HC Deb 25 April 1978 vol 948 cc1329-36

  1. '(1) In addition to those functions which it shall exercise by virtue of section 10 above, the Assembly shall exercise as regards Wales such other functions given to Ministers of the Crown by or under Public and General Acts, as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
  2. (2) An order under this section may contain such consequential, incidental and supplementary provisions (including provisions for the exercise of the powers with the concurrence or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consulting with, a Minister of the Crown) as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
  3. (3) A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Wigley.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigley

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause deals with the question of the transfer of functions, particularly the transfer of activities within functions, to the Welsh Assembly at points in time after it has been set up. The question of transferring areas of competence to the Assembly is likely to face us after the Assembly has come into existence.

We can draw on the analogy of what has happened in the history of the Welsh Office over the last 14 years since it was set up. The Welsh Office started with relatively few areas of competence. Gradually, over the years, functions have been transferred to it. The most recent was on 1st April—the transfer of responsibility for agriculture and for colleges of education in Wales. Devolution in terms of the Welsh Office has been an on going process.

I should not imagine that anyone on the Government Front Bench would think that the powers that have been given to the Welsh Assembly and the spheres within which it can use those powers have been defined categorically once and for all and that there may not in future he any need to consider whether other powers need to be transferred. I am sure that within the first two or three years of operation of the Assembly a number of such instances will arise.

It is interesting to note that the Government are to move that a number of powers and spheres of responsibility be included in the Bill. Clearly, they have come across these amendments in the time since the first draft of the Bill was drawn and the latest point at which they had the opportunity to consider these matters. In other words, the more attention that is given to these questions, the clearer it becomes whether some activities are needed and others perhaps are not. I should have thought that the Government needed to have this type of responsibility, and the new clause attempts to define the mechanism by which transfers can take place.

We note that the Government have already built into Clause 14 a mechanism whereby powers under local Acts can be transferred. We have suggested in the new clause that the mechanism for the transfer of public and general Acts should be similar. We have built in the same provisos, safeguards and courses of action as the Government deem necessary in Clause 14 for the powers under local Acts. Therefore, I should have thought that the mechanism for undertaking these transfers would be acceptable to the Government in the form that we have proposed in the new clause.

I can think of some areas which perhaps very early on the Assembly and the Government—this Government or any other Government—might feel they would need to transfer. Earlier we discussed the question of the Boundary Commission in relation to local government. At the moment, responsibility for that remains at Westminster. But many forceful arguments were put forward for the transfer of that function. I should have thought that in due course the Government would feel that that was likely.

There may also be omissions which the Government stumble across quickly. For instance, the Government indicated that they would accept amendments that we put forward relating to the Dinorwic hydro-electric scheme. I am sure that other such instances will come to light as experience takes us along the road. Therefore, I should have thought that the Government will need a mechanism of the sort that we are putting forward.

10.45 p.m.

I imagine that the alternative must be the need for a Wales Act (Amendment) Bill every time this type of transfer is required. I suggest that this is a rather cumbersome way of trying to facilitate the transfers of what may be non-contentious issues and that it would be more easily undertaken in the manner proposed in the new clause.

The new clause allows for continued control by Parliament. Subsection (3) provides that in the same way as for the local Acts. It says: A statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament —as in Clause 14. We have taken the same wording there, although we have reservations about the House of Lords, to make sure that that in itself is not the stumbling block on this question.

The new clause is to some extent a probing clause in that looking at Clause 80 we see certain provisions for the transfer of certain realms of activities. But Clause 80 suggests that these are confined to those defined in Schedule 11, and I should have thought that that does not go far enough to meet the examples which I have given.

For that reason, I should be grateful to the Under-Secretary if he could indicate whether it is the Government's thinking that there is already a mechanism in existence for such transfers within the Bill, or whether, if such transfers are to be required in the future, the matter would be handled, as the Government see it, by means of a Wales Act (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Ioan Evans

I hope that the Government will resist the new clause, although the hon. Member has said that it is just a probing clause. The fear that we have in Wales relates to the slippery slope theory—that whatever is done to create an Assembly in Wales, there will never be satisfaction on the part of Plaid Cymru until we have established a separate political and economic Wales.

Therefore, I look upon this so-called probing new clause with foreboding, because we have not yet put the issue to the people of Wales in the many powers that have been devolved already in the Bill, under which numerous powers which are exercised by Welsh Members in the House of Commons will no longer be exercised by those Members and are to be devolved to the Assembly. Yet before the issue has been put to the people of Wales, here we have a new clause which states that, in addition to those functions which the Assembly shall exercise by right, as laid down in the Bill, other powers may be transferred to it.

My fear about the Assembly is that as soon as it is set up and starts to deal with those subjects that have been devolved by this Parliament, we shall encounter the slippery slope. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about so much, but he said that there would be no stopping the Assembly talking about foreign affairs or defence and setting up Committees to go into a whole range of subjects. I thought that Members of this House would be dealing with certain subjects that would not be dealt with by the Assembly, but during the course of the proceedings this evening we have understood that in Wales Committees will be dealing with a number of subjects and that their deliberations will range far and wide.

When we were dealing with the previous new clause, I wondered whether Opposition Members took on board the fact that there would be long debates on foreign policy in the Assembly, and long debates on whether we should have the neutron bomb in Wales—and there we would have the best seller on the bookshelves in Wales, "What Shall We Do With The Welsh Neutron Bomb?", and there would be arguments as to that.

The Government might have been thinking that their devolution proposals would be enough, but already Plaid Cymru is preparing for the devolution of additional powers. I hope that the new clause will be resisted: enough is enough. The Bill as it stands is too much, in my view, and we must prevent further encroachments. I am beginning to wonder what hon. Members representing Wales will do if the Bill goes through, but if any further powers are devolved, we shall be like representatives in another place. There will be hardly any matters to deal with concerning the people of Wales. I hope that the Government will tell the nationalists clearly that this is not on.

Mr. Brittan

It is apparent from the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that the innocent presentation of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has failed totally to convince the Committee that this new clause is innocuous. I endorse what the hon. Member for Aberdare said. This is a dangerous proposal which should be resisted. It would permit the Secretary of State to transfer powers to the Assembly well beyond anything proposed in the Bill, the only check being the negative procedure. With the difficulties of praying against any Statutory Instrument, that would provide little protection.

We have enough difficulty in reaching agreement on whether there should be an Assembly and on what its powers should be. To suggest the transfer of further powers on these terms is a fantastic proposition which should be resisted. If the Welsh nationalists wish to persuade the Committee and the country to grant further devolution, they will have to do so openly. There is no chance of the Committee being taken in by sleight of hand in this covert way. It is wholly to be resisted and deplored.

Mr. Alec Jones

I am surprised to be in the same bed as the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). This is practically the only time throughout the Committee stage that I have been in that company. The Government certainly would not recommend accepting the new clause. Whatever one's views of the proposal—whether it is called backdoor devolution or the slippery slope—it does not commend itself to the Government.

The functions to be devolved were not chosen at random. All the functions of government which affect Wales were examined in depth, after consultation with a variety of bodies throughout Wales. The Bill is the result.

We believe that the Bill provides the most workable arrangement because the transfer of functions is a matter of major significance. Therefore, it was essential for there to be primary legislation. We believe that that will be the case in future if such circumstances arise.

It is true that it is possible to envisage circumstances which might arise in future whereby the Government of the day, whatever Government that may be, might wish to confer additional ministerial functions on the Assembly. But that would be a major decision and on those matters Parliament would be handing over its control to the Assembly. Therefore, we believe that if there were to be any such extension at all, it should be implemented only by primary legislation so that Parliament would have the opportunity to consider the issues more fully than would be the case under a ministrial order.

We are not prepared to accept new Clause No. 10. I appreciate that the nationalists, having lost the amendment seeking to grant legislative powers to the Assembly, may regard this clause as a consolation prize. I am delighted to say to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that that sort of consolation prize will not be offered this evening.

Mr. Wigley

Will the Minister clarify one matter? If under the powers of Schedule 2 it is found that there is some enactment that is needed to be included, or some excluded function that is not intended to be excluded by the nature of the way in which the provision is drawn up, is there any mechanism which the Government can use to overcome the fact that that provision is not contained in the Bill, other than by introducing an amending Bill?

Mr. Alec Jones

I understand that there are a number of subsequent Government amendments which are of a technical drafting nature—for example, Government Amendment No. 109, which deals with the Burial Acts, and others which deal with a limited number of Orders in Council. We have sought to examine all those matters and we believe that we have many of them "in the net" as it were. We believe that the transfer of functions is so important that it should be discussed by Parliament and that it should not be tucked away in a miniserial order.

Sir Raymond Gower

I hardly believe that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) expected the clause to be accepted, because it goes greatly beyond the present Bill. It would mean adding some vital functions which the Government have deemed necessary in connection with the economic unity of the United Kingdom. The functions which have been devolved go a very long way as it is. The fears expressed in many parts of the Principality and elsewhere about the Bill would be exacerbated if the public in general thought that there was power in this Bill to slip in new functions without any further legislation.

The functions that remain would be vital and connected with the economic unity of this country. If purely by ministerial order we could add those functions to those which have already been devolved, we should be on the slippery slope described by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I am glad that the Government and Opposition take this view about the proposal.

Mr. Dalyell

It is a piece of fortuitous good luck that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is here to discuss the Phillimore Report, is with us tonight.

Last week he told us how we were dealing with reasonable people, people who behave rationally, people who would act within the limits of the Assembly. I ask him to examine New Clause No. 10. Let him consider from the Temple, or from wherever he operates, how an Assembly would work legally. My right hon. and learned Friend is the fount of all wisdom, but when it comes to politics, we have only to examine the matter to realise that the Assembly will want more and more and more.

The clause reveals yet again that there are people who would go to the Assembly and who by definition could never be satisfied—

It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.

Question negatived.

The Chairman

I am now required under the allocation of time order to put the Question on all Government amendments to Schedule 11. These amendments are numbered as follows: Nos. 109, 298, 207, 299, 362, 363, 211, 110, 113 and 114.

Unless there is objection, I propose to put the Question on all of them en bloc.

Forward to