| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords--
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have anticipated that there would be substantial support for the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, as he informed your Lordships, supported me in the House last night when I moved a similar amendment in relation to the Scotland Bill.
The matter was put fully and clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I add just one further observation. If the score is at one all, and a further goal is not scored, it will be necessary to have a penalty shoot-out which would be an unsatisfactory way of resolving this important issue. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General was courageous on the previous occasion. I hope that he will be similarly courageous tonight and accept the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that the way the Government accept, from time to time, drafting changes proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, or anyone else who suggests them, indicates that we do not obdurately defend the drafting, come what may, but we look to see whether we can improve it wherever possible. Despite the force, eloquence and persuasive way in which the point was put, I submit that it is not a good point on this occasion, essentially for two reasons.
It is right that the Treasury would be bound to consent to the exercise of a power such as this. I regret that I cannot accept the noble and learned Lord's argument that the existence of such a practice--namely, that it has
to consent--makes the provision that he seeks to remove otiose. Understood and accepted practices such as that are all very well, but the argument, "We do not need a provision on the face of the Bill, because everyone knows it happens anyway", is somewhat undermined by the fact that everyone does not know.The noble and learned Lord knows, and I dare say that many noble Lords know it also, that the Treasury controls the purse strings, but that is not to say that members of the assembly, or the interested lay person trying to make sense of the assembly's powers and its relations with the UK Government, will know. I therefore respectfully submit and repeat to the noble and learned Lord that it is a good thing for the process to be set out on the face of the Bill so that everyone knows what happens.
It is not right to say that it is unnecessary as a matter of drafting, because it rightly sets out what the process is. It adds to the transparency of the process. There is also a more substantive point. As part of the transfer order process under Clause 22, we propose to remove many Treasury consents. That is part of the rationale behind paragraph 8 of Schedule 3. The assembly will thus not need to seek the Treasury's approval in the vast majority of cases where the Secretary of State does now.
While I accept that that process is somewhat removed from that of raising the assembly's borrowing limit, it would be prudent, in the context of devolution generally, to make clear exactly where the requirement for Treasury consent remained. Again, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord's amendment would help the understanding there. There is a sound basis for including the words. It is helpful rather than unhelpful, and avoids any problems where there are certain areas where we are removing the need for Treasury consent.
I turn to the other two amendments, which I assume are teasing rather than probing or serious amendments. I should not have thought that it was necessary for the consent to be described in writing, because it is axiomatic--
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept from me that it is invariably in writing?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept that entirely. I would not deny it for one moment. That is why I say that it is otiose to put it in the Bill. As for the suggestion that it should be given in normal working hours, I cannot see any reason why a consent given at 7.30 p.m. in the hard-working Treasury should be regarded as ineffective, and have to be given at 9 a.m. the next morning. I see no basis for either of those amendments. Even though the noble and learned Lord is looking for another score, I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has done, as we expected, quite valiantly. I do not know whether any noble Lord was in the other place when a similar defensive argument was put up by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Glenvil Hall. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will remember
that. Mr. Oliver Stanley said that the Financial Secretary had shown the same courageous spirit that had inspired some of the most indomitable defences in the history of the British Army which had led to some of our greatest military disasters.The noble and learned Lord really made just one point. He knows, I know, and all your Lordships know, that the consent of the Treasury is necessary and will be obtained, but he said that the members of the assembly and the members of the public may not know that. That is entirely irrelevant. All we are concerned here is with the Secretary of State. It is he who must seek the consent of the Treasury. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord did not, at any rate, assure your Lordships that it is now a general principle of government legislation to include admittedly unnecessary verbiage in order to make things plain and transparent. However this is not the sort of point upon which it is convenient to divide the House. Therefore, protesting at the defence we have heard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 not moved.]
Clause 83 [Accounts relating to loans under section 82]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 116:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Statement of proposed expenditure etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 122:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88 [Accounts relating to funds paid to Assembly for lending]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 123:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Expenses, fees and accounts]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 97 [Preparation and audit of Assembly's annual accounts]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 126:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 127 and 128:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 129:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 129, I speak also to Amendment No. 133. Amendments Nos. 129 and 133 are intended to allow provisions in Schedules 6 and 7 to have effect before the establishment of the assembly. Amendment No. 129 relates to the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and Amendment No. 133 to the Forestry Commission.
On Amendment No. 129, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 requires Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to keep proper accounting records, and we believe it would be sensible for these to commence on 1st April 1999 so as to coincide with the current system of financial years. However, the new financial arrangements for the funding of the chief inspector's office cannot come into effect prior to the establishment of the assembly.
The keeping of accounting records under paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 is related to the provisions in Clause 104 but it is arguable that Clause 104(6), as presently drafted, would prevent paragraph 5(1) from being brought into force so that it takes effect from 1st April 1999. The amendment to Clause 104(6) is to remove that doubt and to produce sensible accounting arrangements.
In respect of Amendment No. 133, it is also the Government's intention that paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, which deals with the exercise of the Forestry Commission's functions in relation to Wales, should be brought into force before the establishment of the assembly. An order will be made under paragraph 1 to amend the Forestry Act 1967 so as to convert Great Britain duties to duties applicable to Wales, England and, if the Scotland Bill is passed, Scotland.
Clause 105(5), as currently drafted, may leave an impression that the provisions of Schedule 7 are directly consequential to Clause 105. This is not the Government's intention and Amendment No. 133 is a drafting improvement to clarify the position. I repeat: these amendments are simply to produce a rational accounting regime in both respects. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales]:
Page 42, line 35, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 44, line 2, leave out ("of the Assembly after the first") and insert ("after the first financial year of the Assembly").
Page 44, line 4, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 13, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 45, line 1, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 47, line 35, leave out ("of the Assembly after the first") and insert ("after the first financial year of the Assembly").
Page 48, line 1, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 50, line 36, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 54, line 23, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 54, line 32, leave out ("of the Assembly").
6 p.m.
Page 54, line 36, leave out ("provision consequential on this section)") and insert ("further provision about the Chief Inspector)").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page