TRANSFERS: SUPPLEMENTARY (Hansard, 25 March 1998)

§ Mr. Evans
I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 14, leave out lines 10 to 18.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 219, in page 14, line 11, after 'culture,', insert 'or'.

No. 220, in page 14, leave out lines 14 to 16.

No. 221, in page 14, leave out lines 19 to 29.

No. 222, in page 14, line 37, at end insert—
'(11) Nothing in this Act shall permit the Assembly to exercise any function or enjoy any power in any part of England.'.

§ Mr. Evans
It has just been demonstrated that another day to consider the Bill on Report would have been extremely useful, as it would have allowed us to examine in detail other elements arising from Government amendments and new clauses. At least in the 54 minutes remaining to us today, we shall be able to debate some important matters, including those that arise from this group of amendments. They relate to clause 23 and are consequential on clauses 21 and 22 and the assembly's functions, especially in relation to cross-border areas.
Dispute would arise when the assembly used its powers to exercise functions on a cross-border area, which is defined in subsection (7) as an area that includes a part (but not the whole) of England as well as the whole or a part of Wales. The Secretary of State did not feel it worth including a clause that would make it necessary for the Assembly to consult Ministers before using its power in England. In reality, that means that people in England could be directly affected by the actions of the Assembly. Yet, because they do not have a vote for that body, they would have no way of influencing its decisions.
I have been asked before whether I was thinking of standing for the Welsh assembly. I know that I have disappointed some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House by saying that I have no intention of standing for the assembly, along with virtually everyone else in this place, especially those representing constituencies in Wales. I have always felt that the people of Ribble Valley have no interest in the deliberations of the Welsh Assembly as it pertained to them. However, it appears that there will be people in England who will be directly affected by, and interested in, what is going on in the assembly, yet they will have no vote, and no representation within it. If they write to Members of the 639 Assembly, to whom will they write? Will there be an onus on those Members to respond or even to take any notice at all?
A number of cross-border issues could arise, including those that involve water authorities such as Dwr Cymru, Dee Valley in Chester, and Severn Trent. There are sites of special scientific interest such as those covering the Severn estuary, some drainage fisheries and the Severn bore. There are no proper maritime borders for Wales. Highways may be involved, and so may parish councils.
We have tried to redress the imbalance through the amendments. The Secretary of State apparently does not believe that we should examine the problems that will exist and try to do something about them. Amendment No. 222 reads: Nothing in this Act shall permit the Assembly to exercise any function or enjoy any power in any part of England. That amendment is the crux of the matter. We do not believe that the assembly should have any say over anything that happens in England because the Bill does not address properly the concerns of people living in cross-border areas.
For instance, as far as I can tell, there is no proper device or procedure whereby the assembly would consult people living in England before it assumed power over cross-border areas. The Minister shakes his head; it will be interesting to see what consultation will occur with people who live in England and who will be affected by any decisions taken by the Welsh assembly. Those people will have no representation on the assembly.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said earlier—in a most telling contribution to this evening's proceedings—that we should be naive to assume that there will be no repercussions following the decisions that we are taking in granting a form of devolution to Wales. It is not just a question of the Barnett formula and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, of people in England thinking, "We are strapped for cash, so we'll look at paring back money to Scotland and Wales."
I believe that people living in England will feel resentment when they see that the Welsh assembly has power over parts of cross-border areas.
In the past, there was talk of no taxation without representation. This is a plain case of no representation. I wonder whether the Minister understands the concerns of people who live on the English side of the border. We are not talking about the control of cemeteries in Fulham and transference of power—matters that we considered in an early debate on the legislation—with the Welsh assembly having power over Welsh people who are living and English people who were dead. I understand that that matter has now been resolved.
We are considering an issue that will have a real impact upon those who live in cross-border areas. That is why we have moved the amendments. We want to address any problems that may arise in the future. We do not wish to fuel resentment among people who live in England regarding the Welsh assembly. We appreciate that the assembly will be a reality, and we wish it godspeed. We want to ensure that it works in the best interests of the people of Wales. If the Bill remains unamended or the concerns of those who live in England are not addressed, it will have a detrimental effect on good relations between people living in England and in Wales, and particularly among people in cross-border areas.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain)
It may assist the House if I put 640 the amendments into context and explain the situation. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for the way in which he has moved them. In so doing, he made some constructive and important points that must be answered. I shall explain briefly the background to clause 23(6), which introduces the concept of a cross-border area. It is important that we have an opportunity to debate this matter as it allows me to expunge a series of phantoms and misunderstandings surrounding this question.
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has moved the amendments not in order to be mischievous but in an attempt to secure an explanation. When I have provided one, I hope that he will accept that the situation is quite reasonable. The position now is that the Government have flexible arrangements for dealing with issues that straddle the border between Wales and England. Water, notably, does not flow neatly down a particular side of the border. The Severn, Wye and Dee rivers all rise in Wales and flow through parts of England. There are watersheds that cross boundaries.
We have had practical and sensible arrangements to deal with that for many years. The Welsh Office looks after the administration of some issues to do with water and rivers that extend beyond Wales's boundaries. Correspondingly, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions administers some matters for Montgomeryshire. I do not know what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) feels about that, but it is a practical, common-sense approach to the problem of cross-border areas.
11.15 pm
There is no compelling reason why we should now draw a doctrinaire line down the border between Wales and England, and command the waters to part along it. I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to play Moses parting the Red sea. I suspect that he was not, given what he said when he moved the amendment, but I shall have my say anyway. He has got his history wrong. The Secretary of State is the real Moses figure, leading the people of Wales to safety from the centralised, corrupt Tory quango state as the waters part before him to reveal a gleaming new Welsh assembly, and close after him to drown the Tories as power is decentralised to the people. The hon. Gentleman may prefer another historical figure, King Canute, holding back the tide of devolution. He says that he is not trying to do that, but if he is, he should check what happened to King Canute.
There is no reason why we should have more costly and complex administrative arrangements on the ground post devolution. Clause 23(6) allows the assembly to be given functions with respect to cross-border areas: that is, areas including a part but not the whole of England, and the whole or part of Wales.
The Government have no plans to transfer cross-border functions to the assembly unless that is the basis on which they are already operated. Subsection (6) permits the transfer order to include such functions in the order under clause 22. The transfer process must be initiated by the Government, but it cannot be completed unless Parliament, which obviously includes elected representatives from England, approves the transfer order.
The Government are considering giving the assembly cross-border functions for some bodies and functions relating to the water industry, flood defence and internal drainage that are currently exercised by the Welsh Office.
641 There is nothing novel in those proposals. Section 63 of the Wales Act 1978 provided that any function exercisable in respect of the Welsh water authority was deemed to be a power exercisable as regards Wales, whereas any function in respect of the Severn Trent water authority was deemed not to be a power exercisable with respect to Wales. Both those water authorities, and their successor water companies, operate across the border.

