Government of Wales Bill

The amendments would enable not just the Counsel-General and the Attorney-General but the Assembly itself to appeal to the Supreme Court on disputes about whether the Assembly has acted within its powers. It seems entirely reasonable for the elected Assembly to have that power, and unreasonable that it should not. The Bill proposes a separation of the Assembly from the Government, which is very welcome, of course. But the two are being treated differently, with the elected body coming off worse. The Counsel-General, as I understand it, is deemed to be a Minister. While the power of referral to the Supreme Court is appropriate as a ministerial power, why is it not so for the elected body? However much the Assembly might wish to do so, as things are it cannot appeal to the Supreme Court. In certain circumstances, it might be appropriate to confer on an elected body, because of its standing as an elected body, powers that it would be inappropriate to confer on an individual appointed Minister. However, in spite of that excellent principle, the elected body is coming off worse here. Furthermore, what recourse would there be for the Assembly if the Counsel-General refused to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for reasons that the Assembly might not accept? What recourse would there be for the Assembly and the Counsel-General if the Attorney-General refused to refer a matter to the Supreme Court for reasons that they might not accept? We can speculate about disagreements on referral to the Supreme Court between the Counsel-General and the Attorney-General, but that probably goes beyond the scope of the amendment. Given the Assembly’s status as the elected body and as something separate from the Executive, and given those potential problems, we think that there is reason for the Assembly to have direct recourse to the Supreme Court.