Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

He was an American.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

He was an American who took a German passport in 1940 but was nevertheless convicted when he was a German citizen.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, and in particular Amendment 5. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is a buttressing and an endorsement of the Sewel convention. As the House will recollect, the convention refers to the devolved authorities in this context: that the mother Parliament will not legislate in any way that is contrary to the will of the devolved authorities save in the most exceptional circumstances. The Westminster Parliament could not have gone any further at all without abrogating—

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I think that the noble Lord is addressing Amendment 5, which is not in this group—and I shall no doubt be following in his footsteps when we do get to that amendment.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am pleased to stand corrected and apologise.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am not suggesting an amendment; I am suggesting that we take out Clause 11. The amendment being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, today is born of frustration; you can see the frustration that is coming from him. Obviously the opposition to his amendment will say, “We can’t have this. We can’t give Nicola Sturgeon or Carwyn Jones a veto on legislation of the UK Parliament”. I understand that. The frustration behind the amendment should put pressure on the Government to get to grips with this issue. Earlier. my noble friend Lady Humphreys was quoting Mrs Thatcher on the single market. Noble Lords will recall that Mrs Thatcher said that there must be action on this and action on that, but with this Government there is no action. Nothing is happening and no decisions are being made with which we can get a grip.

This is one very important decision and it requires agreement from the devolved Administrations. Why is that? It is because if all the powers come from Brussels to Westminster and are then parcelled out as Westminster thinks fit, it gives incredible power to Ministers, particularly if it is done by means of secondary legislation. That gives them enormous power drastically to alter the devolution settlement. I mentioned at Second Reading that the grants which come to Wales—a lot of money comes to Wales—are sent because of need. That is the criterion that governs the distribution of funds for agriculture and for deprived areas. We are used to operating a Barnett formula in devolution terms and there would be nothing to prevent a Westminster Government with all these powers from Brussels from saying, “I think we will go back to the dear old Barnett formula. We will not look at the needs of the nations of this country; we will look simply at the population and distribute money in accordance with the way we have done it up to now”. That is the sort of thing that could happen. I am not saying it will, but it could, and it would create resentment and concern for the people of Scotland, of Wales and no doubt of Northern Ireland as well. That is the issue which has to be tackled.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, my understanding is that about a fortnight ago an undertaking was given in the House of Commons to the effect that this matter would be visited and that a suitable amendment would be made to enable consent Motions to be passed by both devolved Parliaments in this matter. It seems to me a matter of a strict undertaking. I do not know whether the Government are in a position to say how soon that undertaking will be brought into force.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, some 3,000 years ago, Homer wrote in the Iliad that after the battle men like to reminisce about their prowess in the fight. Some 10 or 15 years ago the tributes and thanks were getting so extensive that the decision was taken that such tributes would no longer be heard at Third Reading. However, just as referring to people at the Bar is now commonplace—any Member of Parliament or Minister who comes to the Bar tends to get a mention these days—so that tradition, in which I firmly stand, has been eroded. Therefore, I confine myself to thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has done a brilliant job in listening to all the complaints, some of which were completely without foundation. He has reacted very well. Lastly, I thank my noble friend Lady Randerson, who was part of the team in the coalition Government when the Bill was in its infancy. She played an important part in framing the way it progressed.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I strike a concordant note in joining with all others who have expressed so genuinely their appreciation of the Minister’s efforts in this matter. He has been a model of courtesy and accommodation in so far as it has been humanly possible for him to be so. Had he been invited to draft the Bill we would have had a very different piece of legislation before us, but that was not to be.

Although the Welsh Assembly yesterday gave its seal of approval to the Bill, although a reserved constitution has placed Wales technically in the same field as Scotland and Northern Ireland—a matter of constitutional significance—and although this is the third occasion when there has been a very thorough examination of the Welsh constitutional position in the short space of 19 years, nevertheless the Bill cannot be regarded as a great leap forward in the field of devolution at all. I say that because it seems to me that, compared with the situation Wales found itself in two and a half years ago after the agricultural workers’ wages case was decided by the Supreme Court, we are far behind where we were on that occasion in so far as the sum total of legislative and devolutionary authority is concerned.

When the Scottish referendum concluded and the Prime Minister, in the grey dawn of that morning, walked to a microphone in Downing Street, he uttered the words that Wales will be at the very heart of devolution. I was stirred and cheered by those words, but had they been followed with the prophecy, “But bear in mind that 27 months from now the range of devolution will have been very severely cabined, cribbed and confined by a Bill called the Wales Bill”, I am not sure my attitude would have been exactly the same.

There is no doubt that there has been a faint tinge of old colonialism relating to this situation—something I have referred to ad nauseam. I make no apology for that. It is the attitude somewhere or another that small, insignificant powers that are wholly classically local in their character must somewhere or another be withheld from Wales. I hope that will change. I hope future Governments will accept that we are no longer in a colonial era—that:

“The old order changeth, yielding place to new”.

It may well be that the Government think they have thrown away many of the difficulties relating to devolution in Wales, but not all things thrown away stay thrown away. There is a tale that David Lloyd George used to tell of one of his erstwhile colleagues, a person who had changed his attitude very considerably to former policies. Somewhere or another they came back to him again and again. Lloyd George likened it to the position of an old Aboriginal chief who was utterly fed up with his boomerang and threw it away. It did not matter whether he threw it in a sharp curve or in wide curve; back it came again and again. I end with the admonition to government: never forget the boomerang.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, has just said, I have looked at the government amendments with some care and notice that Amendment 45, which sets out the proposed water protocol, refers to a,

“serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England”,

and, conversely, water resources in Wales. What is not contained there is the impact on the social and environmental character of Wales from any proposal that may be brought forward for the extraction of water from Wales. When the Minister referred to Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—that the extraction of water from Welsh reservoirs shall require the legislative consent of the National Assembly for Wales—he said that we need not worry about that because there is already environmental law that will protect the people of Wales from the building of reservoirs that would have such an environmental or social impact. I would like the Minister to state quite clearly that there will be no reservoirs built in Wales without the consent of the Welsh Assembly. I think that that must be said. Whether it is due to the existing position or the proposals he has brought forward in these amendments, I do not care. I just want it to be absolutely clear what the position is.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I take exactly the same view and support completely everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I have, as the House well knows, spoken with bitterness and rancour on many previous occasions about what happened 50 years ago in Tryweryn in Wales. I make no apology for that. However, I jumped with joy when I had the impression—as I think every other Member of the House had the impression—that this matter had been settled once and for all on the previous occasion. I would have preferred it to have been included in an Act of Parliament as a matter of primary legislation, but I was perfectly prepared to accept the word of the Minister, a most honourable and splendid Minister whom we greatly admire, that this matter would be settled on the basis of a protocol. Now, it seems that that is left drifting in mid-air.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, speaks of a pig in a poke. I have no doubt that he is perfectly correct in that. There is no certitude at all now in relation to this matter. I feel that I acted rather foolishly when, some weeks ago, I, like many others, joined the choir of those on radio and television who revelled in the fact that this matter had been solved and a long-standing injustice had been righted. Although clearly there should be some further undertaking with regard to a protocol, I hope that the Minister will say tonight, in strict terms, that there will be no further Tryweryn—never, never, never.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, most of the debate has so far referred to the necessity to devolve control over Welsh broadcasting to the Welsh Assembly, and the arguments have all been made in structural terms, but I want to put in a word for S4C. It is very good. Its children’s programmes in the morning are outstanding and are carried worldwide in various languages. Its farming programmes and programmes about the natural world are also outstanding, and the sporting coverage probably takes up more of my weekends than anything else on television. In fact, I spend quite a lot of time in Scotland, and when I am there my wife is amused to see that, much of the time, I am watching S4C. I am saying nothing about Scottish broadcasting, but there we are. It is not just the sport, of course—it is the musical tradition as well. It is heartening to see so many young people taking part in classical music and choral works, as well as in much more modern music. It is excellent, and we cannot allow this debate to come to an end without making that clear.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I greatly appreciate the kind and generous words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on S4C. I support the amendment completely, but there is a possible compromise, if I may be so bold as to suggest it. Many months ago, when the question of the BBC charter was mentioned, I asked the Government whether they would be prepared to have in-built in the charter a guarantee on the adequate financing of S4C as well as on its independence and future. The reply that I received was somewhat anodyne, but I was assured that so great was the affection of Her Majesty’s Government for the Welsh language that I had nothing to fear at all. It may be that that is a compromise that would guarantee effectively the future of S4C, its independence and its finance, and I commend it to the noble Lord.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord German and will speak to Amendments 15 and 16. Before I do so, I share a reflection. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was talking about his six year-old granddaughter, and I was reminded that when my granddaughter, Pip, was elected to a school council, my wife, my noble friend Lady Walmsley, commented—rather caustically, I thought—that she was the first member of the Thomas family ever to win an election. That was unfair.

