Government of Wales Bill

The purport of the amendments is exactly as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has described. We are at a loss to understand why the Secretary of State should once more have an absolute veto over a provision being sought by the democratically elected Assembly for Wales. The Minister will no doubt address that point, and I do not want to labour it because it is getting late and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has already put the case for the amendments very eloquently. The purport behind new clause 4 is fairly simple. It reads:"““In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly, as specified in section 94(5)(a), followed by a refusal to lay that draft statutory instrument before each House of Parliament, as specified in section 94(7)(b), the Counsel General””—" this next part is really the amendment—"““or the Assembly may refer to the Supreme Court for decision the question whether the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse to lay the draft statutory instrument was made reasonably in the circumstances and intra vires.””" In an earlier exchange with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, concern was expressed that our proposals might have the effect of politicising the judges. However, we have used the word ““reasonably”” in the new clause, which relates to the reasonableness test according to the Wednesbury principles of a judicial review. We would seek to ascertain whether, with all the known facts being out in the open, the Minister had acted reasonably in all circumstances, and within his powers. That is all we are asking. We are not asking whether his decision was politically motivated or whether it was contrary to any or in favour of particular policy. This is not in any way a political amendment. It is a stopgap measure to deal with the eventuality in which a future Secretary of State who was less sympathetic, or even hostile, to the cause of devolution than the present one might seek to prevent the Assembly from legislating, by providing the Assembly with some recourse to the law. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to give us a definitive answer to this question today. New clause 4 would strengthen the democratic institution of the Assembly and allow it the same immediate right of referral to the Supreme Court that the Counsel General would have, and that the Attorney-General is given in other parts of the Bill. Amendment No. 27 states, in effect, that"““In the event of approval of a draft statutory instrument by the Assembly . . . but there not being within 60 days of that approval, an approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament as specified””," the Assembly could, by a two thirds majority, carry on. If the period were 55 days, and were the House to adjourn for three months during the summer recess, that would be utterly unacceptable to the legislators in the Assembly. The amendment would prevent such undue delay. That is not a slap in the face for Parliament, but merely enhances the Assembly’s powers and, I hope, makes them more practical and ensures that its work is easier in due course. Those are the amendments to which I wish to speak. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has dealt with the other two amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends.