Formal joint meetings

58. Under Standing Order No. 137A(3), we have the power to conduct formal 'joint' meetings with Assembly committees for the purposes of taking evidence, and under Standing Order No. 137A(1), to share evidence submitted to us with the Assembly. These powers are not limited to the pre-legislative scrutiny of LCOs. When the LCO process was initiated, it was envisaged that proposed Orders would be published and referred simultaneously to Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. This would have allowed our inquiries to run alongside those of Assembly scrutiny committees and given us the option of holding formal joint evidence sessions. In practice, the presentation of proposed Orders to Parliament and the Assembly has not always been synchronised, and particularly in the first year of the LCO process, Orders were sometimes referred to Assembly committees for scrutiny months before they arrived in Parliament, precluding the possibility of such joint working. In fact, we were able to take evidence jointly on only one occasion, with the Domiciliary Care LCO Committee in January 2008. Our Chairman also attended a meeting of the Assembly's Proposed Additional Learning Needs LCO Committee in an observer capacity later in the year.

59. More recently, proposed Orders have been referred to Assembly permanent legislation committees at the same time or only shortly before coming to us. However, we have so far chosen not to take formal joint evidence. This is because our experience of sequential scrutiny, which was a product of the timings involved with earlier LCOs, has demonstrated that there is an advantage in considering proposals shortly after the Assembly committee. This allows us to draw from the evidence taken in Cardiff Bay and avoid duplication of effort, which would otherwise place a needless burden on those giving evidence and waste valuable resources for all parties.

60. In addition, our experience has been that extensive use of formal joint meetings to take evidence is impractical. Given the sitting times of the Assembly and the House, it is extremely difficult to bring Members of Parliament and Assembly Members together in the same place at the same time. The logistical difficulties involved hamper each committee's ability to plan its own programme of evidence in a timely manner. The value of formal joint meetings is seriously diminished if the attendance is not representative of both committees across all four parties. This is difficult to achieve in practice, although we have held some highly successful meetings such as the recent hearing in Cardiff Bay with the Assembly Enterprise and Learning Committee, when we questioned rail companies as part of our inquiry on cross-border transport. We continue to approach proposed LCOs on a case-by-case basis and there may be occasions in the future where formal joint scrutiny would be appropriate.

61. As we noted earlier in this review, we can benefit significantly from sharing evidence with Assembly committees and reading their transcripts. Most of the evidence gathered by committees both here and in the Assembly is now published on the internet relatively quickly. This allows us to take the Assembly's work into consideration when reaching our own conclusions and recommendations even where formal joint scrutiny has not proved possible.

62. At present, joint meetings with Assembly Committees are treated under Standing Order No. 137A(3) as meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee to which the Assembly Members are invited. In contrast, Standing Order 10.48 of the National Assembly for Wales provides that "Committees may meet concurrently with any committee of either House of Parliament or any joint committee of both Houses". Whilst there is little practical effect on the conduct of meetings, we do not believe that the current wording of Standing Order No. 137A(3), which allows us to "invite members of any specified committee of the National Assembly for Wales to attend and participate" in our meetings reflects the actual experience of joint meetings. We recommend that the Standing Order be updated to provide for concurrent meetings, reflecting Standing Order 10.48 of the National Assembly for Wales.

Informal meetings

63. Although formal joint meetings with Assembly committees have not formed a regular part of our pre-legislative scrutiny inquiries, we do hold frequent informal meetings with our counterparts in the National Assembly for Wales. In the case of all the proposed Orders we have looked at this year, our Chairman has held an informal meeting with the Chair of the Assembly Committee, either in person or via video-link, and in some cases we have held informal joint meetings open to all the members of both committees.

