---

Government of Wales Bill

I suspect that all those who have taken part, and will be taking part, in this debate will run true to form regarding their views on devolution. Mine go back a very long way, perhaps even longer than those of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I was a very young boy when I decided that, so far as I could understand, the gaining of a home rule parliament for Wales was not only to be desired but a very condition of the continued existence and development of the nationhood of Wales, and I have not changed my mind. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that the basis of his case was that we are dealing in Part 3 with primary not subordinate legislation. That is the main plank of his platform. However, the Explanatory Notes deal with the matter very differently. I hope that I may have the Committee’s indulgence to quote paragraph 318 of the Explanatory Notes, which states:"““This clause [92] confers on the Assembly the power to make a type of subordinate legislation in relation to Wales called ‘Measures of the National Assembly for Wales’ in English, or ‘Mesurau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru’ in Welsh. They are referred to in this Bill as Assembly Measures””." Then there follow these words:"““The ultimate right of Parliament to legislate in relation to Wales, even in principle on a matter over which legislative competence has been conferred on the Assembly, is preserved””." There can, therefore, be no doubt at all that we are dealing with subordinate rather than primary legislation. It is casuistic to argue on that point. Under the Local Government Act a county council has wide powers enabling it to adopt model clauses of legislation. Does that make it a primary legislature? I doubt it. I do not in any way wish to disturb the placidity of the waters of agreement, consent and goodwill that have existed in relation to this Bill by anything that I say tonight but I am afraid that, so far as the Conservative Party is concerned, it has been reluctantly dragged into accepting devolution at all and it is essentially a rearguard action. What one has here is the determination of the Conservative Party to put a stop to the whole process of what one might describe in one way as devolution and in another way, so far as the Welsh Assembly is concerned, evolution. If Part 3 were taken out altogether, the Welsh people would be deprived of a real advantage: what I described at Second Reading as a bridge between the present situation and the situation where the people of Wales can consider whether they would wish to take up the enabling powers that will essentially have created the foundations of a Welsh parliament. The experience over a few—I hope not too many—years would enable the Welsh people to judge in a mature way exactly what these added powers mean and what they lead to. I do not for a moment believe, therefore, that the main case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—that one has broken over a fundamental boundary—holds any real truth at all. We are still dealing with the area of subordinate legislation. The powers of this House and of the other place remain absolute. The capacity to set up any number of appropriate bodies, to deal in detail with every aspect of each of these proposals, is infinite. I do not see, therefore, that it is a case of robbing either House of its essential sovereign authority. The Richard commission concluded that a referendum was entirely necessary for Part 4. Why? That is because Part 4 sets up, essentially, a home rule parliament—nothing less than that. Part 3 is a path towards that. If the Conservative Party were to take the view that every evolutionary advance made by the Welsh people for the Assembly must be the subject of a referendum, that would be nonsense. Since the Assembly was created in 1998, there have been, large and small, hundreds of aggregations to its authority. Does one then hold a referendum and ask, ““That is what has happened over seven years. Are you, the Welsh people, content with that or not?””? With very great respect, there is a fundamental inconsistency in the attitude of the Conservative Party. I was a Member of the other place in 1972, as were the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of Conwy, when the European Communities Act was passed. I do not remember the Conservative Party at that time asking for a referendum on such a fundamental matter. Indeed, it stood unanimously against such a referendum. I suggest, therefore, that although there are old echoes here of Conservative opposition to devolution and evolution in relation to a Welsh Assembly, this amendment should be rejected.