I turn to Amendments 15 and 16. The system of election aimed at proportionality throws up a number of difficulties. In particular, it makes the election of a regional list candidate almost capricious. An example is the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who served with distinction as a regional list Member as leader of his party—and I see that he has almost left the Chamber at the thought. He lost his seat not because his party did badly but because they did far too well and won a Montgomeryshire seat from us. Consequently, he ceased to be a regional list Member. It is clearly unfair that a person should be required to give up a public position, or even employment, simply to stand as a candidate in an election. There is not only the individual to consider; the pool of those willing and able to undertake public duties is not so large in Wales as to make it in the public interest to impose such a restriction.

The legal position is further complicated by an apparent conflict between the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which deals with disqualification, and the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, which deals with aspects of electoral law. According to the 2007 order, a candidate should not be part of, or a member of, any organisations included on long lists set out in the 2006 Act and the relevant disqualification order made under it. The Act, however, refers to the disqualification as relating to “being an Assembly Member”, and not to being a candidate. These provisions are subject to the power of the Assembly under Sections 17(3) and (4) of the Government of Wales Act to resolve to disregard the disqualification of any person,

“if it appears to the Assembly … that the ground has been removed, and … that it is proper so to resolve”.

Further, if it is alleged that an Assembly Member is disqualified, costly High Court proceedings can be involved. It is well known that two regional list Lib Dem Members fell foul of these provisions in the 2011 election. One was a member of the Care Council for Wales, and he admitted that he had not read the 2010 order that contained a long list of public bodies. After anxious consideration, the Welsh Liberal Democrats decided to withdraw the motion that they had lodged with the Assembly to lift his disqualification, and the number two on the list took his place. The other was a member of the Valuation Tribunal for Wales. The Assembly Standards Commissioner, Gerard Elias QC, said that that Member had done,

“everything that he could have reasonably been expected to do in ensuring that he was not a disqualified person for the purpose of nomination or election”.

He had followed the Welsh language advice from the Electoral Commission, which had referred him to regulations on proscribed bodies from the 2006 order, which had been replaced by a new order in 2010. It was correct in English but wrong in Welsh. The Electoral Commission apologised for its error. The motion that was filed to disregard the disqualification was passed with some Labour opposition, which will not be forgotten because anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of non-elected Labour candidates would have failed the test themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, at the time wrote in the Daily Post very wise words, as usual:

“There is a saying that ‘Rules are for the guidance of wise people and the obedience of fools’ … The fiasco of blocking two Liberal Democrats … surely falls into this category”.

He said that the principle of disqualification should be reviewed by the Electoral Commission and added that it,

“should only apply for deliberate conflicts of interest”.

At the same time, a UKIP MEP put a complaint into the police about corrupt practices against that sitting Member. The complaint was duly investigated by the police and no further proceedings ensued.

Arising out of this controversy, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, at the invitation of the First Minister, considered the issue under the chairmanship of David Melding the Deputy Presiding Officer, took evidence and obtained the legal opinion of the Counsel General. The Welsh Government’s attitude, as filed with the committee, was summarised in a memorandum attached to the report. In particular, it stated:

“The disqualifications are long and complex, and individuals may inadvertently fall foul (as two did in 2011) of apparently unjustified disqualifications … The complex nature of some of the disqualifications may require prospective candidates to seek legal advice in order to determine whether they are caught by the particular disqualification”.

The Welsh Government also said:

“However, we see the current requirements as a clear disincentive to candidates because a person must resign their post or employment in order to stand as a candidate and, if unsuccessful in that election, reinstatement would depend on the terms and conditions of employment that apply ... It is our view that the current structures for excluding persons from Assembly membership do not properly reflect their raison d’être. The disqualifications purport to prevent AMs from holding offices or employments deemed to interfere with the proper fulfilment with their duties. But it is our view that the rules pertaining to disqualifications are increasingly unfit for purpose to the point that, in some instances, they pose a disincentive to potential candidates and thus fall foul of the logic of empowering democratic participation”.

I may have said rude things about the Welsh Government in the past but I agree with every sentence that is expressed there.

The committee’s report, published in the middle of July 2014, made a number of recommendations which these amendments are designed to reflect. In particular, the committee felt that the disqualifications should be spelt out without reference to the legislation dealing with Westminster elections, hence the drafting of proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 15. Since I have been asked why the various judicial offices are named, it is because as currently drafted the Government of Wales Act 2006 refers to disqualifications of the judicial officers mentioned in the schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which cover, for example, the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland and judges of Northern Ireland. One would not expect them to be applying to be candidates to the Welsh Assembly in any event. As the committee recommended, I have spelt out those judicial offices in the amendment.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

May I make a very small, pettifogging legal point? As I understand it, there is no such judicial animal as a county court judge, and there has not been one since 1971. A circuit judge has practically all the powers of a High Court judge as the noble Lord knows, and those apply both to civil and to criminal matters. I think that I am right in saying that there has been no county court judge since that time.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am very grateful for that assistance from the noble Lord, because I wondered why it would be in the 1975 Act as a disqualification for standing for Parliament. Since this is Committee stage, amendments can always be made on Report to correct that. The nub of the matter is in proposed new subsection (5) in Amendment 15. This adds two additional subsections to Section 16 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. The committee put forward two ways of dealing with the issue: by requiring Assembly Members to resign a disqualifying office before taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance; or by deeming that an Assembly Member had resigned a disqualifying post at the moment that he was elected. It recommended the former course. It also suggested that the Law Commission might consider these issues as part of a wider review across all UK legislatures.

Kicking the issue into the long grass of the Law Commission is unnecessary. Devolution, as we have heard today, has not and almost certainly will not follow precisely the same pattern across the UK, and any short-term attempt to reach conformity is otiose. Such a course might delay changes welcomed by all sides beyond the 2016 election. The parliamentary processes here are surely robust enough to choose the proper mechanism. Amendment 15 suggests neither of the two methods proposed by the committee but follows the drafting of Clause 3 of this Bill, which deals with disqualification of persons elected to the House of Commons. It introduces an eight-day period following the election within which the Assembly Member can resign the post that would otherwise disqualify him.

The committee also accepted the advice of the Counsel General in relation to the power of the Assembly to disregard the disqualification. Your Lordships will recall that that was the process followed in relation to the Liberal Democrat Members. Paragraph 89 of the committee’s report states that Mr Bush thought that the ability of Assembly Members to relieve somebody of a disqualification was a “very unsound procedure”. Mr Bush added that,

“looking at it from general principles, if you have a clear and understandable list of disqualifications that are well publicised in advance and give people the opportunity to think carefully about them before they take the oath of allegiance, the rationale and the practical reason for having that power to disapply the disqualification seems to me to cease. Then, all of the arguments are in favour of getting rid of it, because, undoubtedly, it is constitutionally a very strange procedure indeed”.

I agree. Consequently, my second amendment would remove the power of the Assembly to lift the disqualification if it exists.

I appreciate that further amendments to the Bill and to the relevant order may be necessary if my amendment is successful, but I think that at Committee stage that suffices.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

We support Amendment 1. As the leaders of devolution as opposed to independence in Wales, we have always supported reserve powers. The Bill that I drafted in 1966 was for a Parliament for Wales on a reserved powers basis, including provision for criminal justice and the courts. I rather fancied the position of Chief Justice of Wales that I laid out in the drafting of that Bill. I was a lot younger in those days, of course, but not lacking in ambition.

The one part of Amendment 2A that I query, however, is on the Welsh constitution and electoral arrangements going to the Welsh Assembly. It is impossible to have a federal system of government and any form of devolution if the proposal is that those should be left to the Welsh Assembly itself. What has occurred to me over the past few weeks is the anomaly that would arise if there were to be English votes for English laws in the other place. English laws would be subject to the scrutiny of this House, and consideration and amendment in this House; whereas laws passed by the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly are not subject to such scrutiny. When one poses or considers that anomaly, it is obvious that there has to be a considerable constitutional discussion as to how the whole settlement eventually evolves.

For example, in my view, this House should be abolished and replaced by an elected—on a proportional basis, of course—federal body that would deal with scrutiny of legislation from all the devolved Governments. A very much more sensible route and settlement lies along those lines, although it would obviously take a considerable amount of time and we are dealing with this Bill at the moment. The reserved powers issue can be settled much more quickly and that is why I support Amendment 1.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, there is a great deal of agreement in all parts of the House on many of the matters we are discussing. Although we are speaking on certain, limited planes, we are at the same time looking at the whole question of devolution.

Many people will say that devolution in Wales took off with the referendum of 1997. That is not strictly correct because no transfer of authority from Westminster to Wales was involved in that matter. The transfer proposed was a significant transfer from the executive authority of Welsh Office Ministers—of course democratised by that authority being an elected body, meeting in the name of the Welsh people. It was a great, historic event but not classical devolution as such.

Be that as it may, there have been in this discussion a few cautionary voices, as one would expect. I respect much of what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, one could perhaps say that the voice was rather more than traditionally cautionary, and was somewhat Cassandra-like. However, that is not something that I wish to deal with in detail at the moment.

The thrust of what we are practically all agreed on is that there should be a reserved powers model. There are two excellent reasons for that. One is selfish, if I may say so as someone who has been a solicitor and barrister, and later a circuit judge. It is to avoid a whole generation of Welsh lawyers having constitutional neuroses. It means that if you want to be sure of whether something has been transferred in a particular field, you might have to look at not just a score of different legislative sources but perhaps much more than that. It is like confetti—all over the place—when it could so easily have been done in a different way by a total bulk transfer, subject to exceptions (a), (b), (c) and (d).

It would not be all that difficult if one were to tackle this straightaway on the basis of Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Under the provision, the House will recollect that there were 20 areas of devolved authority ranging from agriculture to the Welsh language. What is referred to in each and every one of those paragraphs is just a heading. It might well be argued that although you could easily draft a Bill—you could write it out almost on the back of an envelope, and that seems to me to be the way in which some legislation has been proposed over the past few weeks—you could never be absolutely certain of what you were including if you dealt with it in that bulk umbrella way. However, I doubt whether the difficulties are as great as that, because when the Government of Wales Act was passed there was careful scrutiny as to the content of each and every one of those 20 categories. Thus I should think that successive Governments and those who advise them have a pretty clear idea in each case of exactly what has been devolved and what has not been devolved.

Therefore it seems to me that on a selfish basis, as far those who practise the great vocation of the law is concerned, there is much to be said for cleaning up in this particular way. In so far as constitutional maturity is concerned, there is everything to be said in favour of that model. I hope that the Government will not plead the vehicular defence and say that this is not the vehicle by which to do this, but will say that this is something that can be done quickly. I suspect that some thought has been given to it over the years. I suspect too that the Government may well have anticipated what Silk concluded in this particular context.

Turning to Amendment 2A, I am a great admirer and respecter of both the noble Lords concerned, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elis-Thomas. I have known them almost since boyhood. Both have been committed home rulers since boyhood. Few people now alive in Wales have contributed more to the effort to raise the constitutional level of this land and nation. They have cast a generously broad net. One might well say that if one looks in detail at some of what that net might contain, then clearly there might be certain difficulties. However, I do not think that the situation is as bleak as is suggested.

In fact, many responsible bodies in Wales, whose membership cuts across party loyalties of all sorts, have spoken for many years about the position of the police in relation to the Welsh Assembly. I speak as one with knowledge of the matters that come before the courts from time to time—or used to when I was in practice—and the general case is this. The matters relating to the police, youth justice, drugs and various other agencies—some of which have clearly been devolved and others which have not—make out a case for at least the transfer of certain police functions. I am not arguing for the total transfer of certain police functions that have not already been devolved to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Such arguments are found in Silk, and indeed many other responsible bodies have come to much the same conclusion. So it is not chimerical or irresponsible to mention that matter.

Let us take broadcasting again, for example. Paragraph 20 of Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act transfers all responsibilities in relation to the Welsh language, save and except the legal position of the Welsh language in the courts—nothing else. An intelligent layman would therefore be well excused if he said that broadcasting in Wales in the Welsh language must have been included within the umbrella of paragraph 20. That is not so, as we found very much to our cost some years ago when the issue of S4C arose. I shall not go into the detail of that now but something that was crucial to the very future and success of the Welsh language had not been devolved in the slightest degree.

I think that the 20 areas of authority included in Schedule 7 to the 2006 Act could easily and safely be transferred, and very little would need to be done in addition to the information that the Government already have in that regard. It would show good will on the part of the Government and responsibility, candour and integrity in relation to the promises made some weeks ago in the heat of the Scottish referendum. If they mean what they say—and I am prepared to accept that they do mean what they say—this could be in earnest of that good will and integrity.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill well deserves the support that is obvious for it in all parts of the House, in the main because it is a Bill that takes Wales further along the road to home rule.

Many Members have meandered down memory lane in connection with the events of past decades. They reminded me of the feelings that I have, and always have had since I was a young boy, about the attainment of a Welsh Parliament. It has been something of an obsession for me, and I make no apology for that. For many years—years of disappointment and frustration—it seemed like a distant dream, which would probably never be achieved.

All that changed in 1964, with the establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Wales. Before then it seemed that nothing in the way of substantial constitutional development was possible: after that, everything has been possible—that is, in so far as it is the will and the determination of the Welsh people to achieve it.

To some extent, the devolution in the 1997 referendum, and in statute thereafter, was not classic devolution at all, because it did not, in the main, entail the transfer of any substantial new powers to Wales. The powers had already been transferred, but they had been transferred to Welsh Ministers. What it did bring about, of course, was a significant transfer of power from Ministers to the people of Wales. It meant that, for the first time, one had a body elected by the people of Wales, meeting on the soil of Wales, and with a moral and legal authority to speak for Wales. Obviously, with the greatest respect, that authority had to be on a broader basis than that which could be enjoyed by any Minister of the Crown as such.

In the referendum of 2011 we had a very considerable devolution. That created, essentially, a Welsh Parliament —a lawmaking Parliament with wide legislative powers, falling into 20 separate broad categories. That presents a massive challenge. This Parliament of Westminster has had many centuries to evolve slowly, deliberately and securely, and to mould its traditions to meet the needs of various ages. We in Wales will be expected to achieve a great deal of that process within a very short compass of time.

