Wales Bill

Baroness Morgan of Ely Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support fervently and earnestly these amendments. I admire very much the eloquence and force with which those main arguments have been articulated, particularly, if I may say so, the magisterial rebuke that was delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.

It is not enough just to safeguard legislation in Cardiff. That of course, has to be done; it would be a nonsense to create a sister parliament—as it was described by Speaker Martin when the Cardiff Assembly was established—and, at the same time, to treat it as a meaningless plaything. But that is not the whole point. Most of the legislation they let into Wales is Westminster-based so that, in so far as protection is concerned, it would have to be protected not just in Cardiff but here as well, otherwise the main thrust of this issue would be missed.

I endorse everything that has been said by those who have held up this question of the template, as it were, of Clause 2. The Sewel protection, which was endorsed in Scottish legislation, has been perpetuated in this Bill. There is the danger that if nothing is done at all, the powers that we are discussing could make meaningless everything that is contained in Clause 2. I deliberately say “could make meaningless”, because there is the possibility that Clause 2 is meaningless already. In other words, if it were a case of Clause 2 being inserted in order to build a shield or carapace to protect the constitutional entity of Wales, it would be a very severe attack upon that protection. But, if in fact it were nothing more than merely declaratory of what was happening in any event, with the sovereign power of the Westminster Parliament deciding what was or was not necessary, it would of course be utterly meaningless. I do not think it necessary for us to dwell any further on that matter but it should be held up as a template for this piece of legislation.

My third point is that Henry VIII was no great benefactor as far as Wales was concerned. The whole purpose of the Acts of Union was not only to say that Wales should not exist but that it never had existed. It was said that,

“the dominion, principality, and country of Wales … is and ever hath been incorporated, annexed”,

and included within the greater realm of England. We never were there at all. Certainly, as far as Henry VIII clauses are concerned, they should be dealt with very carefully, because they erase the authority of Parliament —or they are, at any rate, in a position to threaten that, at their very worst.

I remember reading a book when I was a student by Sir Gordon Hewart, who was Attorney-General in, I think, the late 1930s. The book is called The New Despotism; it is an examination of the vast growth in powers delegated to Ministers by way of regulations. He saw this as a very great threat to parliamentary sovereignty. He was not talking about Henry VIII clauses but about the positive powers given to Ministers from day to day by way of regulations. If there was a new despotism then, now—three-quarters of a century and more later—that despotism has grown enormously. I would urge that thought be given to the exercise of delegated powers to Ministers. More and more are given every year and Parliament, even with the help of the massive effort of this House to scrutinise, finds it more and more difficult to sieve everything that goes through. And those powers are increasing. What Sir Gordon Hewart would have said of these negative powers I know not but, if there was a despotism three-quarters of a century ago, there is potential for very considerable despotism now.

I urge the House to accept the arguments put forward so magnificently by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge and indeed by those powerful bodies, the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee of this House. They are dangerous powers to use. We should use them with very great circumspection in any event. However, in Wales there is a principle involved—namely, that you do not set up a parliament which you intend to be a genuine devolved Assembly, and then treat it as a meaningless plaything.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard some stunning contributions this evening on an incredibly important aspect of the Bill. We have heard a devastating critique of Clause 53, in particular by my noble friend Lord Rowlands. I thank him for giving so much attention to an extremely difficult aspect of the Bill for the Assembly to live with. I urge the Minister to think very seriously about this clause, which is about repealing provisions in primary legislation. Within this House, there is an ability to look at those provisions, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said. Both Houses can have the opportunity to look at what is being proposed. However, that opportunity is not available to the Assembly. That needs to be underlined. It is deeply discourteous to the Assembly and wrong in principle.

If the Secretary of State proposes by order to modify parliamentary legislation or tidy it up, as my noble friend Lord Rowlands suggested, quite rightly he cannot do that without Parliament’s express agreement. In the same way, the Assembly’s legislation should be protected from modification up to and including repeal unless the Assembly is first asked to give its approval to a draft order proposing such a modification. The consent of the Assembly is needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, suggested.

Secondly, we seem to be continually going back to the problems with Clause 2. I again urge the Minister to listen to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said about that clause. I know that the Minister was not persuaded that there was a need to amend it as we suggested. But I think it was common ground that a parliamentary Bill modifying the Assembly’s legislative competence could proceed only with the Assembly’s consent. That is an important feature of the devolution settlements. But the problem is that Clause 53 envisages that the Secretary of State can, with the approval of each House of Parliament, modify any Act of Parliament in consequence of provisions in this Bill.

Given the subject matter of the Bill, the Acts vulnerable to such modification are most likely to be the earlier Welsh devolution legislation—the 2006 Act and the 2014 Act. If modifications to those Acts were proposed by way of a parliamentary Bill, the Assembly’s consent would be required. But the Government apparently envisage that, if the modifications are to be given effect by a Secretary of State’s order under Clause 53, it can proceed without the need for Assembly consent. That cannot be right.

Amendments 111, 113 and others in this group address the two points that I have outlined. Their effect in summary is that, if the Secretary of State proposes to use his order-making powers to modify Assembly legislation, that should be subject to prior Assembly consent. That requirement for prior Assembly consent in respect of a proposed Secretary of State order is also to apply if the order envisages a modification of a devolution enactment—in other words, a provision of either the 2006 Act or the 2014 Act. In that way, the fundamental principle that Assembly consent is required before its functions or competence can be modified is preserved. I urge the Minister to think very carefully before proceeding any further with the Bill. This fundamental principle undermines the democratic integrity of the Assembly.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for drawing attention to the point that a legislative consent Motion needs to be passed by the Assembly, and the financial framework settled. I hope that Treasury Ministers were listening to what he had to say, but I will make sure that the Assembly Minister who will negotiate this issue hears what my noble friend had to say, because he underlined some important issues. We cannot see Wales lose out financially as a result of the Bill.

I know that we have previously had reassurance from the Minister on the need for a legislative consent Motion before the Bill is passed. If he could underline that once more for us, it would give us confidence. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will talk us through the final sequencing of the next part of the consideration of the Bill. What will the sequencing be? When will the financial framework be necessary? When will the legislative consent memorandum be put before the Assembly? When will the Motion come before it? If the Minister could talk us through that sequencing, it would be very useful.