulties in the clash between Sections 28 and 32 of the 1998 Act. There we clearly have a supervisory role. The Minister’s reply gives no indication whatever that there is any concern, other than everyone reading matters with interest—I am fascinated to know that everyone is going to read my speech with interest—about any supervision being imposed. Indeed, a central government responsibility will be abdicated on the grounds that we cannot interfere with it because we are dealing with devolution. That is shielding behind devolution in an Act granting further devolution. What is the point of the Act? What can one ever object to in a devolutionary measure which is introducing further devolution if, because we have already introduced a certain amount of devolution, we cannot then interfere with what the Assembly wants, yet we are busy giving it far more power? I am fascinated by the fact that Section 28 has apparently not been repealed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell; it is absolutely fascinating that it does not reappear in the Bill. One wonders why, if Section 28 does not appear in the Bill, it is necessary to put in Clause 61 as a repeat of Section 32. It would not take a genius to realise that Clause 61—I shall have to check this—introduces yet more powers. Involving more bodies has a purpose in the Bill that is directly contrary to the direction in which we need to go. It gives me no pleasure to speak like this, but I think it is necessary because we have a certain responsibility in this Chamber, which I hope this debate has helped to exercise. I do not seek the opinion of the Committee on something that I tabled from the government Benches. At the same time, I hope that what I and other noble Lords have said is useful, and that there will be an opportunity later in our consideration of the Bill for my somewhat tormented mind to be put a little more to rest as a result of what has been said from the Front Bench. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 61 agreed to. Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to. Clause 64 [Polls for ascertaining views of the public]: