My Lords, in rising to speak against the amendments in this group, I declare an interest as the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd in the National Assembly. I am disappointed in the noble Lord because I tried to offer him a piece of gentle advice in Grand Committee—that he should reflect on this matter and consult with his Conservative colleagues in the National Assembly. Therefore, I have to spell out in more precise terms what I was trying to allude to in a gentler manner during our earlier discussions.
There is exhibited this evening a massive contradiction on the Conservative Front Bench. On the previous amendment, we heard his noble friend argue that charging by local authorities in, I presume, England should be for transport purposes and that this was the attraction of such charges. He mentioned a series of broad transport spending decisions that could make charging acceptable. As an example, he quoted the very successful congestion charge scheme in London. Yet, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is denying to Welsh Ministers what his noble friend is willing to grant to English local authorities. Surely, the Conservative Party needs to develop some consistency on these matters.
The noble Lord is seeking to limit spending on transport to trunk roads and, in Amendment No. 119D, to stop the onward march of devolution. I would ask him to reflect: is this now Conservative policy? I have followed the development of his arguments from his speech on Second Reading on 20 November, where I detected a difference of emphasis between the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who took a balanced view of devolution, its progress and the implementation of the 2006 Act, and this crusade against framework powers. As a practitioner and student of devolution for some 35 years, it fascinates me to know where this is coming from. Is it now Conservative Party policy in Westminster, Cardiff and anywhere else that no powers are to be granted to the National Assembly for Wales by the framework powers route? If that is the case, it is absolutely contrary to what was set out in June 2005 in the original White Paper of the then Labour Government, Better Governance for Wales, which said that the Government intend to draft, "““parliamentary bills in a way that gives the Assembly wider and more permissive powers to determine the detail of how the provision should be implemented in Wales””."
That was stated in the White Paper and it has been the settled, understood view of Welsh Conservatives, and of any other Conservatives who take an interest in devolution—that it is appropriate for both these routes to be pursued.
In Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, deployed three arguments to demonstrate why this should not be the case. First, he said: "““Broadly speaking, we disapprove of this process for three reasons: first, a provision on Wales in a broader Bill may not be adequately scrutinised””."
Well, what have we been doing? His speech on Second Reading, the discussion in Grand Committee and our debate this evening are fine examples of scrutiny by Parliament and of framework powers. I am sure that the House of Commons can match that when this Bill appears in the other place. He goes on to say that these framework powers involve, "““the transfer of powers that the Assembly has not requested””."
I will not tell the noble Lord that he is misleading the House as that would be out of order, but it is the next best thing to it. These powers have been requested by Welsh Ministers—in fact, by my honourable friend in another place, Ieuan Wyn Jones, the distinguished Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economy and Transport. It has been requested by him, because he is the Deputy First Minister of a Cabinet that has the support of two-thirds of the Assembly. By any democratic calculation that I make, that has been requested by Welsh Ministers with the support of the Assembly.
In his third argument the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, states that, "““we suspect a trend in which departments transfer competence rather than draft legislation applicable to Wales””.—[Official Report, 17/12/07; col. GC 249.]"
That is the worst one of the lot. We are giving the National Assembly for Wales the opportunity, in the measure-making powers that will derive from this primary UK legislation, to make a measure. That measure is the equivalent of an Act of Parliament; it is the legislative process that the constitution of Wales 2006 has before it. That process has not been made up by Welsh nationalists, or even by devolutionists in the Labour Party—it is the constitution of the United Kingdom, as devolved to Wales. It is the constitution agreed by this House.
In these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is being a little disingenuous with the constitutional settlement that we have before us. Further, he is also undermining the capacity of Welsh Ministers to carry out their statutory duty. Under Section 79 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 there is an obligation on Welsh Ministers to develop a ““sustainable development scheme””. Clearly, because transport spending is a major part of sustainable development, how can Ministers develop a proper sustainable development scheme if they do not have the powers relating to transport?
By moving an amendment which seeks to leave out Clause 110 completely, the noble Lord is undermining the whole notion of framework powers. Is this now Conservative Front-Bench policy in the House of Lords? Is he going to be getting up whenever there are framework powers in this present Session—there are two more and no doubt there will be many more—and depose each one? Or is he picking just one because it suits his party political propaganda somewhere else? I have to warn him that he is in danger of embarrassing his own colleagues in Wales. When he visits the Assembly, where he will be very welcome, I hope that he will discuss frankly with his Conservatives colleagues what his function and role are in this place and that he might seek to reflect on the fine public career of that great closet devolutionist, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
Local Transport Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Elis-Thomas
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Transport Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c1395-6 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:02:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435168
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435168
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435168