| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nick Ainger: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that this is a probing amendment, because if accepted it would mean that every Order in Council would have to be referred to the Supreme Court. Clearly, he does not propose that. Occasionally, it will be necessary to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court and the Bill provides for that. That is why the clause contains the word "may" and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
David Mundell: I am disappointed that we did not get an example, or a definition of the criteria that would cause the process to be used. On other occasions on which the provisions in the Bill have not been entirely clear, the Minister has helpfully set out examples. Given where we are in our proceedings, I shall not press the matter further, but it would be helpful if the Minister could identify more fully the circumstances in which the process would be used. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 52, line 21, at end insert
', or
(c) by any committee of the Assembly established under section 28 or section 30.'.
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1349
Clause 96(1)(a) and (b) provide that an Assembly Measure may be introduced to the Assembly
"by the First Minister, any . . . Minister . . . any Deputy . . . Minister or the Counsel General, or . . . by any other Assembly member."
The amendment would add to that list any Committee of the Assembly. It is a probing amendment, but I hope that the Minister will respond to a couple of points.
Committees fulfil an important function in the Assembly. They are potentially a resource of great expertise and, in fulfilling their scrutiny function, they will be familiar with the detail of issues and in a good position to be innovative in their thinking. Any Measure proposed by a Committee would still be subject to all the scrutiny procedures that would apply to Measures proposed by Ministers or Back Benchers, but such a Measure would have all the advantages of having been scrutinised in detail beforehand by Members from all parties who would have reached a consensus. The Measure would be all the better for it. I hardly need remind the Committee that cross-party consensus is a prized commodity when promoting legislation. If, for some reason, a consensus had not been reached, the Assembly and, I dare say, this place and the other place could draw their own conclusions when giving the Measure further consideration.
It may be argued that the role of Committees is to hold the Government to account, but it is also their role to contribute to policy development. Committees will need to be reactive to the Government's legislative priorities, but it has been said that it is necessary
"to strike a proper balance between doing things that are the Government's agenda and setting your own agenda."
That quotation comes from evidence given to the National Assembly's Committee on the Better Governance of Wales White Paper—its report was published in September last year—by the Clerk to the House of Commons. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is an excellent recommendation.
6.15 pm
As Professor McAllister said, also in that report, we should see
Hon. Members' grasp of algebra might be as variable as mine, but her point is clear. This amendment is based on solid experience. There have been several Scottish examples of Committees being successful in generating legislation, as was shown in the report. That was also the case in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the past. The process works and has proven useful. That is one reason why the National Assembly Committee recommended that Committees should be able to propose Measures. We endorse that view and invite other hon. Members to support us.
David T.C. Davies:
I offer my support for the amendment. It would appear to be anomalous that Assembly Committees cannot bring forward Measures. However, I wish to add a word of warning. In my experience of six years in the Welsh Assembly and my more limited experience in the House of Commons, I have noticed that the Committee system here works far better. I am not certain what the problem is, but it is
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1350
probably to do with the number of Assembly Members and the fact that everyone knows everyone else so well. Also, most of the Committees are chaired by members of the governing party. Whatever the reason, the culture in this place is that Committees act independently and impartially and that, to some extent, people leave behind their political allegiances. That is certainly not the case in Assembly Committees, and I would therefore be cautious about suggestions that they function as well and as impartially as Committees in this place.
Hywel Williams: They might do so some day.
David T.C. Davies: My hon. Friend—if I may call him that—says that they may do so in the future, and I suggest that we wait and see. At the moment, the Assembly Committees are not as impartial and too many of their members are in the thrall of the party Whips.
Nick Ainger: It may assist Opposition Members if I say that I agree that it may in some circumstances be appropriate for an Assembly Committee to propose an Assembly Measure. For that reason, the Bill does not prevent Committees from doing so. Clause 96 ensures that Ministers and individual Members have the right to propose Measures, subject to the provision of standing orders. However, there is nothing to prevent standing orders from providing that Committees may also propose Measures. It is appropriate for the Assembly's Standing Orders to make any provision relating to the proposal of Measures that is additional to the minimum provision in clause 96. The amendment is not therefore necessary and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Hywel Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 53, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 172, in page 53, line 11, at end insert 'and'.
No. 173, in page 53, line 13, leave out 'and'.
No. 171, in page 53, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 174, in page 53, line 22, leave out from 'Welsh' to end of line 24.
Mr. Grieve:
Clause 97 will regulate proceedings on proposed Assembly Measures. Subsection (1) provides that there should be a threefold procedure in the Assembly: a vote on general principles, an opportunity for the Assembly to consider Assembly Measures in detail—I take that to be a Committee or Report stage, adapted, obviously, due to the number of Members of
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1351
the Assembly—and a final stage at which a proposed Assembly Measure can be passed or rejected. However, I am worried about subsection (2), which states:
"Subsection (1) does not prevent the standing orders making provision to enable the Assembly to expedite proceedings in relation to a particular proposed Assembly Measure."
There is a meeting of minds to the extent that part 3 of the Bill is not the same as part 4. Part 4 would, after a referendum, give the Assembly the legislative power to get on with it, for better or worse, but part 3 allows the Assembly to undertake detailed scrutiny of legislation in a procedure under which we retain, by virtue of the Order in Council, overall responsibility for the process. If that is indeed what we are doing, I have considerable anxiety about whether subsection (2) is appropriate because it provides a mechanism whereby the Assembly, having been given power by the Order in Council that we had enacted, could enact the Assembly Measure without giving it the consideration that is the very justification for granting the power in the first place.
The situation is quite different from that under part 4. I have tabled an amendment that is similar to amendment No. 170 to part 4, but that is a probing amendment because my attitude to part 4 is rather different. I understand that, if we are transferring legislative functions to an independent body, it is not for us to start telling it how to carry out its business. However, the Government are announcing to the people of Wales that part 3 offers a hybrid procedure under which the House retains control, but detailed scrutiny is carried out by the Assembly so that the minutiae can be thrashed out in a way that provides better legislation for the Welsh people. It is thus astonishing that subsection (2) provides a loophole under which the Assembly could decide not to carry out adequate scrutiny.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |