---

Government of Wales Bill

I shall attempt to give that clear explanation. It would be unusual for the Bill not to include a provision for how the Welsh Assembly would react when faced with an emergency. I absolutely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the Bill does not specifically state ““only for emergencies”” and that that is something that could be abused, but I hope that if I give an explanation at least we will see where the Government are going. Amendment No. 69 would prevent the Assembly from creating a fast-track legislative procedure for certain proposed Assembly measures necessary in an emergency. As it stands, the Bill allows the Assembly to make provision for this, if it wishes, via standing orders. We are very sympathetic to the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Crickhowell, to ensure that all proposed Assembly measures receive proper scrutiny. Clause 97(2) does not circumvent that. As I have said, it is intended to make allowances for emergencies where there is simply not enough time to pass a proposed Assembly measure via the usual legislative process to ensure that statutory procedures do not impede the Assembly, which is a democratically elected legislature, from acting in a proper and timely fashion to respond to circumstances that may arrive very rapidly. All legislatures require emergency procedures for law making. In this House, for example, the Elections Act 2001 was passed within a week when the date of local elections needed to be moved because of the foot and mouth outbreak. It should be noted that the same provision appears in Section 36 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Assembly will be able to ensure through standing orders that the expedited procedure is applied only in relevant circumstances and with the proper controls. It has been argued in another place that cases of urgency will arise only in relation to subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers. It is not for us to make assumptions about what level of detail the Assembly will want to include in Assembly measures. We cannot assume that the Assembly will never enact a measure that might need to be amended urgently. It is prudent—I stress ““prudent””—to include some degree of flexibility for the Assembly to be able to adjust its procedures should it see the need to do so, as can other legislatures. Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 would remove the Assembly’s discretion to make provision in its standing orders for the handling of proposed private Assembly measures. The Committee will no doubt be aware that both this House and the other place operate under a wholly different set of standing orders when considering proposed private legislation. The complex and often highly specialised nature of proposed private legislation means that having different provision in standing orders is not only appropriate, but also, arguably, necessary. For example, the need to allow those affected by a particular scheme to petition Parliament on the details of the scheme requires a wholly different type of procedure from that adopted in relation to public legislation. The same reasoning would apply equally to the Assembly. It would therefore be anomalous for the Assembly to be denied the discretion to put appropriate procedures in place for proposed private legislation. Indeed, it would arguably inhibit the Assembly’s ability to ensure effective scrutiny for such matters. Amendment No. 89 is similar to Amendment No. 69. It would prevent the Assembly from creating in its standing orders a fast-track legislative procedure for certain Bills in certain circumstances. As we said with regard to proposed Assembly measures, accelerated procedure for legislation in emergency situations must be possible. A similar provision already exists in Section 36(2) of the Scotland Act. Both Houses of Parliament also permit proceedings on emergency legislation to be expedited. The Assembly will be able to provide safeguards against the abuse of this procedure in its standing orders. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is reassured by this explanation. He said that his was a probing amendment. I hesitate to say that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, may be confusing Private Members’ Bills, which are a type of public Bill and subject to the normal procedures, with private Bills, which are not.