64. One example of co-ordinated action as a result of these meetings is the joint letter written by our Chairman and Mike German AM to the First Minister and Secretary of State for Wales, following our respective scrutiny of the Environment LCO. Both committees concluded that the Order was drafted in a needlessly complex manner, particularly in respect of the exceptions included in the LCO. In the debate on the final draft Order in the Assembly, Mike German AM described the value of this collaboration:

I place on record my thanks to the Welsh Affairs Committee for the valuable informal meeting that we held to discuss the proposed Order. The outcome of that meeting was a joint letter sent from both committees to the Secretary of State for Wales about our reports' recommendations for the future presentation and scrutiny of legislative competence Orders. I sincerely hope that future proposed Orders and accompanying explanatory memoranda take account of our recommendations on the need for greater clarity in defining and explaining the boundaries of the National Assembly's powers. Such an approach is vital to the principles of openness, transparency and good governance.[23]

65. Informal meetings have allowed us to benefit from the perspectives of the Assembly Committee members and their reflections on the evidence they have received, before writing our final Report and to join up scrutiny at Westminster and Cardiff Bay. We now consider them a vital part of our approach to our work on LCOs.

66. The use of video-link technology for some informal meetings has enabled us to overcome the inevitable timetabling difficulties involved in organising a joint meeting either in Cardiff Bay or Westminster. It is possible that, in the future, video-link technology could be used for formal joint evidence gathering. However, the practicalities of such a session would need to be given further consideration. For example, the system would need to be compatible with the translation facilities in use in the Assembly.

Timing

67. In the course of the past two years, we have established a pattern of reporting on LCOs slightly after the relevant Assembly scrutiny committee. In part, this is due to the fact that proposed Orders have been referred to the Assembly committee some time before they have been laid in the House of Commons. Whilst we do not consider that it would be appropriate to delay our inquiry until after the relevant Assembly committee has reported, we do consider that there is merit in publishing our Report slightly after that of the Assembly committee. In this way, we are able to build on the considered view of the Assembly committee and avoid duplication.

CASE STUDY 2: THE WELSH LANGUAGE LCO

68. Our work on the proposed Welsh Language LCO provides an example of successful joint working with the Assembly on a high profile and complex Order which is of significant importance to all the people of Wales. Following the model that has proven successful during our consideration of other recent LCOs, our Chairman held an informal meeting with the Chair of the Assembly Legislation Committee No. 5, Mark Isherwood AM, at the start of the inquiry. This was followed by a meeting in Cardiff Bay between members of both Committees, after oral evidence sessions had been completed. This meeting allowed us to benefit from the perspectives of the Assembly Committee members and their reflections on the evidence they had received, before agreeing our final report.

69. The intention behind this Order is to enable the National Assembly for Wales to legislate to require large organisations which have significant dealings with the public in Wales to offer a Welsh language service to the growing number of people who would prefer to use Welsh. At the same time, the aim is not to place an unreasonable burden on small companies or charitable bodies who might struggle to cope. Both we and the Assembly scrutiny committee recommended changes to the original proposed Order to establish reasonable, proportionate and cost effective language legislation.

70. For both ourselves and the Assembly committee, the key flaw in the draft was the way its scope was defined. The concerns expressed by the Assembly scrutiny committee in its report covered similar issues to our own and our Report drew on the evidence they were given as well as their conclusions and recommendations. We are sure that our scrutiny of the proposed Welsh Language Order was enhanced through co-operation with the relevant Assembly Legislation Committee and we look forward to continuing good relationships with Assembly committees in future.

71. We are pleased that our key recommendations were reflected in the revised draft Order finally presented by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly Government for approval. It is a significant achievement that an Order which was originally perceived as potentially very controversial has, in its revised form, secured cross-party support. The pre-legislative scrutiny process played an important role in securing this support, as we took evidence from all sectors of Welsh society and produced a unanimous report.

72. One important point we made in our Report was that that whilst language legislation is a fundamental part of making sure that the Welsh language continues to thrive, it is far from the whole picture. This was demonstrated by the evidence we took during our inquiry, including from the Catalan Government, which has a long experience of language law. Catalan witnesses clearly felt that legal sanctions, although necessary, were secondary to the development of a positive culture of acceptance and support for the language. They told us that compulsion and enforcement needed to underpin a continuation of consensual progress and should be used only as a last resort. Clarity of expectation, reflected in legislation, should be the primary route for further progress. We believe that, thanks to the pre-legislative scrutiny process, this Order fulfils that aim.