COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
|
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
|
|
of the
|
EVIDENCE OF:
|
LORD THOMAS OF GRESFORD
|
|
held at
|
St George's Hotel, Llandudno
|
|
on
|
|
28th March 2003
|
|
Proceedings
|
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Martin Thomas, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Liberal
Democrats, spokesman for Wales in the House of Lords.
|
| In my room in the House of Lords I have a photograph
of Llandudno in 1962 of the whole Liberal party on the
stand led by Joe Grimond, Emlyn Huwson, and Jeremy Thorpe.
It is nice to be back in Llandudno. That was the first
Assembly I ever went to in ‘62. In ’64 I fought
West Fincher as a Liberal candidate, and I called for
proportional representation, a Parliament for Wales and
abolition of the hereditary House of Lords. We have come
quite a long way in the last 40 years. In 1967 I drafted
a Bill on Parliament for Wales which Emlyn Huwson presented
on 1st March 1968. In that Bill it is interesting to see
that almost everything in the Welsh Liberal Democrats
paper that you received was contained, including legal
system and legislative powers and all the rest of it.
I gave evidence for the party with the Welsh Liberals
to the Crowther Commission in 1972, and I played my part
in the devolution campaigns of 1997 and later in ‘98.
So you can say that I am a committed devolutionist. |
| You have received the Welsh Liberal Democrat policy
document. I don't propose to rehash party policy at all.
I will take my own line based on my own experiences in
the House of Lords and focus on the question of the relationship
between Cardiff and Westminster to which you refer in
your issues and questions documents. I apologise for not
being able to present you with a paper beforehand. I have
not had time to prepare it. But I would be very happy
if anybody wants to interrupt me at any time for clarification
or for comment. |
| What I want to see from this Commission, what I would
like to see, what I would hope to see is that you grant
primary legislative powers to the National Assembly, that
there be some movements of that. Because it seems to me
that there we have a democratically elected body; the
problem is how does it express its voice? It replaces
the Welsh Office, but not just as an executive body, it
replaces the Welsh Office in order to form policy and
in order for its Cabinet to carry out that policy. |
| My experience in the House of Lords suggests that it
isn't all that easy for the voice of the Assembly to be
properly expressed. It’s quite interesting that when
the first legislation came out after devolution the drafters
of the Bills that concerned Wales were happy to put in
clauses which said for Secretary of State read the National
Assembly. That tendency still continues. I made a speech
the other day on the Community Care Delayed Discharges
Bill in which there was a clause which said something
to the effect that the National Assembly shall have no
more than the powers of the Secretary of State. Which,
considering health is devolved to the Welsh Parliament,
I thought was a breach of the devolution settlement. But
there could be an argument about that. Where you have
these "for Secretary of State read the National Assembly"
what is happening is that whereas the Minister has certain
executive powers the National Assembly, as I have already
said, has more than executive powers. It’s not just
an executive body. It consults and it forms its own policy.
Therefore, the two things are not alike. |
| In the early days of devolution when these clauses were
appearing in the Bills I was constantly on my feet saying,
‘Can we please have separate Wales sections in the
legislation?’ That was duly followed and we have
as you know had separate Wales sections in the number
of Bills. There are some problems about it, however, because
where you do have a Wales section you also have a large
numbers of clauses put into Bills which are mixed, which
apply to both England and Wales. There is a disinclination
by the parliamentary draftsman to repeat the English sections
where they apply to Wales word for word in a separate
Welsh section. But in so far as there is only legislative
power for Scotland that's not the case; you do tend to
find in Bills relating to Scotland that they do set out
everything all over again under a section headed ‘Scotland’. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| Could you give some illustrations of that Scottish Bill
example? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I unfortunately do have the professional habit of wiping
my mind after I have dealt with something. There is a
particular Bill where there were large portions that devoted
simply to Scotland. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| They were replicated the England and Wales, or the England
clauses put them in a Scottish section? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Yes, that's right, so when we had amendments debated
and they were grouped they would group the English and
Scots because the wording was exactly the same. Our Scottish
spokesman, the Earl of Marr and Kelly would be saying
his piece on behalf of Scotland. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Presumably so there were Sewel Bills where Scottish
Parliament had asked Westminster to do this for them. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Yes. Presumably that is so. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| That experience seems to knock out the whole Parliamentary
Council's idea that you should not do that. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| It’s his view that you should not do it. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| Yes. I think it is. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| You should not repeat things? Yes. There is a lot to
be said for not having Bills too long if you are going
to maintain primary legislative power. But it makes it
very confusing, as you have found for those who have to
deal with the legislation, to have a Wales section but
also to have to pick many clauses out which have a dual
function. And it must be confusing; not simply for the
legislators but for those who have to deal with legislation
afterwards, the Civil Servants and lawyers before whom
those matters come. I don't think that this Wales section,
although better than the "for Secretary of State read
National Assembly", has resolved the problem at all. |
| I think the other problem is that particularly where
you have mixed clauses; the National Assembly really has
no voice in the process anyway - certainly not on the
floor of either House. Maybe representations are made
to Ministers behind the scenes, I don't know, but the
National Assembly may be faced with a Bill which has a
Wales section in it, it may be that a Minister or maybe
a Member of the National Assembly would want to have some
particular aspect clarified or discussed or amended, but
there is no machinery whereby amendments can be put down
by the Members of the National Assembly. Always on every
single Bill it is very necessary for me as the spokesman
for Wales - and maybe in some Bills there is only one
clause that has this - to take instructions and to find
out if you want me to say anything or to do anything.
I have to be in contact constantly with my colleagues
in Cardiff in order to ascertain if there is anything
they want me to deal with. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| Have you seen this, it has only just recently appeared
the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, Select
Committee of the House of Commons - their report on the
primary legislative process as it affects Wales. Because
it has in it some specific proposals for ameliorating
the not co-legislative, the legislative process and they
are quite specific, in default on having primary legislative
powers. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I do have in front of me here the evidence that was
given to that Welsh Affairs Committee on 21st October
by Dafydd Elis Thomas, John Marek, Peter Jones and others,
I have read that. I assume that this report has recently
come out as a result of that. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| Yes. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Part of the investigations of that evidence. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| It does have quite specific proposals. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I am delighted to hear that. Perhaps you can tell me
what they are, so that I can consider it? |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| They are reasonably long. Basically they suggest that
there should be the power, that there should be the Rawlings
Principles. The Government should apply that, there should
be use of pre-legislative scrutiny and that there should
be special standing Committees applied to certain Bills
and a Welsh grand Committee debate with the Assembly about
the whole programme. It is a whole series. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I shall read that with very considerable interest. Can
I say just say that they are identifying, are they not,
the same point that I am making to you; that really once
the legislation (which is promoted by the Secretary of
State and not the Assembly), once that legislation is
under way or if it is a departmental Bill, then of course
it may come from any department? Once that is under way
the National Assembly are forced to rely on people like
me to raise issues at the moment and no doubt the Members
of Parliament in Wales, although I do not see very much
evidence of it, but there we are, from any party. |
|
Tom Jones
|
| When you say the National Assembly, you mean the opposition. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Well, anybody. Any Member can- should - be able to have
some sort of input, I would have thought, into a Bill
which affects their remit. I mean these issues are devolved
to them. I am only talking about matters that are devolved
which require primary legislative powers and that the
elected representatives whose responsibility it is to
formulate policy on those matters are not in a position
to influence the legislation in any formal way. They have
to do it in an informal way at the moment. |
| So we come on to the all Wales Bills. We have had two
I think: the Children’s Commissioner and the Health
Wales Bill. That was not satisfactory. I am not going
to be satisfied with anything less than primary legislative
powers for the National Assembly. I will tell you what
I thought were the weaknesses in it. So far as the Children’s
Commissioner Bill was concerned the Home Office had clearly
interfered. There was a huge row in the House of Lords
about it. The Bill bounced about a bit until finally there
was a compromise reached. The Home Office refused to allow
the Children’s Commissioner to look at any issues
concerning children over which the Home Office had the
power. For example, prisons or youth offenders or probation
services. The sort of area where you would expect there
to be problems for children. In the end the compromise
that was reached was that the Children's Commissioner
would report any concerns he had about Home Office matters,
that he would have access to Home Office establishments,
but that he could not take the matter up with the Home
Office. He would have to report to the National Assembly
who would then take a decision as to whether to take the
matter up with the Home Office. That was the compromise,
which to my mind, was unsatisfactory. It did indicate
in that particular department a failure to understand
the principles of devolution altogether. |
| Somebody referred to the Rawlings Principles. When I
raised the Rawlings Principles on one occasion the Ministers
had not heard of the Rawlings Principles. This was something
entirely new to them, notwithstanding the fact that the
National Assembly had agreed to promote the Rawlings Principles,
or whatever it was they precisely agreed. There were Ministers
charged with taking the Bill through Parliament who had
not heard of it at all and had to be informed. That is
the Children's Commissioner Bill. The interference by
the Home Office in what was an all-party Bill. There was
absolutely no dispute down in Cardiff as to what should
happen and what sort of remit the Children's Commission
should have. It was regarded as leading the way in the
UK. Everybody was very proud of it. But that didn't stop
central Government from interfering. The Health Wales
Bill that we have just finished- |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| Is there not a serious principle behind the suggestion
that in fact the Assembly has primary legislative powers
and would have passed the Children's Act, that they should
have the power to legislate and give power to a Commissioner
over institutions that are not devolved? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| You make a very good point because it is true that the
Home Office - those aspects of the Home Office are not
devolved. But on the other hand I would have thought that
they would have worked out a solution which would have
avoided the sort of clash that we had in the House. That
is my point. |
| The Health Wales Bill. As Bills go it was really rather
a small effort; three main points were sought. It was
published on 17th May of last year by the Secretary of
State, not by the National Assembly, but no doubt he was
acting as an agent for the National Assembly who had debated
the particular matters that they wanted and formulated
their policy thorough the Cabinet which the Bill encapsulated.
|
| So the Bill is published in May. It is discussed by
the Health Committee of the National Assembly in May,
and then later discussed in plenary session. Then the
Welsh affairs Committee did an extremely good job of it.
The Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence in Cardiff and
evidence in Westminster and they produced a report on
23rd October which led to amendments being made in the
provisions in that Bill. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| Were the amendments made in the Commons or Lords? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| The Members amendments before the Bill were actually
presented. It was produced as a draft Bill, so this was
all pre-legislative scrutiny which is something I am pleased
see the Government taking up and relating to a wide range
of Bills now. I was talking to Gareth Williams the other
night about it. He has been to Scotland and Wales and
in a sense he is following along a path of pre-legislative
scrutiny that we laid out ourselves. |
| So the Welsh Affairs Committee had a good look at it
and did a very useful job and it was then discussed by
the Welsh Grand Committee on 16th July. This was presumably
alongside the Welsh Affairs Committee investigation: it
came to the House of Commons and I have actually totted
up the hours just as a matter of interest. There are three
points in this Bill; the second reading took four hours
forty-five minutes. The Committee stages were over a day
and a half and six hours were devoted to it. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| That is in the Standing Committee? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Yes. Then it came back for report and a third reading,
they took an hour over it there, so they had given it
nearly 12 hours of Parliament time and something like
six hours on the floor of the House. No, I am looking
at this wrongly. There were a further two hours on 9th
December, so it took 13.84 hours altogether in the House
of Commons. Something like eight hours, as I said, being
on the floor of the House. If you read that debate, nobody
is seriously seeking a change of principle. Why should
they? Whereas in the ordinary run of the mill, if a Bill
comes before Parliament, amendments are put down in order
to change Government policy, in order to bring in a different
form of settlement, to alter things in all sorts of ways.
But why would 13.84 hours be spent in the House of Commons
on a Bill which was coming from Cardiff, that was seeking
to change Cardiff policy? |
| There really, in my very respectful view to the House
of Commons, as we always are, there have been no serious
issues or principles or matters of changes of policy to
be discussed. Everybody is standing up and making party
political points with each party seeking to say that it
is all down to them. The Liberal Democrats lead the way
of course on anything that is good, and the usual stuff.
|
| Well, it comes up to the House of Lords. We gave it
three hours in a second reading. One hour fifty-five in
Committee and fourteen minutes at third reading. I took
the principle that we were not going to seek, so far as
the Liberal Democrats were concerned, to amend this Bill
just because we thought we would like to make a few speeches.
We had no instructions from our friends in Cardiff to
see any amendments to it. The Conservatives put down amendments
which enabled Lord Roberts of Conwy to demonstrate his
considerable Ministerial experience and expertise and
he has always been very good to listen to because of that
experience and expertise on Welsh affairs. But the sort
of amendments that he did put down were about the constitution
of CHCs, who should be Chairman, who should be on it and
one or two other matters, none of which were pressed to
a vote. Altogether we have spent the best part of 19 hours
in Parliament discussing a short Bill without any amendments
being made to it, and in my view to no good purpose. |
| So, where do we go from there? I'm not here to suggest
that we go straight to the Welsh Liberal Democrat’s
solution of a pan-Parliament for Wales elected by STV,
legislative powers and all the rest of it. What I am here
to say is what I think is a way forward on this matter.
Which is to include the experience of Westminster, but
in a positive way. |
| It seems to me that the Welsh Affairs Committee did
all that was needed to be done in the scrutiny of this
Bill. I remember when I first started at the Bar there
were some old timers who had started in the early 50s
who told me a story of how they sat in chambers for six
weeks until a plea of guilty from the Court of Sessions
turned up for one of them and they spent five days examining
it and suggesting what could be said by way of mitigation
because they had nothing else to do. So much of this- |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| Can I interrupt you? If I am not a Member of the Welsh
Affairs select Committee I might have views to the community
health Councils. I have got to have the opportunity to
have a go at a particular clause or two in that Bill other
than the Select Committee Members. You are saying for
a Member of the Welsh for Welsh affairs - that's it? I
would not have the right to have a view, even if I wasn't
a Member of the community Council? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I am saying it can be done in a constructive way and
at a different stage. So I certainly believe in the publication
of draft Bills and in pre-legislative scrutiny, but I
think that the primary legislation in this area could
easily have been started off in the National Assembly
whose procedures I think are superior in terms of discussion
and consultation and so on. The Welsh Bill, this Health
Wales Bill, went out to 302 consultees. Fifty replies
were receives and evidence was taken. They really examined
it. I think all that is very helpful. I think that at
some stage in the procedures it should be sent up to a
joint Committee on Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh
peers in Westminster who could scrutinise the legislation.
They could consider the question of whether it is within
the devolution settlement or not, could consider policy
matters and amend it, and with those amendments and their
comments and report, send it back to the National Assembly
for further consideration, and for it there to receive
its final form and to pass into legislation. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| So you would have the legislative passage, if I can
put it that way, in Cardiff rather than Westminster? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Yes. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Although you would let Westminster have a good look
at it. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I was impressed by the Welsh affairs Committee who had
a look at the Health Wales Bill and had made useful comments. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| It would not have reached Westminster if Cardiff had
had the right to do it. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Not under the existing situation, no. But I am saying
that we should have as our principle primary legislative
powers or Cardiff in devolved matters, but that it should
not be allowed simply to go through unicamerally into
final legislation. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| So you would have in effect two legislative bodies,
one in Cardiff, one in Westminster considering one piece
of legislation which was part of the devolved subject
matter, which would then become more- |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Yes. I think that a joint Committee of peers and MPs
from Wales could be a useful check on that primary legislative
power. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| What’s in it for Cardiff? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| They are getting primary legislative powers. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Assume they have got those. If you' have primary legislative
powers, why should they want to go along with a joint
Committee Minister acting as a check? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Two points. I don't think what is in it for Cardiff?
I think what is in it for the people of Wales? Let's make
the political point. But- |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Let's not! |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Okay. Secondly, from Cardiff’s point of view they
will benefit from the wider perspective of Members of
Parliament and peers in my view, who will add their experience
to the Bill. It is very interesting, you have been up
to Scotland, you have seen David Steel. You know that
he proposed sometime in December, that there should be
a sort of second chamber which was greeted with huge hostility.
He seems to have rode back from that. But in the speech
that he made at the end of January, he was denying that
he wished to set up a Scottish House of Lords or second
chamber, but that he thought post-legislatively where
there is a month’s delay while their law officers
look see whether the legislation is compatible, that it
should go to Committee which should be appointed from
all sorts of people. I'm not suggesting that. I am suggesting
it should go through an elected body. |
|
Dr McAllister
|
| Was David Steel's comment based on the flaws in the
scrutiny roles of the Committees in Scotland? Didn't he
link into that in some shape or form? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| My impression was - I have to study his speech in more
detail - that he regarded it as a safeguard on unicameral
legislative power of the Scottish Parliament. I spend
a lot of time in Scotland. I tell you my sons are Andrew,
Jamie and Gavin. My grandson is Angus. You will realise
there is a certain Scottish element in my family, I'm
there for about a quarter of a year a year. I hear a lot
of what is going on there on a comparable basis. Some
of the Bills, for example, dealing with land reform and
hunting have gone through, particularly hunting, in a
way that makes them almost unworkable. Had there been
a second look at those Bills they might have been very
much more effective than they actually are. I think David
Steel, I haven't spoken to him about it, I suspect he's
responding to that sort of thing. |
|
Peter Price
|
| Can I ask you about the composition of the joint body
that you are suggesting should exist in Parliament? How
would this be constituted in terms of party balance, in
terms of the balance between the two Houses? What would
be the sort of composition that you would envisage? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I think it’s one to which all Members of Parliament
should be entitled to attend. Maybe the parties and cross-benchers
in the Lords could nominate a number of people to represent
them. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| The Welsh MPs? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Yes. Gives them something to do. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| But the problem with the Lords is it is very difficult
to find any Welsh peers. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Is it? |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Yes, it is. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| It’s very difficult to find a Welsh peer that is
not a Queen's Counsel. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| That's true. You are down two or three people. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I am not suggesting that one is seeking a balance between
the Commons and the Lords. Was it forty Members of Parliament
or thirty-eight? It used to be thirty-eight. Forty in
Wales balanced by six or eight or ten peers. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Big division. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| You have the take the payroll out of vote out of the
forty. They would not be on the Committee. |
|
Tom Jones
|
| What level of expertise would Welsh MPs, let alone the
peers, bring to the equation, as more and more of the
detailed information about the devolved matters becomes
Assembly Members’ responsibilities? Therefore Welsh
MPs put a lighter touch on the understanding. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I agree. You are making the case for primary legislative
powers being in Cardiff. I do think that Members of Parliament
are democratically elected and have a wider perspective;
they deal with other legislation in addition to the particular
specific legislation that's going through. I am looking
at this Committee as a check, as a balance, not as something
that is absolutely crucially necessary. It is just a filter
in which people with a broader perspective can play their
part. There is a new Bill coming forward which is all
Wales. It is public trustee. Something like that. I had
a notice of it this week, two days ago. A new all Wales
Bill. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| New Audit. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Public Audit Bill it could be. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Starting with us or in the Commons. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| It’s pre-legislative scrutiny. It is going to the
Welsh Affairs Committee so we have made representations
that we should be permitted to have a representation on
that Committee as peers. That we should put the two together
and let's you have all the expertise that we can get.
I have referred to Lord Roberts of Conwy as a person with
a considerable amount of experience. We can take a view
that perhaps he is a little cautious in some regards.
Nevertheless that’s maybe what you want. I am not
looking for party balance. I am looking for something
to act as a check on primary legislative powers. At this
stage it may ultimately change, but if you take our simple
policy - primary legislation in Cardiff – then, save
in a unicameral system, you run the same risk as they
have in Scotland. |
|
Peter Price
|
| I get the impression that you would not give this stage
of that joint Committee any actual power. They would need
to be consulted, but at the end of the day, if the National
Assembly, having regard to the advice received from that
Committee, decided to the override it they could do so. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Absolutely. I think the same principle would apply,
as applies between the House of Lords and the House of
Commons, that at the end of the day, there may be a bit
of a struggle, the Government gets it’s programme. |
|
Peter Price
|
| There are rather more powers. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| Which Government? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I am talking about the current situation between the
House of Commons and House of Lords. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| On a Welsh Bill, which Government? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| The National Assembly gets its own way. |
|
Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth
|
| Over the Secretary of State's for Wales? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Yes certainly. I don't envisage the Secretary of State
for Wales playing much of a part in this. He could possibly
Chair the joint Committee that I am talking about. I don't
suppose he would want to do that. |
|
Peter Price
|
| As I understand it you are suggesting rather less power
for the joint Committee than the House of Lords has because
the House of Lords in terms of formal powers, whether
it uses it or not, does have the delaying power, and only
if in special circumstances is overridden in effect it
can block legislation. You are suggesting there would
be no blocking, time delay or anything of that sort, just
that it had to go through that procedure, the advice had
to be given, and then the Assembly would be utterly free
to take it on board or not. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| That is a matter for discussion I think. I don't underestimate
the power of public opinion on the impact upon the Assembly.
If they were to simply disregard suggestions that were
given significant publicity by a Westminster Committee-
|
|
Peter Price
|
| But it facilitates the membership issues if they do
not have power. If you say they have some power, blocking
power or any other power, then you are into a major argument
about the composition of that Committee. Whereas some
flexibility about membership and not necessarily being
balanced between the two Houses or the parties or whatever,
is less significant if at the end of the day; it is merely
advisory. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| That is right. What we are looking for is something
that will work without friction. Where there are different
political persuasions in power in Westminster and in Cardiff,
and it would be impossible to set up something that would
simply block Cardiff even just with the delaying powers.
I think you have to rely upon public opinion, which would
hear what the Westminster Committee said. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| Pre-legislative processes, which are in its infancy
even in Westminster, have not been tested on a controversial
Bill really. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| No. |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| That is going to be the test, when a Bill arises where
there is a contention, whether the pre-legislative processes
can wear that and carry. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I say no but think there have been significant moves
in the House of Lords about other matters that Ministers
do come on controversial or difficult Bills and seek the
views of all parties beforehand. I think of the Sexual
Offences Bill where Charles Faulkner has had us all in.
We had discussions. We made representations to him, as
a result of which he has put down about one hundred and
fifty amendments to his own Bill before we have got to
the first day of Committee. So… |
|
Ted Rowlands
|
| That is a beginning of experience of handling them. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| I think that is genuinely happening in Westminster as
a whole. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I do not know about the Commons but I am saying in the
Lords we have a much greater ability to talk, to influence
people, than we had. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| What it would be like if the parties in the Commons
were more evenly matched I do not know. But at the moment
everybody agrees that okay, sensible legislation should
go through. That is very good. . |
|
Dr McAllister
|
| Looking ahead a bit to your preferred option of primary
legislative powers. I wonder if you could comment about
the use of the Sewel Convention in Scotland; how you feel
about that in terms of scrutiny rule role in terms of
Parliament as a whole. Could you imagine that being routine
in a Welsh situation and what might be the issues there? |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| That is a very big question which I have not given my
mind to. Can I think about it and write a note on that
question? |
|
Dr McAllister
|
| Yes of course. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I was involved in the Scottish Devolution Bill, Lord
Sewel was presenting or promoting it and it was virtually
in answer to a question one day that he suddenly gave
life to a doctrine on a convention which had not existed
before. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Nobody expected it to be used in the way that it has. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| No no. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| Thank you very much. Very grateful to you for coming
and letting us explore these ideas with you. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| Thank you. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| You will let us have a piece of paper. |
|
Lord Thomas
|
| I will let you have a piece of paper on the whole thing. |
|
Lord Richard
|
| If you can that would be helpful. If you cannot we will
understand. Thank you very much. |
|
|
