| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.15 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was unable to catch your eye during last Thursday's debate on the procedural consequences of devolution, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to address the House this evening.
The point is that there are procedural consequences arising out of devolution. To a large extent, the motion before the House reflects those consequences, but I question whether it is sufficiently robust to provide the degree of clarity that Members of Parliament require to do their job. The procedural consequences of devolution are such that we are entering uncharted waters. Although a pragmatic and evolutionary approach might be more in tune with the general approach and predisposition of this House, I submit that clear guidelines are needed.
Such guidelines are needed, first, to eliminate confusion and, secondly, to assist hon. Members in assessing what is or is not in order when tabling questions--we have had already the unhappy experience of considerable confusion occurring during Welsh questions before the summer recess. Thirdly, there is a need to respect both the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlements for both Wales and Scotland. It seems to me that the motion goes a long way toward implementing that principle, which was enunciated in the Procedure Committee's report.
Because the experience in Wales is so often conflated with and subsumed in that of Scotland, I sometimes wonder whether the penny has dropped that the Welsh model of devolution is significantly different from the Scottish. It differs in two ways: first, primary legislative power in respect of Wales remains in Westminster, even in those areas of responsibility where some measure of power has been devolved to Cardiff; and, secondly, the Welsh method of devolution as set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998 could be characterised as "horizontal" in that, even in devolved matters, some secondary legislative and executive powers remain with the Secretary of State for Wales or other Secretaries of State, or are exercised concurrently.
My view, which is shared by many in the Welsh political scene, is that the role of the Secretary of State for Wales will remain crucial if devolution is to be successful in Wales. However, his remaining responsibilities post-devolution are not clear cut. I agree with the Procedure Committee that the Secretary of State's responsibilities will be open to "varying interpretation", although that is perhaps an understatement.
The Procedure Committee recommended and the Government accepted that rules on the orderliness of questions ought also to govern the question of appropriate subjects for Adjournment debates, so the motion is far from being of solely academic interest to Back Benchers representing Welsh constituencies. I note that there are no rules at all with regard to oral supplementaries. Perhaps it would be rather difficult to prescribe rules in that regard.
The preamble to the motion declares the basic principle that no questions should be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly. That is fine and it is to be expected. It is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of devolution, but the motion refers to certain important exceptions, some of which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
The first exception is questions that seek information on subjects on which the UK Government are empowered to require information from the devolved body. That is a rather wide exception; I shall give an illustrative example. Section 123 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 includes a catch-all provision that states:
I shall deal briefly with the other exceptions. The exception under paragraph (b)(i) relates to matters that
Sub-paragraph (ii) deals with matters that are subject to
Paragraph 23 of the memorandum of understanding refers to the Joint Ministerial Committee that is to be established. The terms of reference of that Committee are described, inter alia, as follows:
I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire with regard to sub-paragraph (iii). What is "an official interest"? We ought to know, and guidance should be provided to the Table Office.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
May I press my hon. Friend on a minor point? I understand that Welsh and Scottish Members want to maximise their right to ask questions in the House about matters relating to Wales and Scotland. If that is their intention, why does my hon. Friend seek to tie Ministers down and make it more difficult for hon. Members, including himself, to ask questions? I do not understand the process through which he is taking us.
Mr. Thomas:
I am seeking clarity and a degree of certainty, to allow us to do our job and adjust our practices appropriately. That is what is important. I speak as someone who for many years has been a strong campaigner for devolution.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
My hon. Friend seeks clarity. If we define the circumstances precisely, my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, will know that, by the definitions that will have to be laid down, we will effectively be limiting the right of hon. Members to ask questions, as he wishes. I am sorry to press him--
Mr. Thomas:
Ultimately, devolution raises some thorny procedural issues. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is to be congratulated on wrestling with some of those issues. I do not pretend that the Government can give definitive answers, and I expect that the Government will wish to follow the strong recommendation of the Procedure Committee that there should be a thorough review of the issues, in the light of experience. That is my concluding point.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to be complimentary about the Committee that I chair, and we are grateful for that. Do we not need to limit the questions that can be asked, so that we avoid antagonising the devolved Assembly in Wales and the devolved Parliament in Scotland? We cannot be seen in this House to be dealing with matters that this House has rightly devolved to Edinburgh and Cardiff.
Mr. Thomas:
Precisely. We must be true to the spirit and the letter of devolution. I return to the unhappy experience that we had recently with Welsh oral questions. I am anxious to maintain the good name of the House and avoid such confusion. I simply seek a little more guidance and clarity, realising that it may be unrealistic to expect it. We shall have to revisit the subject in the light of experience. I do not necessarily expect definitive answers to the points that I have raised from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he responds for the Government. Clearly, the matter will need to be reviewed.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove):
I speak as a member of the Procedure Committee, but I do not want it to be assumed that everything that I say is strictly in accordance with the views expressed in the Committee's
I shall spend a minute or two on the implications of the remarks of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). He was trying to balance the interests of Members in this House and their legitimate desire to hold the Government of the United Kingdom to account, and in the case of Welsh Members, to defend the interests of their constituents, with the legitimate concern to ensure that the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland are allowed to hold their Governments to account in their own way. It is fair and proper for the House to have regard to their sensitivities and needs, as well as to its own needs. The motion does that, to a reasonable extent.
I am not persuaded by what the hon. Member for Clwyd, West said about the need for a more precisely regulated framework for questions. I have a number of points to make about that.
Precision may be achieved when cases are made, but trying to achieve it at this stage would constrain Members from asking certain questions. It would be better to have one or two test cases, and to search for ultimate tidiness at stage 1 would be a mistake. Members of the House are persistent and ingenious--one has only to consider the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time has evolved, if that is the right word. Some might say that it has degenerated, but it has a certain formulaic approach that is designed to bypass any of the rules that the House might otherwise have in place so one asks the Prime Minister about his engagements.
I have a feeling that, before long, certain formulas will be devised by which any Member of the House will ask any question he chooses about anything happening in Scotland or Wales. However undesirable that may be thought to be in theory, Members will find a way of achieving it. Trying to devise at this stage a set of rules or a formula that would prevent that from happening would be to search for the holy grail--or possibly the unholy grail, depending on one's particular point of view.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West made a further suggestion. He said, with some regret, that he thinks it is probably not possible to devise rules covering oral supplementaries. I should think not, and the possibility of having such rules in place is somewhat dubious to say the least. I also think that the Table Office does rather a good job in the House, although I cannot be the only Member who regards submitting a question to it without at least one word of what I have suggested being changed as a major success. It will be able to interpret the rules in the spirit in which they are being put before the House and, again, undue prescription will not be terribly helpful.
"Where it appears to the Treasury that any information in the possession or under the control of the Assembly is required for the exercise of any function by the Treasury, the Treasury may require the Assembly to provide the information to the Treasury in such form as the Treasury may reasonably specify."
In my view, and it may occur to other hon. Members, that raises the question whether, in the light of section 123, Welsh Members of Parliament are entitled to ask questions about how the Welsh block, as it used to be called, or the departmental expenditure limit, as it is now called, is spent. Are we entitled to ask specific questions about how the Assembly determines the Budget, bearing in mind that presumably, those are questions that, under section 123, the UK Treasury is empowered to ask?
"are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament".
That is wide in its ambit and somewhat vague, to say the least. I wonder whether it provides the guidance and clarity that hon. Members seek in order to do their job.
"a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive".
I endorse the view expressed by others that it would be entirely right and proper for the House to debate the concordat and the memorandum of understanding. That, too, is extremely wide.
"To consider non-devolved matters which impinge on devolved responsibilities, and devolved matters which impinge on non-devolved responsibilities".
The question is obvious. Given that the exception refers to
"the operation of a concordat"--
I note that the wording on the Order Paper differs somewhat from the Procedure Committee's recommendation--this exception again is rather wide and vague.
7.28 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |