| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'A1. Administration of justice and the courts system.'.
No. 165, in page 73, line 19, at end insert--
No. 157, in page 73, line 20, at end insert--
No. 163, in page 73, line 23, at end insert--
No. 161, in page 73, line 28, at end insert--
Mr. Rowlands:
Amendment No. 144 seeks to clarify and develop the argument that began on Wednesday about the way in which functions are transferred to the assembly, particularly functions that lie with certain Ministers. The amendment does not suggest that functions should not be transferred; it seeks to ensure that home affairs and social security functions are transferred only by means of an Act of Parliament. It does not concern itself with the merits of future transfers in relation to specific Departments and ministerial responsibilities, but suggests that a one-and-a-half hour debate on an order providing for the transfer of the functions exercised by the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for the Home Department is not sufficient.
Other amendments deal with the respective merits of the transfer of various functions, and no doubt we shall discuss those merits later. The simple but important point of our amendments is that responsibility for key areas of major policy involving two major Departments should not be transferred by means of a transfer order.
Commenting on the previous debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly drew our attention to the White Paper commitments. Those commitments, made to the electorate during the referendum campaign, scrupulously and fairly described the powers for whose transfer the Government sought the Welsh people's consent. It is right and proper that those functions and responsibilities should be transferred by means of an order of the kind envisaged in clause 22.
I am not saying--I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree with me--that there should not be argument and discussion about some aspects of the proposal. I hope that Ministers will not try to stifle every debate on every aspect of the transfer of powers by saying, "This was in the White Paper, and it therefore cannot be questioned." I am preparing the ground for later amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself in relation to one or two functions which, I admit, were included in the White Paper, but about whose transfer we have doubts or reservations.
Even opponents of devolution should not argue that certain functions cannot be sensibly devolved to the assembly once it is up and running although they were
not included in the White Paper. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for us to have a legislative route for further transfers of existing ministerial responsibilities--legislative responsibilities--at some future date. The bone of contention is which route should be taken in relation to the transfer of certain powers and responsibilities. We became involved in a serious discussion about that on Wednesday, and, inevitably, I want to return to it.
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda):
I understand the logic of my hon. Friend's argument about the two Departments that he has specified, which can be seen in a more British context than those with, in many senses, narrower responsibilities; but why did he not include defence and foreign affairs?
Mr. Rowlands:
The White Paper was very explicit about defence and foreign affairs. It said that the Government did not seek in any way to transfer those functions. I understand from our debate on Wednesday, however, that--although we have identified those two areas of domestic social policy--if the Bill remains unamended, it will be possible to transfer by order even the areas of policy to which my hon. Friend has referred. The amendment--which, incidentally, was tabled before Wednesday's debate--identifies areas of policy about whose possible transfer there is likely to be a certain amount of discussion. The amendment is of a selective nature, but my hon. Friend has raised an interesting issue which needs to be probed.
Mr. Rogers:
Again, I understand my hon. Friend's logic. Surely, however, in relation to such tremendously important matters as defence, foreign affairs and home affairs, it would have been much better to include a clause excluding certain functions--as limited, or de-limited, in the White Paper--than to amend the nature of the Orders in Council that may be made.
Mr. Rowlands:
That is an interesting suggestion, which my hon. Friend may wish to pursue by tabling an amendment.
Our amendments suggest that the two specific functions involved should be transferred not by order, but by legislation. The argument is not necessarily that some areas should not be transferred; the aim is to provide a safeguard, and to ensure that the transfer process is subject to more scrutiny and debate than is possible in a one-and-a-half hour debate on an unamendable statutory instrument.
My hon. Friend might make a valuable contribution to our discussion after I have drawn his attention to the exchanges in Committee on Wednesday. We are trying to define the routes by which some functional transfers should take place. I suggest that the transfer of major functions from at least two major Departments should be effected by Acts of Parliament rather than by orders.
Mr. Ron Davies:
I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. May I ask--not in a pejorative way--whether he is trying to rework the argument in terms of exploring the alternatives in clause 21 or is he saying that matters relating to areas such as social security are unsuitable for any form of devolution? Is he concerned about the process or the policy?
Mr. Rowlands:
I have made it clear that I am speaking about the process. Hon. Members have described clause
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West):
I am interested in my hon. Friend's last sentence because it made me unsure of his argument. I thought he said that any home affairs or social security function should be transferred to the assembly not by an Order in Council, but by primary legislation. He seemed to rephrase that by saying that if all social security and home affairs functions for Wales were to be transferred to the assembly, as in the Scottish case, that would have to be done by primary legislation. I agree with that, but surely the issue is how restrictive we should be. There are many borderline, minor social security issues, such as who commissions continuing care for the elderly and whether it should be the Department of Social Security as in the past or the social services departments of local authorities. We are debating minor changes. The same could be true of the probation service, which is also a joint funded, co-responsibility area involving local government. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend about being so restrictive.
Mr. Rowlands:
My hon. Friend's intervention, which I followed closely, is useful and important. We are trying to find and define a route for the transfer of functions. I suggest that it should be partly dictated by the importance of the function. My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that some minor Department of Social Security and Home Office responsibilities of the kind that my hon. Friend describes could sensibly be transferred by order. An example is the transfer of responsibility for prisons from the Home Secretary to the assembly. I think that that is suggested in an amendment. Should that be done by a one-and-a-half-hour debate on an order or should we use major legislation?
It might be suggested that responsibility for social security benefits and payments should be transferred. That issue has been discussed in some areas. Should that be done by a transfer of functions order or should the Government of the day do it by primary legislation? I accept the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) of my amendment and my explanation. Under the clause and on my reading of the Secretary of State's clarification of the matter on Wednesday, some functions from the Home Office and the Department of Social Security should not be transferred by a simple order. The absence of a definition of the functions that should be transferred and the choice of route is causing us concern.
I remind the Committee of an exchange on Wednesday. I said:
'2A. Children's issues and rights.'.
'3A. Disablement policy.'.
'6A. Fire service.'.
'11A. Policing, prisons and probation services.'.
"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?"
26 Jan 1998 : Column 47
Those issues were at the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been saying. He replied:
"I cannot answer that question; we are not proposing it anyway."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |