Government of Wales Bill

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There are some worrying aspects of part 3. I have a niggling feeling that it is only the beginning of a process that, one day, we will find foisted on people in England as well. Effectively, this Parliament will shed its responsibility for primary legislation except as a rubber stamp or stop mechanism. It will be said that it is so much better that such legislation is considered at a lower level with a wonderful dialogue taking place between the Executive and Assemblies that can be browbeaten. Scrutiny of such legislation can be dispensed with when, in fact, it has been our meat and drink for many centuries. It is in the detail and in our willingness to address the detail that lies our best ability to serve our constituents and the electorate of this country. It is one thing to part, by way of devolution, as we did for Scotland, with a tranche of powers and say, ““This is what you want and we wash our hands of our responsibility for it””, but it is quite another to create a hybrid in which we will end up being criticised for poor governance—and rightly so, because we will have parted with part of our responsibility and thereby failed to discharge other parts of it in any way that is proper. I hope that amendment No. 161, which provides for that double scrutiny, commends itself to the Committee. The other amendments in the group—amendments Nos. 171, 178 and 179—are consequential and simply amend other clauses, including clause 101, so that they read in a manner that is compatible. That is the intention, but the draftsmen may inform us that they could be improved. If the Government find the principle of what we are saying worth while, I am sure that the draftsmen will be able to put it into proper order. Amendment No. 162 is a probing amendment that raises a concern about clause 92(3), which says:"““The validity of an Assembly Measure is not affected by any invalidity in the proceedings of the Assembly leading to its enactment.””" I would like an explanation from the Minister as to what that would mean in practice. If the Assembly enacts Assembly Measures in a manner and by procedures that are fundamentally flawed and subsequently overturned by the courts—that is the likely route that would be taken—why should those Measures be deemed to have been valid at the time? I am worried about that. I understand the need for such a provision when a sovereign body is legislating because it is not answerable to anyone. However, why is such a safeguard being provided to the Assembly, as a subordinate body, because I would not necessarily have expected it to have one? It might mean, for example, that an Assembly Measure could wrongly affect people’s private interests and that, subsequent to it being overturned because of the invalidity of the process, there would be no redress for those individuals whatsoever. Is that the proper course of action for the House to adopt? Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me another explanation for why subsection (3) has been included in the Bill. The provision troubles me, so I hope that he will be able to enlighten us on how it is intended that it will work.