Government of Wales Bill

Indeed it does. We were discussing the group of amendments beginning with No. 180, and I was talking about the proposal in the amendment that would require a two-thirds majority before any Order in Council process could begin. I was saying that the Order in Council process is one that is completely different from the Order in Council that would introduce a referendum on primary powers for the Assembly. It is a completely and utterly different order. An Order in Council, for example, that would have brought in the legislation that would have enabled the Assembly to consider the legislation on the public administration ombudsman or transport in Wales would be very different. I wish to remind the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of the situation when parties present their manifestos at election time. If the Welsh Assembly Government that is formed in 2007 is elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment and if that commitment needs new legislation to be delivered, it would be a clear basis for a proposed Order in Council to enable the Assembly to legislate on that matter. With the electoral arrangements that we have for the National Assembly for Wales, it is unlikely that the ruling group or party would have a two-thirds majority. The hon. Gentleman’s proposal would mean that a party or group of parties, having fought an election on a proposal, would not be able to legislate for that proposal. Even when no specific manifesto commitment is involved, such a request will not come out of the blue. To take the transport example that I mentioned earlier, I placed in the Library the Order in Council example with its explanatory memorandum. Before the draft Bill came before the House, we had a full report by the relevant Assembly subject Committee, which led to the conclusion that the Assembly needed further powers to enable it to play a more effective strategic role in transport in Wales. Opposition Members should recognise the fact that the Assembly, as a democratic institution, has an open process for debating and developing policy, as does the Welsh Assembly Government. The requirement for a two-thirds majority before an Order in Council could be introduced is wholly disproportionate. Amendments Nos. 187 and 212 address an important issue that has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). On Second Reading and on several other occasions, he raised the issue of pre-legislative scrutiny and how it will be carried out. I recognise the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny in the proposal for Orders in Council. Several interventions have been made on that point and I am grateful for the many suggestions that have been made as to how that process could be conducted, including the proposals in amendment No. 187. I should say immediately that I do not think that it is right that the Government should prescribe in the Bill how such scrutiny must be conducted, but that is what amendment No. 187 suggests. That would not allow parliamentarians the proper discretion to determine the most appropriate arrangements. However, in my letter to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) of 17 January, which was circulated and placed in the Library, and which covered the illustrative examples of Orders in Council, I outlined the normal procedure that I envisaged for scrutiny of such proposals. It may be helpful if I run through them again for the benefit of the Committee. When the Assembly has a proposal, it will discuss it with the UK Government. If broad agreement were reached, the Assembly would produce a proposed draft Order in Council—this is the difference between what is set out in amendment No. 187 and what I propose in my letter. The proposed draft Order in Council would be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, as is shown in the examples attached to the letter. It is worth pointing out that the proposed draft Order in Council could be amended, which would mean that more weight would be given to pre-legislative scrutiny than would be the case if the process of scrutiny did not allow amendments to be made, which I understand is what is set out in amendment No. 187.