UK Parliament / Open data

Government of Wales Bill

Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Government of Wales Bill.
Short debates can often be the most interesting. The Minister has persuaded me completely—indeed, I do not think that I needed much persuasion—on amendments Nos. 171, 172, and 173 about the proposed private Assembly Measures. Clearly, the Standing Orders of the Welsh Assembly will have to make provision for dealing with private business. The Minister has also persuaded me, so far as amendment No. 174 is concerned, that there are good reasons for not fettering the Assembly by requiring that it can produce texts only in English and Welsh. However, I recommend that he and his legal advisers look again at the provision, because I wonder whether it has the effect of requiring that texts can be in English or Welsh but nothing else. Perhaps I am wrong about that, and I should be greatly reassured if that were so, but my reading of the provision is that texts normally have to be in English and Welsh or in English or Welsh. That might create a problem if Latin terms are to be included. The Minister has only half persuaded me on amendment No. 170. This debate has highlighted the odd situation that we are creating: defining as an Assembly Measure that which in this House we would consider to be either primary legislation or statutory instruments. The Minister makes a persuasive case for urgency if the Assembly is enacting what we would normally call a statutory instrument. After all, we sometimes have to enact them urgently, and by their very nature a statutory instrument can in this House be passed rapidly. By virtue of the way in which the Welsh Assembly operates, however, statutory instruments are normally mulled over at considerably greater length, which was one argument for the original devolution proposals given to the Welsh. Of course, if urgency is required, something can always be enacted by a statutory instrument in this place. It is clear that it is unacceptable that there should be short-circuiting of the primary legislative functions which could be transferred under the Order in Council procedure, as I think the Minister has acknowledged, but, as the Bill stands, there is a risk that that is exactly what could happen, which would defeat the entire object of the exercise of going through and enacting part 3. Therefore, given the difficulty with the way in which we define Assembly Measures, I propose to consider the matter further, but I cannot rule out on Report our suggesting that some distinction must be drawn between different sorts of Assembly Measures. I urge the Government to consider that, because within the term ““Assembly Measure”” we are lumping together forms of legislation which in this House we treat very differently, both in their significance and in the way in which we proceed. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c1355-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top