---

Government of Wales Bill

We owe my noble friend a debt of gratitude for triggering an important part of the debate on how the Orders in Council and measures are intended to work. I am grateful to him for tabling the amendment. It is part of the constructive work that he has done also on the Richard commission and in the preparation of the White Paper. He has raised important points which I will seek to address as fully as I can while commenting on the additional points made by other noble Lords in support of his amendment. I shall also address myself to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who specifically asked whether Clause 94(3) was not premature. I hope that I will be able to address that issue more fully when I deal with his alternative proposal on how these issues should be considered. At the root of that lie both the differences between us and perhaps a different understanding of what the Government are seeking to propose. I hope that the noble Lord will eventually change his mind and appreciate that the Government have the issue right. My noble friend recognises in his amendment that scrutiny of the detail of an Assembly measure is a matter for the Assembly itself. What we are discussing here is how detailed the Orders in Council under Clause 94 will need to be and how much information Parliament will have on which to decide whether it should grant legislative competence to the Assembly on a matter. That is the issue that the Order in Council will put before Parliament. As noble Lords have recognised, Orders in Council are not amendable. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, says about comments in the other place that an hour and a half’s discussion elsewhere might not be enough for these orders. That is a matter for both Houses of Parliament to take into account on the question of the scrutiny. It is not for the Government to dictate to Parliament a detail such as that. I am second to none in my admiration for the insight that my right honourable friend in the other place, Paul Murphy, brings to these debates. He may well have a point that wins favour in Parliament—that the normal length of time for consideration of orders may need to be extended when we are dealing with orders of this kind. However, that is a matter for Parliament to deliberate on. It is not for the Government to instruct Parliament in these terms. We are discussing process: the amount of information required and how Parliament obtains that information. The key point is that it would be possible for the Assembly to acquire legislative competence under Part 3 only if the Government and Parliament were satisfied of the case for that in each specific matter in which competence was sought. The test for Parliament is whether it will be appropriate in principle to grant the legislative competence to the Assembly. Parliament has the right to ask—in fact, the duty to expect—as much information as it thinks necessary to reach such a judgment. However, we anticipate that that will be provided during the pre-legislative scrutiny of any proposed Order in Council. The Assembly rather than Parliament will scrutinise and decide on the detail and merits of a particular Assembly measure. The question whether the Assembly should be given competence to legislate on a particular matter is an entirely different issue. That, clearly, is for Parliament to consider. That is where the Order in Council is crucial.