Wales Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

The issue is the complexity of Welsh devolution, which remains unclear and undefined. The issue of what it is within the Assembly’s competence to do is made even more complex than it was before by the Bill. I speak as someone who was involved—for too long, I suspect—in trying to determine what was within the competence of the Assembly and what was not, but I was well advised by excellent lawyers in the National Assembly and assisted more recently by the Supreme Court. It is not for me to comment on the activities of the Supreme Court, but clearly what we are doing here by not specifying more clearly what “devolved matters” are is not providing the required clarity, not just for politicians, lawyers or interest groups, but for the public in Wales. This is my greatest concern about what we are legislating in the Bill: we are continuing the cawl—Hansard will know how that is spelt—of Welsh devolution. There is no clarity in this soup, Minister.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I was in this Chamber when this issue first arose in 1998 in the then Scotland Bill. I heard Lord Sewel produce his sentence, which was hastily cobbled together. There was no thought behind it. It was not part of the government programme at that time, but he was under great pressure from Scottish Peers to define when the Westminster Parliament would act where Scotland had competence. He came out with his phrase, using the word “normally”, in that context. It has found itself into the Scottish legislation and has been adopted for the purposes of this legislation.

It is an unsatisfactory solution. There are no doubt exceptional circumstances, such as a declaration of war or something of a really serious consequence, when the Westminster Parliament may wish to overrule the Welsh Assembly or act in its place, but the word “normally” does not cover that. It is open to huge misinterpretation and the sort of litigation to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred in his contribution before the adjournment. The Government ought to excise the word altogether. I seem to recall it was still in contention as to whether it was a satisfactory phrase in consideration on the recent Scotland Bill.

I also support Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. I prefer it to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because it is disjunctive whereas his is not. An “or” at the end of his proposed new paragraph (c) might have made it a bit clearer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate on this amendment. I turn first to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Clause 2 places the existing convention on legislative consent on a statutory footing. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, just indicated, this is not something that the Government have suddenly dreamed up. It is an existing convention and something we committed to do in the St David’s Day agreement. As has been noted by various noble Lords, it is also in line with Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016. The convention states that Parliament will not normally legislate on matters devolved to the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the Assembly, or in the case of Scotland the Scottish Parliament. These amendments seek to broaden the convention in two ways. They seek to remove the “not normally” requirement and also seek to expand the circumstances in which Parliament would not legislate without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.

That said—the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right that I am going to refer to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament—I can, nevertheless, understand the points that have been made. I am grateful for comments about this from other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, and earlier from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not in his place at the moment. I will go back and have a look to see whether we are able to do something by guidance, but the whole nature of the “not normally” is that that there will be circumstances that are difficult to foresee.

The nature of this signals that they are not justiciable, because it is left to Parliament. However, in line with comments from noble Lords and in the interests of ensuring that we look at this from all angles, I will go back and see whether there is something that we can do in relation to guidance on the two issues in relation to devolved matters as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, and the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Wigley. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I understand the Minister is saying that it is not justiciable as to whether the word “normally” is applicable in a particular case. However, it could be subject to judicial review if a Minister brought forward a Bill that was the subject of contention as to whether the circumstances were normal or abnormal. To say that it is not justiciable is not, I think, correct.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I do not think that I said that. I said that it signals that it is not justiciable. I am making the point that noble Lords have been making about the generality of the phrase and that it is difficult to define, and it means that if Parliament decides something it can decide that this is not normal. That is the point about it. As I say, I will take it back and see whether we can accomplish what noble Lords are seeking in guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

If I had my way I would change the whole system—probably not to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, wants, but to the alternative vote system, for example. The point I am making is that the people in that part of Wales did not get the opportunity to say, “I don’t want that person because they do not live in Wales”. They were voting for a party instead of an individual. I cannot see any reason why, when we set up a Parliament or an Assembly in one of our devolved parts of the United Kingdom, a person should represent it without living in it. All the arguments that have been addressed are valid and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, this debate takes me back to 1981, when I applied to be a candidate in a constituency not very far from my home. It was impressed on me that I should buy a cottage in this constituency, to which my reply was that I lived half an hour away and had a fast car. That was one factor that meant I was not chosen as the candidate. The other was that I was competing against my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. That was much more important.

I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We had problems in my party in the Assembly election before last where two candidates could have been disqualified by being members of public bodies at the time they filed their nomination papers as candidates. One was in a paid office and one was not paid. But they could have been disqualified. One of them succeeded, as noble Lords will recall, in gaining entrance. The other did not.

My recollection is that in the last Wales Bill we adopted a similar provision to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley; namely, that they should have ceased to hold those public offices by the time they were sworn in as Members of the National Assembly for Wales. I think that is fair. A candidate does not know, particularly in my party, whether he is ever going to be elected. Accordingly, to ask him to move his house and family, even if it is only half an hour away and he has a fast car, is not a sufficient reason for disqualifying that person from being a candidate. Therefore, I support Amendment 22.