That must always be remembered in the context of what is now a new body. It is the Assembly, but it is essentially a Welsh Parliament. I not only recognise, but am charmed by the fact, that it should be called the Senedd. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, who set the precedent with his Bill in the 1970s, in which the name of the body was the Senedd.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I know that the Bill presented by Lord Hooson in 1967 contained the name Senedd; I drafted it.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

It did indeed. A few weeks ago I had the great honour of contributing a chapter on the political life of the late Emlyn Hooson, in which I made that very point.

There is therefore a respectable precedent for the concept of a Senedd. The word may, of course, have embarrassing connotations. As noble Lords will know, it comes from the Latin word “senex”, meaning an old man. The same stem is in the word “senile”—and also in the word “senior”. But—and I speak with some fervour and commitment in this matter—there is a great deal to be said for old men in politics.

The generality of the Bill is very much in the track of everything that has happened in the past 40 years, and especially in the past 17 years, since the referendum of 1997. I have little doubt that it shows that the curve of expectations and the curve of confidence that the Welsh people have in their own destiny has nobly sharpened during that time. I think that it will continue to do so.

It is in that context, therefore, that we look not only at what the Bill contains, but at what it does not mention. The main part of it, as we all appreciate, deals with the varied rate of tax that will be within the jurisdiction of the Welsh Assembly. I have a canny approach to such a situation, perhaps because I am a Cardiganshire man, and in Cardiganshire we have the tradition of being extremely careful in relation to money—a very laudable trait, if I may say so.

Of course the proposal has its attractions. Of course we will never be a complete and full home rule parliament unless we take up such responsibilities. But after all, we are being asked to invest in a future that is very uncertain. We are being asked to buy stock, as it were, in a new enterprise—but the prospectus is very nebulous. What do I mean by that? I refer, first, to the lock-step. That could dominate the whole situation. With a lock-step imposed on the three bands of taxation, it might be difficult to impose a progressive tax. The Silk commission—I too applaud the efforts of people like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in this context—was strongly for that. It argued the case to the point where there was no answer to it. Nevertheless—due, no doubt, to influences from beyond the Tweed, and for reasons connected with Scotland—there is dubiety at this moment. Until that dubiety is resolved, we cannot really begin to think about the question of whether Wales should take up these powers.

There is also the question of Barnett. In passing, may I say that we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will soon be restored to full health in this place; he is a gentleman of remarkable qualities, and I have enjoyed his friendship for more than 40 years. However, the losses under the Barnett formula have been enormous, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has already proved. The commission chaired by Gerry Holtham made it abundantly clear that every year, Wales loses—or did lose when the report was published, three years ago—some £300 million. As the economy improves, that loss becomes greater. It is a disgraceful situation, for which Governments of both colours over the past 30 years are responsible, because they have been unwilling to look into the inequity of the arrangement. A small country like Wales simply cannot afford this massive haemorrhaging of assets, which will continue unless something drastic and radical is done about it.

As for the main proposal in the Bill—yes, there are possibilities, but there are also dangers. There are matters that have to be spelt out. I cannot for a moment see the Welsh people accepting it until they have some sort of reasonable guarantee that we will be no worse off if we take up those options. Hazlitt said that there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. As for death, this House may very well do something about its certainty, but as for taxes, they will remain exactly the same, and for ever.

Of course it will be difficult for a referendum to be carried if there is still a tinge of uncertainty. Gerry Holtham said to the Welsh Affairs Committee that the referendum is very losable unless those guarantees are in place.

I turn to two other matters that are not in the Bill. One is the membership of the Assembly. I do not think that I can overemphasise that feature. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has already spelt out the case, a case set out excellently in the publication by the Electoral Reform Society Wales. The facts, briefly, are these. In Scotland, there are 128 Members of the Scottish Parliament; in Northern Ireland, there are 108 Members of the Assembly; in Wales, there are 60. Once you take out the Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Officers of those various Houses, you have this result: in the House of Commons, 525 Back-Benchers; in Scotland, 113 Back-Benchers; in Northern Ireland, 92 Back-Benchers; in Wales, 42 Back-Benchers. That is well below the minimum number that can form a reasonable critical mass to carry out that function.

Edmund Burke said that, for evil to triumph, it is necessary only for men of good will to do nothing. If anyone wants to bring about the evil of destroying the very future of the Welsh Assembly, and everything that is possible within its grasp, all you have to do is to do nothing in relation to that membership. It is simply impossible for it to carry on with that small number. The Electoral Reform Society has argued strongly the case for 100 Members. It has carried out surveys in all parts of the world and found that that is about the average for what might be called a sub-parliament of this nature.

For myself, I would ask people to exercise a bit of faith and imagination, to consider how that rising curve of expectation that we have seen in Welsh constitutional development over the past 15 years might continue, and to say that 120 might not be impossible. The beauty of the figure of 120 is that it is very simple: you simply double the number of Members that you have at present.

I turn briefly to the question of reserved powers. It is simply ludicrous that if a person wants to find out whether or not a particular function has been devolved to Wales, he or she might have to look at 600, 700 or 800 little pieces of constitutional confetti just to find out whether that matter has been transferred. That is no way to run a parliament. Indeed, by placing the situation on the basis of reserved powers, we place Wales in exactly the same position as Northern Ireland and Scotland. That would also save a whole generation of Welsh lawyers from acute constitutional neurosis.

Wales stands at a point in time where there are many challenges, many dangers and many possibilities. This House must have heard the quote from the Bard of Avon very often:

“There is a tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries”.

There is a tide in the life of a small nation, as well, and we must do all we can to see that we do not miss that fateful opportunity.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 23rd April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, the whole exercise of this House examining the reasons given for rejecting an amendment from this place turns on the supposition in the first instance that the other place has in a mature, reasonable and well informed way applied itself to all the relevant issues. I therefore take very much to heart the submissions made by way of preliminary argument by the Minister. It is his case that the other place has done exactly that: namely, that it has looked in a fair, reasonable and mature way and has comprehensively dealt with those issues. I think that his argument is utterly fallacious in that respect.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Before using a word such as that, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a constitutional convention that—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

It is exactly on the question of constitutional convention that I seek to address this House now. The Minister’s case, in so far as it refers to the Government having carefully considered the situation, is amply made out. I am sure that battalions or squadrons of legal eagles have been burning the midnight oil looking carefully at every word, comma and expression in these matters. I have no doubt that that has been done thoroughly and comprehensively.

However, has the other place thoroughly and comprehensively considered this matter? There has been a double guillotine. First, there was a guillotine in dealing with the issue because it could not be raised at Second Reading, in Committee or on Report. There was a second guillotine in the meagre ration of time—27 minutes—allowed for this amendment and two or three others. You would not hang a dog on such a procedure.

Therefore, on that basis, I make no apology for raising what I consider to be a fundamental constitutional point. We are dealing with the rejection by the House of Commons of a matter on which the time taken presupposes that its consideration could not have been mature and comprehensive. In addition, we have the reason given on financial privilege. I am as sure as I am that financial privilege cannot apply to this case because the very thing that it avoids doing is increasing the burden on the public purse. If I am right—as I understand it, that has been the rule since the end of the 17th century—it is not a financial privilege matter. Therefore, we have two constitutional issues. One is the lack of time and it being ridiculously limited in the other place. The second is the reason advanced; the very basis for refusing it cannot be sustained in argument.

Perhaps I may also challenge in a respectable, and I hope friendly, way the noble Lord’s contention that those of us who have had experience—in my case, it was a very long time ago—as Members in the other place are in some way tainted and disqualified from making contributions in this House on this matter. Is he saying that we should be silent? If this House is anything at all, it is a first-class reviewing Chamber. Is he saying that, as a reviewing Chamber, this House should not comment on such matters? If it does not comment on such matters, it does not deserve to be a reviewing Chamber or a court of Parliament at all.