---

Government of Wales Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords, who sought to be constructive and helpful with their interjections, but I particularly appreciate the clarification of the issue by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. He was absolutely right: that is the nature of the proposals in the Bill. I want to clarify the point introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. The fields in Schedule 5 simply identify the areas in which the Assembly may acquire legislative competence. Specific matters must be added to Schedule 5 and then the Assembly will indeed have legislative competence in relation to those matters. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, identified that the proposals with which we are engaged here relate to how the Assembly seeks additions to its competence within those broad fields. We recognise that the basis of the Order in Council, which will define the area in which that competence is conveyed, raises all the anxieties to which noble Lords have given voice in this debate and on previous occasions in this Committee. We have made it abundantly clear throughout the passage of the legislation that we place a great deal of emphasis on the pre-legislative scrutiny—probably a greater emphasis than is the case with any other legislation—because we recognise the validity of the point identified by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas; that is, you cannot possibly be too specific and attach a measure of competence to an Order in Council because that would block off all flexibilities and all developments and it would be a restrictive rather than an enhancing measure. It would enhance in the narrow field where a particular proposal was conducted in the context of the Order in Council but it would be so limited as to be a denial of the concept of devolution. We are seeking Orders in Council which are bound to be limited in their description and content because that is the nature of Orders in Council, but the parliamentary debate, the understanding of what is at stake in the orders, and the request for information which sustains the case for a proposed enhancement of competence, which potentially will lead to measures by the Assembly, will take place within the framework of the pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why we put a great deal of emphasis on that and why a specific measure would not be attached to the Order in Council. However, in the proposals leading to the Order in Council, the definition of the area of competence which was being devolved to the Assembly would be identified. That was the basis of my noble friend’s question and of his amendment. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government seek the most open process possible as it cannot be right that every single measure of the Assembly would need to come before both Houses of Parliament. An Order in Council would be so restrictive and would allow only a very limited measure which had been attached to it in the first instance, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, sought to identify. It is necessary that an Order in Council defines the competence under which future measures can be enacted. As I said in my opening remarks—I hope I was as fair and as open as I could be to the Committee about these issues—the Assembly can change its mind when it changes its administrative direction. Of course, it may change measures within its framework of competence and it may seek to develop measures, which is what the Order in Council should permit. That is why it cannot be restricted to one narrowly defined measure; it has to be a concept of competence. That is the basis of the Government’s case.