| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification, but some parts of the 1981 Act do not relate specifically to any other Act. May we take it that he would be prepared to look again at that question or any similar representations made in the context of the transfer orders to ensure that those powers that should be there are clearly there?
Mr. Davies: I shall certainly look--or perhaps I shall get someone else to look on my behalf--very closely at the 1981 Act to ensure that those functions, if any, that I currently discharge will be included in the transfer order. That is as far as I can go in giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Schedule 2's other role relates to part III of the Bill. Clause 56 requires the assembly to set up subject committees. Each of them must have responsibilities in a field listed in schedule 2, but there is nothing to prevent its having responsibilities in more than one of the fields, or even all of them.
I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who made a powerful case for the assembly havinga discrete responsibility for particular issues. The assembly--its internal architecture and policies--will decide how it wishes to handle those matters. What I am concerned with, and what the Bill is now concerned with, is the extent to which the powers that will be necessary for the assembly to discharge those responsibilities in the way that my hon. Friend suggests are contained in the Bill. I can give her the assurance that I think that she was seeking: I am content that adequate powers will be contained in the Bill and the subsequent transfer order to allow the assembly to discharge its functions in the way that she was suggesting.
Taken together, the subject committees must have responsibilities in all the fields listed in schedule 2, but they would not necessarily be defined in accordance with the particular fields that we have identified in schedule 2. Adding or subtracting a field in the schedule would not necessarily change the number of subject committees. That issue lies behind some of the amendments that I said we would consider later, so I hope that when we reach them the Committee will forgive me if my replies to those debates are brief.
There is no requirement that there should be a committee for each area. The assembly can set up committees for any subject that it wishes. If it wanted to have a committee for children's issues and rights--on which a number of hon. Members have spoken--it would be able to set one up. There is nothing that we can do--other than to make it explicit on the face of the Bill--that would require that to happen. I hope that the Committee will bear those points in mind when we consider amendments relating to schedule 2, particularly amendment No. 160 on the Council of the Isles,No. 157 on disablement policy, No. 159 on European affairs, No. 185 on sustainable development, No. 158 on rural affairs and No. 165 on children's issues and rights.
Mr. Rogers:
I well understand that, within the transfer- of-function arrangements, financial arrangements would need to be made to carry out the transferred functions. However, in the event that, as my right hon. Friend just outlined, the assembly wanted to take to itself certain functions, by what mechanisms would it obtain money to carry them out--especially if it was in conflict with the Secretary of State?
Conflict between assembly and Secretary of State will be possible. Later clauses give the Secretary of State the right to allocate moneys to the assembly--the assembly has no immediate call on money, which can come only through the Secretary of State. Therefore, if the Secretary of State does not agree with the assembly on any power that it wishes to take to itself, or any committee that it
wishes to set up, or any function that it wishes to carry out, how can the assembly do that without tax-raising powers?
Mr. Davies:
My hon. Friend raises two points.
First, it will be entirely for the assembly to decide how it wishes to organise and deliver in those policy areas for which it has responsibility, either as a result of the clause or the accompanying schedule. Matters that have been devolved to the assembly will be entirely a matter for the assembly, and its Members must make their judgments according to the available block grant--they must decide their priorities. There is no question of their doing anything else.
However, the importance of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) lay in the second question that he asked, about what would happen if the assembly wished to have additional powers. It would have those additional powers only if it were agreed by the Government of the day and Parliament. It would be perfectly feasible for additional powers to be given to the assembly, but the assembly and the Government of the day would then have to negotiate what additional resources would follow the granting of additional powers. That would be a discussion process, with the assembly getting the agreement of the Government of the day. I hope that that answers the point that my hon. Friend raised.
I return to amendment No. 144. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a range of functions with respect to police, fire, prisons, and so on in Wales. As I shall explain, I have some functions with respect to the funding of police and fire authorities, but they are the only functions in that field that the Government are considering for transfer to the assembly. I know that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon will understand my argument. Therefore, that aspect of amendment No. 144 is inappropriate, because it might prevent the transfer of my responsibilities relating to the funding of the fire service or of the police.
The remaining amendments in the group all seek to insert a field in schedule 2. Amendment No. 162 refers to
Amendment No. 161 refers to "Policing, prisons and probation", and amendment No. 163 refers to the fire service. I have very limited responsibilities with respect to the police and fire services in Wales, but police authorities in Wales are funded jointly by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me--about 51 per cent. of revenue comes from the Home Secretary in the form of police grant and the remainder from me through revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates. Prisons and probation services are the responsibility of the Home Secretary, and the Government have no plans to change that.
If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West was speculating about which of the processes in clause 21 might be appropriate. I cannot give him an
answer to that because the Government are not proposing it, but it seems to me that if the Government of the day were proposing--
Mr. Jenkin:
That is a cop-out.
Mr. Davies:
It is not a cop-out. I do not know whether that remark was made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) or his side-kick of today.
Mr. Davies:
It is not a cop-out; it is a rational explanation of the position that might arise in five or 10 years' time. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want devolution to proceed, but I want it to succeed and I want it to work, and the answer--
Mr. Jenkin:
That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Davies:
It has everything to do with it.
The answer that I am trying to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is that if the Government of the day were to envisage a substantial transfer of powers--those that have not hitherto been devolved to me--from a Whitehall Department, obviously they would have to consider the option of primary legislation.
However, I cannot say what will happen in five or 10 years' time. I merely acknowledge the strength of my hon. Friend's argument. The Parliament of the day would have to acknowledge the strength of the argument. I should have thought that, in the case of a substantial transfer of powers, the Government of the day would be wise to ensure that consent had been obtained by means of a general election manifesto--or, conceivably, by a referendum--and then agreement by the House of Commons. That seems to me the process that a sensible Government, or any sensible participant in a political process, would want to adopt.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes):
Disgraceful.
Mr. Davies:
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows how to behave, and it is not the way to behave, sitting there interrupting the speeches.
Mr. Jenkin:
My right hon. Friend was talking to me.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Well, he should not be talking to anyone. He should be listening to the debate.
Mr. Davies:
Had I more time, Mr. Martin, I might want to argue with your ruling that the right hon. Gentleman knows how to behave.
"Administration of justice and the courts system."
Those are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor--not me--and the Government have no plans to change that responsibility.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |