UK Parliament / Open data

Government of Wales Bill

In an earlier debate we considered the possibility of introducing a system by which this House might have to vote following the passing of Assembly Measures, so that there was a second opportunity to ratify them. As I said to the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State, there are other ways of approaching the problem with a view to improving the manner in which scrutiny is conducted. The amendments in this group are designed to achieve that and to provide an opportunity for the House to consider ways to change the process of scrutiny. I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 180 and 211, which are designed to achieve roughly the same thing via different wording and different places in the text. I suspect that both would not be required. Their effect would be to ensure that no legislation was initiated by the Order-in-Council process unless the Assembly has resolved that it wishes it to be so initiated by a two-thirds majority. I present the amendments as probing amendments. We know that in part 4 the Minister has provided that no initiation of the process of holding a referendum to transfer new legislative power should take place without a two-thirds majority in the Assembly. The Government argue that such a momentous change should occur only if there is a degree of consensus within the Assembly that such a measure should be adopted. However, on several occasions this evening the Minister has said that the difference between that procedure and the procedure set out in part 3 is that in the latter case it is possible to proceed on a case-by-case basis. If, for the general principle of a transfer of extra powers, a two thirds majority vote is required of the Assembly, it can certainly be argued that a two thirds majority vote should be required each time the Assembly wishes to proceed on a case by case basis to acquire new powers under the Order-in-Council procedure. Why, in those circumstances, have the Government not considered including such a provision in the Bill? If we want to ensure that the Assembly takes powers only where there is agreement within the Assembly and a consensus in Wales that that should be the case, that would be an adequate safeguard. The principal amendment in this group is amendment No. 187, which sets out a formula for better scrutiny of the legislative process. It provides that a draft Order in Council laid before Parliament must be accompanied by a detailed memorandum setting out the scope of the proposal, its practical effects on Wales and the legislative authority that would pass to the National Assembly, and—this is an important aspect—a draft of the proposed Assembly Measure. The amendment spells out the requirement in legislative form. Further, before an Order in Council is subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State would have to make a motion to refer the draft of the Order in Council, with the draft Assembly Measure, to the Welsh Grand Committee for consideration, thus ensuring the pre-legislative scrutiny that I think the Minister agrees would be necessary. A report of the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the draft Order in Council and the Assembly Measure must be available to both Houses of Parliament for a period of not less than 60 days before any Order in Council is made under this section. I accept that one thing that the amendment does not provide for—it would be difficult to provide for it in primary legislation—is the possibility that was touched on by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that there should be joint sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee or a Standing Committee and Members of the Assembly to discuss the legislation. I envisage that slotting into the procedure provided for by amendment No. 187. The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it at least provides a framework that goes considerably beyond what the Government spelled out in clause 94. I hope the Minister and other members of the Committee will respond in a positive spirit as to what further improvement we can make to the procedure. Leaving aside for a moment the proposal that I initially made in amendments Nos. 180 and 211, amendment No. 187 should be seen as standing on its own, although it can be linked to amendment No. 212, which further provides that subsection (5) will not be satisfied unless, before the draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons, the Welsh Grand Committee has debated the draft and the Welsh Affairs Committee has reported that it approves the draft. That is a further provision to increase and improve the consulting period and the way in which consultation takes place. Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 were originally tabled by the Welsh nationalists, but we have added our names. We sought to achieve something similar in amendments Nos. 123 and 181, but for reasons that are fairly obvious, I prefer what is attempted in amendment No. 123 to amendment No. 181. Put simply, we find it difficult to understand why the Secretary of State should have the ability to refuse to place a draft before Parliament. Looking at the matter sensibly, one would assume that the Secretary of State holds office because his party has a majority in Parliament. But why should the Executive be in a position to veto the right of this House to consider the Assembly’s draft? If the Secretary of State were unhappy with a draft, it would surely be his job to come to the House and to explain, in the Committee proceedings that take place before the Order in Council can be approved, what he did not like about it. If there were a constitutional problem relating to it, let him come along and tell us. If we agreed with him, we would doubtless support him. If we disagreed, we could vote on the matter. But to provide for a double procedure in which the Secretary of State had a power of veto would appear to introduce the very mischief that I mentioned earlier, namely that this procedure in part 3 gives power to the Executive and removes it from the legislature. In this instance, we would be doing that for no good reason. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) speak to these amendments, because they make a great deal of sense.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c1270-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top