UK Parliament / Open data

Government of Wales Bill

Proceeding contribution from Nick Ainger (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Government of Wales Bill.
Mr. Benton, I welcome you to the Chair. Clause 95 gives a specific power to the Counsel-General and the Attorney-General to make a reference to the Supreme Court, where they would like a decision on whether a particular matter specified in a proposed Order in Council actually relates to a field listed in part 1 of schedule 5. We think that this should be a power for the Counsel-General or Attorney-General to exercise, because it is all about legal interpretation. Does the matter, as described in the proposed Order in Council, actually relate to a field as set out in part 1 of schedule 5? In most cases, it should be clear whether a matter relates to a specified field or not, so in most cases it will not be necessary to use this power. However, in the less clear-cut cases, the Counsel-General or Attorney-General will need to make a judgment as to whether a decision is required from the Supreme Court so that there is clarity on whether a matter is relevant or not. On a technical point, the Assembly will be an unincorporated association of 60 members. As such the Assembly itself could not institute proceedings in court, but it is possible that the Assembly Commission could act on its behalf. However, that is just a technical point. On the principle that I think the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is proposing, I still believe that it is inappropriate and unnecessary for a legal representative of the Assembly, as a legislature, to have such a role. The Counsel-General would be acting to represent Welsh devolution interests in proceedings involving devolution issues. It would seem odd to have two people able to carry out this role. The position of Counsel-General means that there is someone with status similar to that of Attorney-General—this touches on the points that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made—to represent devolution interests in proceedings. Opposition Members should welcome the fact that the Bill creates a post that can represent Welsh devolution interests in proceedings. But the provisions in the Bill correspond with provisions made with respect to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Counsel-General’s appointment will have to meet with the approval of the Assembly, which should also enable the Assembly to signal that it has confidence in that person’s ability to represent Welsh interests.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c1346-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top