| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Davies: That was certainly the message that the hon. Member for West Dorset gave in his speech, but what he said is not the case. I acknowledge that some powers transferred to the assembly will allow it to amend primary legislation, but the hon. Gentleman suggested that there would be a range of powers that would allow the assembly to repeal existing primary legislation. He used that word several times in his speech and I am sure that a look at Hansard tomorrow will clarify that.
I have only one power of which I am aware. There may be others, but I am advised that I have one power only--the power given to Ministers by the previous Government when they passed the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. They gave Ministers substantial powers to repeal existing primary legislation. I happen to be the beneficiary of those powers at the moment. In theory, I could transfer to the assembly the power to repeal primary legislation, but I know that the hon. Member for West Dorset has studied the transfer order closely, and he must realise that, as that document shows, it is not the Government's policy to transfer to the assembly those powers to repeal primary legislation.
Mr. Letwin:
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? First, does he accept that he has transferred in the draft transfer order--if we are to take the document seriously, notwithstanding the imperfections that he has admitted--the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provisions to which I referred and which specifically also give him the power to repeal and amend?
Mr. Davies:
Yes, that is the case, but the hon. Gentleman made great play of section 157--[Interruption.] I am sorry; section 147. As I understand it, those powers are exhausted because they were the specific powers that were necessary to deal with the repeal of the poll tax. That is the advice that I have been given and I am happy to enter into correspondence with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davies:
I am afraid that there will be a queue of people at the Bar downstairs if I have to buy a pint for
As is clear, amendment No. 45 limits the ministerial functions that are transferred to the assembly to the fields specified in schedule 2, in so far as they are exercisable by the Secretary of State for Wales. The purpose of the amendment is to make the point that only an Act of Parliament should confer functions on the assembly--in other words, the fast track will not be allowed.
Amazingly, amendment No. 46 converts the power that is currently in clause 22 to transfer functions from Ministers to the assembly to a power to transfer functions from the assembly to Ministers--
Mr. Rhodri Morgan:
Anti-devolution.
Mr. Davies:
It is anti-devolution. It is a reversal of the process that the Bill seeks to achieve.
Amendment No. 47 removes the requirement for the assembly to agree to an order under clause 22 which amends or revokes a previous order. Under amendments Nos. 46 and 47, functions could be removed from the assembly by secondary legislation without the assembly having a direct say in the matter. The right hon. Member for Devizes says that is right; I know that it is not right, and that is the difference between us.
The amendment means that the transfer of functions will lack precision. If its purpose is to ensure that the Committee and the wider world know what the functions of the assembly are to be, it will fail. The transfer order--the working draft of which I have published--will list precisely which functions, under which Acts, are transferred to the assembly. The Government's approach gives clarity. The Opposition amendment is a recipe for confusion and disputes, for years to come, about the powers that are currently vested in the Secretary of State.
The amendment would transfer all my functions in the field specified in schedule 2, but that is not what the Government propose. The White Paper made it plain that almost all my functions would be transferred to the assembly, but that some functions--my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney explored that earlier--would not be so transferred.
An example that might interest the right hon. Member for Devizes is my function in advising Her Majesty the Queen on some appointments. That is why the draft transfer order says that we are considering not transferring to the assembly functions to do with the appointment of the chief inspector of schools in Wales under the School Inspections Act 1996, and of the Local Government Commissioner for Wales under the Local Government Act 1988.
It is also true that the Government are considering transferring to the assembly some functions that are not exercised by me. That was the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli explored with me earlier. A further example concerns joint powers. At present, the legislation requires that I act jointly with my colleagues in other Departments. The general policy that the Government are adopting is to eliminate the requirement for joint action whenever that is practical, so that the assembly would be free to exercise such powers on its own for Wales. When we decide that that is the
right course to follow, the transfer order will need to transfer to the assembly not just my functions, but those of my ministerial colleagues with respect to Wales.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion):
Why does the Secretary of State want to retain the power to choose the chief inspector of schools for Wales? Why on earth should not the assembly have that power?
Mr. Davies:
Because as I said, that matter is the responsibility of Her Majesty the Queen, and it would require changes of another kind. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my view of these matters--[Laughter.]--at least I hope he does.
The Committee should also note that not all the functions that I exercise fall neatly into one or other of the categories in schedule 2. By way of example, I offer certain functions that I exercise with respect to civil defence and to local authorities, under the Civil Defence Act 1948. There is no reason why the assembly should not inherit such powers, but the amendment might have the effect of preventing that.
The Government are unwilling to rule out the possibility of future transfers of ministerial functions to the assembly. At the moment, the Government have no plans to make further orders. I have repeatedly stressed that devolution is a process, not an event. Clause 22 affords Parliament ample opportunity for debate, although the affirmative resolution procedure would apply, if any future Government proposed the transfer to the assembly of functions other than those currently vested in my office. It is true that there will be a debate of one and a half hours, but the power will still rest with the House to approve--
Mr. Davies:
Thousands of pieces of secondary legislation go through Parliament every year without debate or amendment. The right hon. Gentleman should stop harping on about how the world will come crashing down if the powers exercised by Ministers in respect of Wales are handed over to a democratic authority in Wales following proper debate and a vote in the House of Commons. That does not undermine our democracy; it certainly changes our constitutional arrangements. But the people of this country voted in large measure on 1 May for constitutional change.
Mr. Rowlands:
It appears that there will be two options--Acts of Parliament and orders. The notes on clauses say that some modest functions in future may be appropriately devolved by order. That implies that some modesty will attend the order-making power, and that substantial transfers of power will be effected by Acts of Parliament. The transfer of prisons from the Home Office involves a fairly substantial power. Would that be done by order or by primary legislation?
Mr. Davies:
I cannot answer that question; we are not proposing it anyway. Some future Government might decide that it was necessary to transfer substantial additional powers to the Welsh assembly--
Mr. Denzil Davies:
Like taxation?
Mr. Ron Davies:
That is not what I am proposing, but a future Government might consider it. If so, I am sure
Mr. Denzil Davies:
It is provided for in the Bill.
Mr. Ron Davies:
Of course it is, but legislation must be acted on in the light of political common sense. Meanwhile, the Bill contains a mechanism for a transfer order dealing with law-and-order issues and other non-controversial matters that a Government of the future might believe could be transferred by order after a one-and-a-half hour debate. Other, larger areas of responsibility may need primary legislation, however.
We are trying to be reasonable and flexible. The Government want a stable constitutional settlement. Amendment No. 46, with its sister amendment No. 47, provides for instability. Functions could be removed from the assembly almost at the behest of the Government of the day. That is why clause 22(4)(b) provides some level of security for the assembly--a lock, as it were. Amendment No. 47 would remove that lock. That is why I was not prepared to accept the earlier suggestion by the right hon. Member for Devizes.
The hon. Member for North Essex seemed to agree with the Government's approach to authority and stability when he told the Committee yesterday,
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that if there were to be any future reduction in the assembly's powers, it should be an infrequent occurrence. The Opposition amendments leave the door open to the Westminster Government to reduce the assembly's functions by means of secondary legislation at any time.
"We do not want the relationship between Westminster and the. . . assembly. . . to be one in which Westminster is constantly interfering and reasserting its supremacy."--[Official Report, 20 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 875.]
How can he reconcile that statement with the Opposition's present argument that, on the basis of a one-and-a-half hour debate and a vote in the House of Commons, any function can be stripped away from the Welsh assembly? The hon. Gentleman is being entirely inconsistent in this matter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |