Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigley

Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, in introducing this order, the Minister talked about coming of age, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, talked about two steps along the way; well,

“one step enough for me”—

I cannot view the “distant scene”. I rather regard it as a milestone in the transition towards full devolution. I congratulate those who have worked so hard in the Wales Office and the Welsh Government to put together this somewhat disparate list of functions.

What I do see in the future, if we find ourselves leaving the European Union—if—is a very considerable order, or series of orders, transferring powers currently exercised by the EU in Brussels to Welsh Ministers and indeed the parliament. I have tried to find out what the process is. I have looked at Clause 10 of and Schedule 2 to the withdrawal Bill; I do not understand it. I suggest to the Wales Office that it should produce some form of simple guide on what is envisaged and that, when it comes to the point—if it ever does—we should have some draft Orders in Council to consider well in advance of the Orders in Council being put forward for legislative purposes. It would be so much more helpful if we could see things in advance.

If I may dip into the bran tub, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, puts it, I pull out the references to tribunals and inquiries. I have been engaged in my professional career in a number of very important inquiries and tribunals in Wales—I think in particular of the inquiries on the Dulais Valley and on the digging for gold in the Mawddach estuary and so on. I am relieved to see that the formulation of rules and conditions will now be in the hands of Welsh Ministers because, particularly on the issues concerning water, it is very important that Welsh people should have confidence in the process of a tribunal and the way in which it takes place.

The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, referred in particular to teachers’ pay and conditions. I want to pause for a moment to think about that, because my friend and colleague Kirsty Williams, the Liberal Democrat Minister in the Welsh Administration, has made some startling steps forward in the field of student financial support, as she outlined this morning on the “Today” programme, which I think could provide a template for what might be done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. On teachers’ pay and conditions, she has risen to the challenge and, last December, announced that an independent task and finish group, chaired by Professor Mike Waters, would be put in place to review teachers’ pay and conditions and to consider how this structure,

“contributes to a highly motivated teaching profession and strengthens the delivery of a high quality education system”.

With the success of her approach to student finance, I am sure that she will do a brilliant job on this. She said in her statement in December:

“I have been clear … that being tied to the England system”—


of teachers’ pay—

“is no longer appropriate, relevant or to the advantage of the profession in Wales. Our system is based on the values of equity and excellence, a commitment to inclusive, public service education and to supporting our teachers to raise standards for all. Our Pay and Conditions system will enshrine these approaches and values”.

I know Kirsty well enough to know that she will again produce some remarkable advances in considering the structures of teachers’ pay. This order will give her the power to act in that appropriate way and I look forward to seeing how the order is used.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the purpose of this order, as the Minister stated, is to transfer to Welsh Ministers executive functions currently exercised by the Minister of the Crown in areas where legislative competence is exercised by the National Assembly for Wales or has been devolved to the Assembly by virtue of the Wales Act 2017. It has 47 articles and two schedules, so it is impossible to go into all the detail, and I do not think we would expect the Minister to be able to do that either.

The order transfers a wide range of functions to Welsh Ministers in relation to, for example, agriculture, environmental protection, education, health, compulsory purchase orders and planning. Of course, I welcome that objective. However, my friends in the other place and indeed in the Assembly have grave reservations that the Wales Act 2017 largely fails to fulfil its own objectives. The 2017 Act suffers from two fatal flaws: it is a piece of legislation that has been both poorly conceived and poorly drafted, which results in failing to deliver a reserved powers model of devolution, as was originally intended. Indeed, it provides a system of devolution that not only is as cumbersome as its predecessors but is, in some important ways, even more restrictive and frustrating. In drawing up the list of those issues that will be reserved to London, Whitehall departments seem to have seized on every opportunity to reserve every power they might conceivably ever need in relation to Wales. Reservations have been piled on reservations to create a final schedule that is sprawling and lacking in any coherent logic. But even that was not enough for Whitehall. Just in case it had forgotten anything, the Act also reserved everything that “relates to” the list of reservation, thus further extending its reach.

It is for those reasons that my colleagues voted against the Bill both in the other place and the National Assembly. The ink had barely dried on the Wales Act 2017 before my colleagues were vindicated in these misgivings. The Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill, which was within the Assembly’s competence under the Assembly’s conferred powers model, covered industrial relations within the devolved public sector, but a signal arrived from the UK Government that the reserved powers model might be used rigidly to police what we in Wales cannot do when it comes to such legislation. While nothing eventually came from those UK government threats, the notion of Westminster overruling Welsh decisions became even more apparent.

Regarding the order that we are discussing today, of course its provisions may be partly repealed through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, so I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that and confirmation on whether that process may happen. Brexit is exposing the weaknesses of the UK constitution, which is unfit for purpose in many ways and is lopsided and overcentralised. Many of the provisions in front of us today concern subject matters that may, in part, fall under the 24 areas that the UK Government have identified for legislative common frameworks and, therefore, are more likely to be affected by protection built into the EU withdrawal Bill as amended by this House last week. I understand that, until we have a clear indication from the Government how widely the proposed regulations will be drafted, or indeed how far the common frameworks that replace them will restrict the devolved policy areas with which the EU common frameworks currently interact, it might be difficult to say whether the provisions in this order will or will not be repealed, but the principle matters, particularly in relation to agriculture, fisheries and environmental functions. This will lead to ongoing uncertainty, which hinders good government. I certainly do not oppose the order, but I must warn the House that, inevitably, we shall be asked to return to these matters.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigley

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in his excellent opening statement on Amendment 63 and the amendments grouped with it. I shall speak to my Amendments 64 and 71 and to Amendment 65, to which I added my name.

Amendment 65 may be the most effective amendment in this group. The amendments seek to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales has primacy when it comes to secondary legislation in areas of devolved competence and to removing Westminster’s powers to undermine Welsh devolution through what are known as Henry VIII powers. It is worth reading out the amendment:

“Page 49, line 7, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (2) unless the National Assembly for Wales has passed a resolution approving a draft of the regulations”’.

That seems a very reasonable thing to do. When these points were put forward in Committee, I found the Minister’s response, particularly to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to some extent disappointing and perhaps a little misleading. The Minister argued that Acts of Parliament and Acts of the Assembly should be treated equally in areas of devolved competence. The Minister characterised the argument as being about equality, although no one appeared to be using that word to describe the intentions of these amendments. It is not a matter of equality; it is about establishing the supremacy or primacy of laws created by the Assembly in Wales for Wales. The Minister argued that a number of Welsh Assembly Acts require amendments to Westminster Acts and that a statutory provision to create more accountability for secondary legislation would shift the balance too far in favour of the Assembly. However, as my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas highlighted, we are talking about two very different scenarios. The Assembly is simply amending Westminster Acts, which are the legislative framework on which Welsh law has been built for centuries. In contrast, unwanted attempts by Westminster to amend Assembly Acts are simply interventions in what should be an area of unquestionable authority for the National Assembly for Wales. It therefore seems quite a misnomer to say that any attempts to use Henry VIII powers to undermine Welsh law are a matter of equality. The issue is about ensuring that Welsh Assembly Acts have the respect and legal standing that they deserve.

I shall also briefly address a further point raised by the Minister. He argued that Clause 53 will be used to address “minor” or “consequential” issues only. It was argued that any wholesale changes to this process would create unnecessary complexities for these necessary but uncontentious pieces of secondary legislation. He will be able to see from Amendment 64 that by including the word “minor” in the appropriate line of the clause, I have addressed that issue. I hope he will acknowledge that and perhaps accept the amendment.

I understand that, as with primary legislation, AMs are afforded the right to vote on a consent Motion for any changes to Westminster orders and regulations which infringe into areas of devolved competence. This is called Standing Order 30A and is referred to by the abbreviation SICM for statutory instrument consent memorandum. However, this is only agreed to by convention, and recognised only in Assembly standing orders. It has absolutely no legal standing—even less than the somewhat pathetic standing given to the Sewel convention by including the word “normally” in the Bill.

The Assembly cannot rely on the kindness of Westminster to ensure that it can continue to exercise the powers we have fought so hard for it to have. Will the Minister therefore accept the advice of so many legal and constitutional experts and recognise that it is no longer acceptable to have these arcane and undemocratic clauses in the Bill—or, for that matter, in any Bill of this nature? A way out of this totally unnecessary mess would be to require the National Assembly’s agreement to the use of any statutory instrument by Westminster. At a stroke, that would resolve the issue. If the matters are as uncontentious as the Minister claimed them to be, there would be no difficulty in getting that Assembly agreement.

As things stand, I can well see this matter becoming a dominant one, which could well lead to the National Assembly refusing to pass a legislative consent order in relation to the Bill. If that were to happen, it would be a direct consequence of the Government refusing to apply even-handed common sense and instead running terrified of upsetting the Scots by giving Wales this additional power. We have been told time and again that just because something is appropriate for Scotland, it is not necessarily appropriate for Wales. In this instance, the boot is on the other foot, and for the sake both of the self-respect of our National Assembly and of the even-handed resolution of disputes between Westminster and Cardiff Bay, I urge the House to accept this amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 60 is an example of the encroachment of the Executive on the privileges of Parliament that has increasingly come to the forefront in the last two or three years. It is necessary to look at the provisions of that clause very carefully. In subsection (2), it says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make such consequential provision in connection with any provision of this Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

Parliament passes primary legislation, and a Secretary of State introduces regulations. The control that Parliament has is by way of statutory instrument—sometimes by the affirmative procedure, sometimes by the negative procedure. This is an issue that has troubled the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, for some time. Every time this provision appears, a statement is made which the Government have, in the last two or three years, ignored. Subsection (3) says that “Regulations under subsection (2)” made by the Secretary of State “may amend, repeal”—and these are the important words—

“revoke or otherwise modify … an enactment contained in primary legislation, or … an instrument made under an enactment contained in primary legislation”.

That is the Henry VIII clause which permits a Minister to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend an Act of Parliament passed by Parliament.

There are two ways of doing that, as I have already indicated: by affirmative resolution, whereby the amendment does not take place unless the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament; or by the negative procedure, whereby a draft is produced and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament. Your Lordships are familiar with the bringing forward of Motions in the House to seek to annul regulations that are subject to the negative procedure. However, this clause, at subsection (6), says:

“A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) that includes provision amending or repealing any provision of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.

That is the affirmative procedure, but the words are “amending or repealing”. It is not necessary to have an affirmative resolution if the purpose of the regulations is to revoke or otherwise modify the Act of Parliament that is under consideration. So whereas subsection (3) refers to amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying, an affirmative resolution is required only if the provision amends or repeals. If it revokes or otherwise modifies an Act of Parliament, the negative procedure is enough, according to this clause.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigley

Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. It strikes me that it is for the Government to make the case for Milford Haven being an exception. The natural position would be for it to be within the competence of the Welsh Government and Assembly, and a case for it needs to be made—a case that I have not yet heard.

I support the points about Milford Haven made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. As she said, it handles 62% of all the liquid natural gas, but it has had other strategic existences in the past and it may well do so in the future. At one point it had a strategic position in regard to fishing due to its deep-water facility. At the time, there was the possibility of Celtic oil off the Pembrokeshire coast. In that context, Milford Haven would have been important to the economic development of the area. Therefore, taking out what should be a focus for possible future growth in Pembrokeshire seems perverse, and a strong case needs to be made for allowing that to happen.

On coastguards, many other services in Wales come under the National Assembly—one thinks of the ambulance service, for example. One would have thought that the coastguard facility would naturally have the same sorts of conflicts. Again, I would be interested to hear the Government’s case.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, Milford Haven is at the other end of Wales from me and I have never been there. However, I am very familiar with Aberdeen Harbour, having on a number of occasions rowed upstream from there as far as the main road bridge, and I have fished in the river very frequently.

There are differences and I can assist the Minister to this extent: I do not believe that oil or gas is discharged in Aberdeen Harbour, as it is in Milford Haven. However, that makes my point. It seems to me that the Welsh Government would control the standards and risks of pollution at Milford Haven in a much more hands-on way than could ever be the case in Westminster. The Minister should explain why such a distinction is made between Milford Haven and the other ports in Wales.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigley

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

I want to join briefly with colleagues who have raised these points. Over many years I have often heard the argument made that matters of substance are passed through Parliament by order—by secondary legislation and so on. Here we have the reverse position, where there are matters that should surely be set out in orders. Ministers should be empowered to introduce orders to deal with a variety of circumstances that certainly do not warrant taking up the face of the Bill. If that were the case, there would be flexibility within the orders to deal with other cases which possibly have not been thought of. Putting this in the Bill in this way is surely a nonsense.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, for drawing my attention to these new sections, in particular new Sections 116G and 116H. I spend around 140 days of the year here, about 60 days in my family home in Scotland and the rest of the time in Wales. On these formulae, I am not liable to pay income tax in Wales, certainly not in Scotland, and possibly not in England, if we have similar provisions. Thank you very much. Devolve away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. On the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, on Cardiff Airport, of course we need intervention—that is the whole point of government. If we just leave it to free market forces, those areas that have difficulties with the economy will get worse and worse. I am amazed that the Government look at devolution and powers of the Assembly only in terms of answerability and do not see the central need to have intervention in the economy to build it up. In Wales, the GDP per head is 25% below the UK average, so something is going wrong. If London is not capable of sorting that out, and Westminster is not capable of sorting it out, we have to do the job ourselves. But we need the tools to do that job and to intervene, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. Some tools may be more appropriate than others, but in the case of Cardiff Airport, when all the effort that is being made to rebuild it at the moment is in question, I find it staggering that they want just to turn it down on that basis.

On the other amendments and the reasons given against them, with regard to petrol charges we already have a massive differential. We do not see people queuing from north Wales to Chester to find cheaper fuel because there is a cost involved in travelling. The need to get fair play in rural areas should be recognised by the Government. Goodness only knows that life is difficult enough as it is without the very high petrol taxes that we have.

On the natural resources of Wales, we hear so much about fracking coming along, and we know it is a matter of considerable concern. That is a new source of energy, and it may be something that comes into the purview of government in those terms. We need those powers to be there.

On corporation tax, I again underline that there is unanimity within the Assembly to have those powers, if they are going to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Government in fairness should allow it for Wales, which is in competition for inward investment against the Irish Republic. The Irish Republic has this advantage, so why do we not? We need that in order to rebuild our economy. It is something that the First Minister of Wales has very reasonably asked for and I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will support the First Minister in those representations.

I was heartened by the comments made by the Minister that there are provisions for other taxes to be devolved by order. We shall have to look to the order-making system to try to ensure that we have the tools necessary to do the job.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Does the noble Lord not agree that, if the Welsh Labour Government are not prepared to use the tools, there is no point in having these powers?

[Lord Wigley]

That is true of all the powers, and we have to look to the Assembly to take a responsible attitude. Obviously there are questions to consider—cross-border questions and all the rest—and the Assembly needs to make these powers work, so it is not going to do stupid things. It will take up the powers and use them in a way that moves our economy forward. I am quite happy to trust that people who give priority to the needs of Wales will do this, from whichever party they come. All I want them to have is the tools to do the job. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigley

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on this. Clearly the sons of Denbighshire had it right in that the forgotten ironmaster, possibly Wilkinson, was responsible for “Senedd”. Certainly, I used the phrase and Lord Hooson used the phrase. It is the appropriate title for a Welsh Assembly/Parliament—but I prefer to call it the Senedd.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, many of us campaigned for a Parliament for Wales for many years and in that context, obviously, the ambitions for a legislative body that has full competence, including tax raising and tax varying, fits with the concept of a Parliament.

The one point that I would make—and undoubtedly the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has thought about it—is that the building in Cardiff is now known as a Senedd, which makes it even more complex, with the differential between the Senedd building and the Cynulliad Cenedlaethol or National Assembly that is within it. We are of course aware that in France the National Assembly is the primary body. Therefore, my feeling is that whereas I have total sympathy with what my noble friend is aiming at, perhaps this, like so many other issues, is one that in the first place the National Assembly itself and its Members should decide on.

Changes have been made, as has been referred to earlier today, with regard to moving from the First Secretary to the First Minister and from secretaries to Ministers; something that was picked up by custom and practice in the first place and then became accepted. I hope that if there is to be a move in this direction it is by the initiative of the Members of the National Assembly itself. What is most important—I am sure that the noble Lord would agree—is the powers and functions that that body has to serve the people of Wales.

Wales: Silk Report

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigley

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in mourning the loss of the late Wyn, Lord Roberts, of whom I had an earlier opportunity to speak in the Chamber. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for facilitating this short debate and also pay tribute to his work on the Silk commission and that of other commissioners, including Plaid Cymru’s Dr Eurfyl ap Gwilym and, particularly, Paul Silk himself.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, would agree that among the most remarkable aspects of the Silk commission was that, first, unlike Scotland, it was drawn up with terms of reference to which all four parties in Wales signed up and, secondly, its first report secured the support of all commission members. I am sure that the noble Lord would confirm that such agreement was achieved by some give and take and that the report was presented as a balanced package, not one to be cherry-picked. I regret very much that the Government, driven as they are by the Scottish agenda, could not accept the package in its entirety.

I regret that for two substantive reasons. First, by insisting on a lock-step on income tax, the Government denied the Assembly the significant degree of policy flexibility it might have otherwise enjoyed, and with it the possibility of creating a far-reaching investment programme that could stimulate the Welsh economy. Goodness knows that we need that. Business rate flexibility and stamp duty land tax are certainly worth having but are not in themselves enough. Secondly, by acting in this way, the UK Government have let the Welsh Prime Minister off the hook. Carwyn Jones has waxed eloquent this week on how the Tories and their Lib Dem backers squandered the opportunity provided by Silk. It has been enough of an excuse for Mr Jones to step away from a referendum, for what is the point of having a referendum on income tax powers that are unusable?

Had the Silk report been adopted in its entirety, with all the parties represented on the commission on board, it would have been impossible for Labour or any other party to wriggle out of having a referendum. A yes vote could have been secured again, as happened in the 2011 referendum when all four parties were united. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in that context. That yes vote would have started making Wales’s Government truly answerable to the people of Wales in having to justify their expenditure and stewardship of Welsh taxpayers’ money. I cannot understand the Government taking this course of action which at one stroke negates everything they purport to advocate in terms of democratic answerability in Wales. Has Alex Salmond’s shadow really got them on the run to that extent?

I also respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and do not join him in talking Wales down in terms of the National Health Service. Goodness knows that there are people working hard enough and with great commitment in the health service in Wales, and they deserve our thanks. Of course, some bad decisions have been made by the Welsh Government, as by the Westminster Government. The noble Lord quoted a highly unfortunate situation in the NHS in Wales this week. One of the worst blind alleys that the Assembly pursued with regard to the health service was the creation of 22 local health boards, but I suspect that the noble Lord’s party supported it in doing that. The truth is that Barnett underfunding deprived the Assembly of some £5 billion since its establishment, and health and education in Wales have been underfunded as a result.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am sorry to take up the noble Lord’s time, but is that not the point? As soon as the NHS and education are under attack, what do they blame? It is the Barnett formula for failing to provide funds. We need accountability in this.

[Lord Wigley]

Of course we need accountability. That is why we do not need the lock-step, so that we get the tax linked in. I agree with the noble Lord on that. The fact is that if there was adequate funding, we would not have had some of the cutbacks that have been necessary in the health service in Wales.

The questions I wish to put to the Minister are these. First, could an income tax-sharing model be adopted before reform of the Barnett formula? Secondly, will the borrowing powers set out in the draft Bill include the old WDA borrowing powers, or is that a separate amount? Thirdly, is the M4 relief road dependent on getting these borrowing powers? Fourthly, how much of the £500 million borrowing limit will be available before a referendum? Fifthly, does the revenue stream from the minor taxes—the land tax and the aggregate levy—constitute enough to support the £500 million borrowing capacity? Lastly, the draft measure says that a yes vote in a referendum would allow the Secretary of State to raise the borrowing limit, but raise it by how much?

If I may put one key question to the Labour Front Bench, as Carwyn Jones has said that he will not hold a referendum until the Barnett formula has been replaced or radically amended, will the Labour Party give a copper-bottomed commitment that if it forms the next Government at Westminster after the 2015 election, it will reform or scrap Barnett as a matter of urgency?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigley

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I also welcome the Government’s shift on this matter. I am sure it is one that will give the noble Lord, Lord McNally, considerable satisfaction, given the family dimension and his understanding of this condition. It will, I hope, be of considerable benefit to many thousands of sufferers and their families. I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I am aware of his campaigning ability from many years in another place. We campaigned sometimes together and sometimes on opposite sides. When one was on the opposite side, my goodness, one knew one had a contender to deal with. The diligence that he and other colleagues across parties have applied to this issue will be of considerable satisfaction to the groups of campaigners who represent sufferers and their families.

I want to raise a couple of points with the Minister. I note with interest that the definition of diffuse mesothelioma used here is the one that was incorporated in the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. Another dimension of what he mentioned a moment ago is the fact that there are still people who cannot trace their employers or pinpoint which employer was responsible at the time at which the disease may have developed. That is the case for a number of diseases. The 1979 Act, as noble Lords will remember, arose largely from the position of slate quarriers, but many other workers were affected in the cotton and pottery industries and some in the steel industry.

I am not going to reopen the debate that we lost the other night. We lost that one, and so be it, but there will be some cases in which there is suffering that is not covered by any other provision. When the review is undertaken, I hope that some consideration can be given to whether there are other cases of industrial workers who have suffered loss of health, and in many cases loss of life, and do not have an avenue through which to get compensation. If they do get compensation, they should not have that compensation unreasonably eroded. I hope that can be taken on board by the DWP. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the Minister in the DWP who may be handling this, also has a good understanding of the suffering that arises from these conditions, so hopefully we can make progress.

Finally, this may be a lesson for us in this House to try and try again. We could have abandoned this the other night without insisting on the amendment that we put through to the other place. We did not and that is what enabled progress to be made on this occasion. There may be other instances when we need to be equally tenacious and determined in order to make sure that the other place gives adequate attention to a subject and that progress such as this can be made.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on all the very hard work that he has put into this matter. I also pay tribute to the work of the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group, in particular to Tony Whitston, who has lobbied so hard on behalf of victims; and there are other support groups, such as the Merseyside support group, which have lobbied just as hard.

I argued on Monday that success fees ought not to be claimed by solicitors in this type of case. I was pleased to hear the Minister in another place, Mr Djanogly, say yesterday:

“this is not an issue of causation. I heard Lord Thomas speak in the other place yesterday, and I very much agree with what he had to say, which was essentially that in cases in which causation is not an issue, there is—in many respects—no reason why solicitors should have a success fee for that type of work”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/12; col. 831.]

I was strongly supported on Monday by my noble friend Lord Faulks, and I am grateful to him for the concern that he has shown on this issue. An objection was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that it was impossible to guarantee that solicitors would not charge a success fee against their clients’ damages.

I interjected that if public opinion saw it as an abuse, no doubt the Lord Chancellor would step in to deal with it by way of regulation. There is another way in which this issue could be approached. I suggest to Mr Whitston, his excellent organisation and other similar support groups that he should draw up a list of solicitors who have indicated to him that they would not charge a success fee when, ultimately, the new regime for CFAs is introduced for mesothelioma sufferers. The support group could receive applications from solicitors to be put on an approved list and satisfy itself that firms that are accessible to victims in those industrial parts of the country where the disease is most prevalent—shall we say Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and, of course, the industrial areas of north and south Wales?—are geared up and competent in this area of work. Sufferers from mesothelioma turn to the support groups, and if they had a list of solicitors who had undertaken not to charge success fees against the damages they receive and who they are satisfied are competent, that would be a great way forward.

[Lord Wigley]

I follow the point that the noble Lord made the other night; I well understand it and have some sympathy with it. Clearly, if the sort of provision he is suggesting were to be made, it would be very helpful. Does he feel that it should be limited to mesothelioma, because there are many other cases of compensation in which it is equally unreasonable that there should be a deduction of up to 25 per cent from the compensation?

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

The noble Lord will recall that on Report, I referred not only to cases of mesothelioma that Mr Tony Whitston drew to our attention from the Brymbo steelworks in Wrexham but to cases of pneumoconiosis that I have known. He is a slate quarry person; I come from a colliery area and I know of the long-term suffering of those victims. With mesothelioma, that could be done now and could be extended to other diseases in due course.

The support groups would be uniquely placed to monitor the service that such firms gave to mesothelioma sufferers, who could report back on their experiences to both the support groups and their successors. That is the answer to those who say that solicitors will not do this work at all unless they are cosseted by success fees. It spreads the work around the country to areas that are particularly concerned with this disease, where experience could be built up by firms of solicitors. It may discourage any idea of focusing litigation of this type in the City of London branch offices of firms that then claim to be paid at City of London rates. Anecdotal evidence suggests that that happens in some CFA cases.

As my noble friend Lord Faulks said on Monday, there are lawyers who are dedicated to achieving the best result for their clients and not so much for their fees. I have no doubt that they would flock to be placed on an approved list and forbear charging a success fee at all. I hope that such an approach will appeal to the Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice.