National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Social Welfare and Other Fields) Order 2008

I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his comprehensive description of the order and for explaining the mechanism which has led to the order. I want to concentrate on one paragraph in the Fifth Report of Session 2007-08 of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. I concentrate on that paragraph because this order will set precedents and hurdles for the future. My concern is that paragraph 10 of that report sets out the principles which guide the committee in its examination of the order. The first question is whether the order is within the spirit and scope of the devolution settlement; secondly, whether there is a demand for the legislation that will follow the order; and, thirdly, whether the LCO is more appropriate than the use of framework powers in a Westminster Bill. I speak with great respect for the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee and its members, but I am troubled by the criteria in paragraph 10. On the first criteria, on the spirit and the scope of the devolution settlement, I have been rereading the Second Reading debate on the Government of Wales Bill in 2006. Unless I have missed the point, and without having officials to correct me on this, that phrase is nowhere defined. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may recall, because he took part in the debates in this House, that when the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, introduced the Bill, he spoke of this procedure as being the development of the devolution settlement. That remark can be found in vol. 680 of the Official Report, in col. 265. In the Commons, in vol. 441 of the Official Report, the Secretary of State said that, "““the provisions represent a development of the current settlement””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 32.]" In the past 15 years, Welsh devolution has been seen as a process. My noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan felt that it was a dynamic process, but it is a process or development. The report asks whether the provisions were within the process, as if it were a separate matter. I hope that we are not abandoning the vision of a process or development. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us whether he can place in the Library a note explaining the meaning of the phrase ““within the scope of the Act””. As for the second and third criteria, on whether there is a demand for the legislation and whether the LCO is the most appropriate procedure, I see no reference whatever to those criteria in the debates on this Bill in 2006. They appear to be novel and brand new. Surely those two matters are for the judgment and initiative of the Assembly; surely we can trust it. I come to the second point that concerns me. I may not be expressing a general view, but it concerns me. The Explanatory Memorandum which went to the Welsh Affairs Committee seems to be acquiring a huge importance—far more than some of us envisaged when the debate on the Bill took place in 2006. I am sure that the Welsh Assembly Ministers and civil servants will take note of that. My fear is that unless we are careful we may be coming to a stage where Parliament will require the Explanatory Memorandum to set out full and detailed particulars of the substance of the order which is to follow the Bill. In my view, that would not be a helpful development. Apart from those few words of caution, I strongly support the order. I am sure that it will give the Assembly a means of providing better facilities for the children and young people of Wales. But, picking up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, I am beginning to think that there may be too few Members to undertake effective scrutiny of the Assembly measures which will follow this and other orders.