UK Parliament / Open data

Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment No. 45 would remove the requirement for a draft Order in Council amending Schedule 5 to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. It would remove Parliament from the process of conferring legislative competence on the Assembly by the Clause 94 process altogether, allowing the Assembly to vote itself unlimited additional powers. Indeed, the Assembly’s power would become so vast, as my noble friend Lord Sewel pointed out in Committee, that the amendment can hardly be regarded as a species of devolution. I cannot think of any precedent anywhere in the world where a sub-national legislature can simply vote itself whatever new powers it wishes. Under the amendment, any field of policy could be devolved without parliamentary consent, from foreign policy to taxation, pensions, defence and national security. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not be surprised that I must reject the amendment on principle. It bears no relation whatever to the settlement for which the Welsh people voted in the 1997 referendum. Amendment Nos. 51 and 49 would remove the Bill’s provisions that provide the 60-day period during which the Secretary of State may consider a draft Order in Council that has been approved by the Assembly before laying it before Parliament or writing to the First Minister explaining his reasons for declining to do so. Instead, the amendments would require the Secretary of State before the end of 30 days to send the draft order approved by the Assembly to the Clerk of the Assembly, who is then under a duty to submit it to Her Majesty for approval. Given that the Secretary of State will be required to set in train a process that would result in Her Majesty approving the Order in Council, it is not clear what the purpose of the 30-day period would be. The Secretary of State would not be able to consider the draft Order in Council and then reject it if he did not think it appropriate, because the amendment requires him to send it to the Clerk. We cannot agree that there is anything unreasonable in the 60-day period or the mechanism provided in the Bill for the approval of such Orders in Council. First, it is important that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider a request once it has been submitted by the Assembly, particularly if changes have been made to the request following pre-legislative scrutiny. Secondly, many contributions to our debates on the Bill from all sides of the House have stressed the importance of Parliament scrutinising the proposed Order in Council, since it is unamendable when formally laid before Parliament. It is the Government’s intention that pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed Orders in Council will normally take place before a formal request for an order is made by the Assembly under Clause 94, therefore enabling recommendations to be taken into account. To ensure proper scrutiny of proposed orders, the Bill provides for a 60-day period after such a formal request for an order has been submitted, which would provide the Secretary of State with discretion to invite further scrutiny where appropriate. By limiting that period to 30 days, the Liberal Democrat amendment would make it extremely difficult for Parliament to undertake such scrutiny effectively. I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation and that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
683 c1277-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top