---

Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's objective, but the amendment has simply been cut and pasted from the Scotland Act 1998. New schedule 1, for example, refers to the High Court of Justiciary, which is unique to Scotland, and to the Court of Session. It also mentions several orders that apply only to Scotland, such as one on bankruptcy.

Mr. Williams: I must come clean about that. When I discussed the new schedule, I intended to enter a mea culpa on that point. I was responsible for part of the new schedule, but not for all of it—especially the mistakes. [Laughter.] The reference to the courts of the Scottish
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1247
 
legislative system should have been replaced by one to the highest courts for criminal and civil law in England and Wales. He may pick up one or two other errors. Because of the mistakes, I shall not press the amendment to a Division.

I wish to press the Minister on why he has set out the legislative competencies of the Assembly differently from how it was done for Scotland. Why has he set up the complicated system of fields in schedule 5, with further definitions in schedule 7? It would be much better to rule out those areas over which the Assembly has no competence. I know that the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) has been very concerned about that ad hoc method of adding primary legislative competencies to the Assembly. I would think that our proposal, as outlined in the new schedule, would give him more confidence that no additional powers could be devolved to the Assembly without a decision by this place.

Mr. David Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, before any such transfer of powers took place, the Welsh people would be consulted in a referendum?

Mr. Williams: No, because as a party we have always made it clear that we believe in transferring primary powers to the Assembly. It was set up to improve the government of Wales and following a referendum that made it clear that secondary legislative powers would be given to the Assembly. However, it has become obvious to many, including to Nick Bourne, the leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly, that the present system is not working. To ask a body such as the Welsh Assembly to deliver services, including health and education, without having the necessary primary legislative powers is to put it in a position where it will fail to perform. Because it is failing to perform, it is losing the confidence of the Welsh people, and something needs to be done. Those people who value the future of Wales and of the Assembly are looking for ways in which to improve it and give the people of Wales more confidence that it has all the powers necessary to deliver first class services.

Mr. Hollobone: For those of us who do not have the privilege of representing a Welsh constituency, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that the Assembly should have powers over the police? Is he saying that those powers should be enshrined in the Bill or that the issue should be decided at a later date?

Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know of his interest in Welsh affairs, because his name often appears on the Order Paper for Welsh questions. Yes, we are suggesting that the Assembly should have power over the police, and it has been suggested for some time that it should have the power to determine the finances of the police authorities. Indeed, chief constables support that view. We believe that the police would function best if they were under the control of the Assembly. That is our policy.

Why should Wales have a different system from Scotland? Is that because, unlike Scotland, we are subject to a second-class system? Would it not be much better and much clearer for people such as myself who
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1248
 
support the United Kingdom, who want to stay within the United Kingdom and who want Wales to play an important part in the United Kingdom, to have every assurance that the Welsh Assembly has the competence to legislate on the reserve matters as set out in new schedule 1 and that Wales will remain in the United Kingdom but with all the powers necessary to deliver first-class services for the people of Wales?

Nick Ainger: I shall be as brief as I can, because I know that Members wish to debate other amendments tonight.

The hon. Gentleman made the case for giving the Assembly powers over the police and police authorities. As a point of principle, this Bill does not broaden devolution. That is not its purpose. It is here to deepen devolution. The issue of the police does not appear and I assure him that any further amendments looking to extend the areas over which the Assembly has Executive powers and legislative competence will not be considered.

The hon. Gentleman asks why schedule 5 is set out in the way that it is and why the Bill is different from the Scotland Act 1998. In fact, the Bill is set out in the same way as the Scotland Act 1978. There are two ways of defining what an assembly or parliament has competence over. In the 1978 Act, it was decided, as we have decided, to define the areas over which it would be possible for the body to legislate. That is the first method. The other method was adopted in the Scotland Act 1998, which, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) rightly identified, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has done a cut-and-paste job on. I will not say any more about that. The second method defines the areas over which the body does not have competence and cannot legislate.

A judgment is made based on other issues and relevant factors that would persuade one to choose one method over another. It is clear that we chose one system for Scotland in 1978 and another for Scotland in 1998. The issues are finely balanced. Wales is unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland because, in the other two Administrations, the areas over which they cannot legislate are defined. The other two have their own judicial systems, but the judicial system in Wales is, as we all know, linked to that in England. The jurisdiction is over England and Wales. As more and more legislation goes through, we think that there might be problems and that is one reason for choosing the option that we have.

The option in the Bill also assists with the system for Orders in Council. The fields are set out in schedule 5 and, when Orders in Council go through, matters will be lodged under each field. That is an easy way to define the process.

Mr. David Jones: Of course, clause 94 provides that additional fields may be added to schedule 5. Has any thought been given to extending the number of fields and might they be extended to include policing in the future?

Nick Ainger: I can give the hon. Gentleman the straight answer that there are no such plans at present. As I said to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), we do not see the Bill as a way of extending the responsibilities of the Assembly.
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1249
 

8.15 pm

As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said, the Scotland Act 1998 refers to the courts. Clearly, we would require a large document not only to set out what was not devolved to the Assembly, but to take account of all the courts and judicial areas, including the Prison Service—the list would go on and on. It is far clearer for someone who is not versed in the intricacies of our constitution for us to set out in schedule 5 the exact areas on which the Assembly can legislate, rather than to produce a list of the things that it cannot do. A judgment must be made. For the reasons that I have given, we think that the approach represents a sensible way forward, principally because we are an England and Wales jurisdiction, so the situation is different from that in Northern Ireland and Scotland. When the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire considers the reasons that I have set out, their link with the Order-in-Council process and the way in which matters can be added so that the Assembly can take forward its Assembly Measures, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Roger Williams: I was interested to hear the reasons why the Government have chosen to define the legislative competence of the Assembly in such a way. It will take some time to think them through because they had not been made apparent to us before today. I think that it is more definitive to set out matters on which the Assembly cannot legislate than to have a list of matters on which it can legislate that, I believe, would grow and grow. However, given that the Minister set out new reasons why the Government have adopted their approach, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 50, line 31, leave out from '(4)' to 'or' in line 32.

Amendment No. 163 is a probing amendment. I am intrigued to understand exactly how the clause is designed to work and what the consequence of accepting the amendment would be. There is provision to allow Assembly Measures to be extended so that they cover consequential areas. Clause 93(5)(a) makes it clear that, in such circumstances, there must be the power to enforce the provision. However, the paragraph also refers to making the provision "effective". Quite simply, I wish to know from the Minister what that would entail. He will be aware that there is concern about whether it would be possible to extend such legislation to England, although I am mindful of the clear wording in an earlier subsection. I simply ask for reassurance about why the specific form of words has been chosen.

---