Government of Wales Bill

I shall avoid having a major constitutional debate with the hon. Gentleman, although that is a relevant and important topic. If part 4 were ever enacted, the argument about reducing the role of Welsh Members would become similar to that for reducing the role of Scottish Members. The same applies to a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs. From the Government’s point of view, the nice thing about part 3 is that it blurs all that and provides a mechanism by which Parliament sheds its law-making powers to a mixture of the Secretary of State and the Assembly, but in a way that preserves the notion that Parliament remains in complete control of Welsh matters. I shall now bring my remarks to a close, because that is precisely why I tabled amendment No. 161 in the first place. Its merit is that it would ensure that Parliament scrutinised the end product of an Assembly Measure before it was enacted. If I may say so to the Minister, that reflects exactly the constitutional position for which he is trying to argue. I found the Minister’s arguments about my proposal being a kick in the face for the Assembly odd. Under part 3, the Assembly’s powers would be enhanced. We gradually drew that out from the Minister. It took time to succeed, but finally we got an acknowledgement that these powers are different from the pre-existing powers. A final ratification procedure therefore seems to me fairly reasonable. The Minister argued that that would interfere grossly with the way in which the Assembly carries out its functions and delay things. I find that an odd argument. What on earth is wrong with a one and a half hour debate in this House to enable the House to satisfy itself that the Assembly has operated in compliance with the remit originally given to it, and that the Measure does not offend constitutional propriety or cause difficulties? All those are powers that we are to give to the Secretary of State, but apparently we do not want to keep them for ourselves. The longer this debate has gone on, the more convinced I have become that my decision to table the amendment was correct. I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who suggested that we would be taking back something from the old devolution settlement of 1998, but he will have heard what the Minister said, and I do not think that we are doing that. Even if there is an area of interface between the two—I fully acknowledge that constitutional issues can be blurred at the edges—I genuinely think that this is an improvement in the system. After all, the Bill is about all sorts of ways of improving that system. I do not think that my proposal would diminish the Assembly’s ability to do the detail, and it certainly would not reduce or interfere with the power that the Government propose to give the Assembly to do the detail, or with its existing powers to implement what was previously the Secretary of State’s remit. My amendment would provide a way by which the House could continue to be involved. I agree with the right hon. Member for Torfaen and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) about the scrutiny issues. I am not sure what all the solutions are. I am open-minded on that subject. On its own, the proposal before us would not be a substitute for the pre-legislative scrutiny. These things have to go hand in hand, but to suggest that the idea behind amendment No. 161 is an insult to the Assembly or the people of Wales is far off the mark.