§ Mr. Letwin
The Minister did not mention education. What is the position of schools in Herefordshire that come within a Welsh local education authority, and power over which the Secretary of State transfers to the Welsh assembly under the transfer of powers order?

§ Mr. Hain
I am not aware of any schools in that position. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to pupils whose parents choose to send to schools across the border, that is a different matter, and it is not covered by those arrangements.
As we signalled in the draft transfer order, the Government are considering transferring to the assembly various functions under the Water Industries Act 1991 with respect to the Dwr Cymru, Wrexham and the Chester-Dee valley water companies. Amendments Nos. 219 to 222 would prevent the transfer of such functions to the assembly. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley.

§ Mr. Grieve
The Secretary of State has said that, once the assembly comes into being, he will not be answerable to the House for what goes on in the assembly. A person living on the English side of the border may be subject to maladministration as a result of an act of the assembly, and may wish to have that matter dealt with. How can it be dealt with by the House if it is in the assembly's remit because the powers have been handed to the assembly for administrative purposes?

§ Mr. Hain
To the extent that those would be cross-border powers, they would be handed to the assembly to be exercisable by the authority of Parliament. Ultimately, Parliament could be held to account if the situation that the hon. Gentleman suggests were to arise.

§ Mr. Jenkin
Does the Minister seriously contemplate that the House will legislate to interfere in the affairs of the assembly in respect of the grievances of English constituents in cross-border areas? That is the logic of what he has just said.

§ Mr. Hain
With respect, that is not the logic of what I have just said. I was asked how a grievance could be redressed, and the answer is that that could be done through the constituent's representative and, ultimately, by representations to Parliament. That is exactly what happens at present. If the Welsh Office operated in such a fashion over agreements on cross-border areas with Welsh Water or some other body, representations could be made in the House. That is the current procedure.

§ Mr. Evans
Under current arrangements, problems can be raised in Parliament with the Secretary of State. After devolution, that responsibility will move to the assembly, 642 and it will be a waste of time for people in England to put questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, because he will not have the power to deal with them.

§ Mr. Hain
I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not raising this matter mischievously. Let us assume that a constituent in Herefordshire or Shropshire found that a river was encroaching on his land and that it contained effluent that was the responsibility of Welsh Water or some other authority. He could raise the issue with his elected Member, who could take it to the appropriate Minister. That Minister could make representations to the assembly in the same way as happens with the Welsh Office at present.

§ Mr. Öpik
Surely the situation is hardly new, and does not require a great deal of thought to resolve. If there is an issue over the service that is provided by, say, Shrewsbury hospital to one of my constituents who lives in a different health authority area, it would be resolved by discussion. The Minister will agree that Conservative Members are putting up a paper tiger. We shall not be debating in the House the problems of a constituent who is not getting health provision from that hospital. Conservative Members are making something out of nothing.

§ Mr. Hain
The hon. Gentleman puts the matter extremely well, and with his usual eloquence. It is a phantom issue.

§ Mr. Paterson
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Hain
I shall do so shortly. I do not mind spending time crawling all over this issue. It uses up Opposition time, and that is a matter for them.
I should draw to the attention of the House another mechanism for redress. The Government will table an amendment to provide a Welsh ombudsman who will deal with complaints, if that is the route that a citizen wishes to take, about any of the assembly's functions. I was asked how issues could be raised in Parliament and I have answered that.

§ Mr. Paterson
The Minister is being grossly complacent about the matter. I have a case at present over a school in my constituency that may be damaged by the change in policy of a Welsh education authority. I can raise that matter in the House, but when the Bill becomes law I shall not be able to do that.

§ Mr. Hain
Again, that is based on ignorance about the consequences of devolution. The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise in questions to the English Minister with responsibility for education any matters that affect the hon. Gentleman's education authority; indeed, he will be able to raise with any other Minister any matters that affect his local constituency. If he asks the Minister to make representations directly to the Welsh assembly on a practical matter, that would be as easily resolvable as it is at present. This is a complete non-issue.

§ Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)
As I represent the English constituency with the longest border with Wales, I have had to deal with several cross-border issues, particularly in relation to Welsh Water and other attitudes across the Brecon Beacons. I and, I believe, the people of Herefordshire have no problem at all with the concept of a 643 devolved assembly in Wales. The suggestion of Her Majesty's official Opposition that that might cause a problem is ridiculous. If there were a problem with the water authority, I should take it up with Welsh Water. In the same way, if there were a problem with a cross-border issue based in England, I should expect a Welsh Member to take it up with the authority in England. We are hearing claptrap from the official Opposition.

§ Mr. Hain
That was an extremely helpful intervention. The hon. Gentleman explained the position exactly. Whereas Conservative Members have suddenly become completely neutered and impotent politically as a result of devolution, the hon. Gentleman—perhaps it explains why he beat the Conservatives in Herefordshire—is able adequately to represent his constituents on those practical matters. Perhaps Conservative Members could take some lessons from him.

§ Mr. Ancram
May I ask the Minister another simple question? He has said that my hon. Friends could raise a matter of the type that has been described with the English Minister with responsibility for education, although it was within the competence of the Welsh assembly, and that that Minister could raise it with the Welsh assembly Secretary. Is the Minister aware that, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Speaker ruled, I think in the 1930s, that such questioning was incompetent? Is he giving us an assurance that that ruling will not apply in this case?

§ Mr. Hain
I am giving the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in the case of a practical issue of representation that was raised in the House, of course any Minister will be able to make representations to the Welsh assembly or even perhaps through the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not see any problem with that. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says at all. As I say, if there were a grievance that needed to be pursued, the Welsh ombudsman could do so.
"Wales" is defined in legislation as the areas of the counties created by the Local Government Act 1972. That includes any part of the sea shore to the low water mark. In Acts of Parliament, Wales does not include any part of the sea, yet my the Secretary of State for Wales exercises various environmental and fishery functions around the coast of Wales in what are UK territorial waters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) will confirm, a recent example was the restrictions on fishing that were put in place following the Sea Empress disaster. Those restrictions were imposed by the Secretary of State even though Wales does not include the sea in which that pollution took place—precisely because of those provisions. We are talking about practical matters here, not those great constitutional phantoms that have been raised by Conservative Members.
Amendment No. 218 would deny the assembly functions that have long been administered by the Welsh Office.

§ Mr. Ancram
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Hain
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) shakes his head, but that is a fact. It has caused no problems and devolution will not cause any problems in future. The Bill rightly allows for the possibility that functions such as those could be transferred to the assembly.
644 Moreover, why the official Opposition should want to prevent the assembly from being responsible for the Welsh language and culture is beyond me. I point out that one effect of amendments Nos. 218 and 222—perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will seek to justify this, if they are aware of it—is to rule out the possibility that the assembly might give support to Welsh language bodies that operate outside Wales. An example is Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain—the Welsh school in London. Of course I am not promising that the assembly will support such bodies—that would be a matter for the assembly—but the amendments would not even allow it the choice, and that is not a serious option.
The Bill contains appropriate mechanisms to reflect the fact that, while the assembly may be given functions in parts of England, it will not be elected by the people who live there. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised that point.
I emphasise that Parliament has to approve the transfer order before it can take effect. Elected representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom—including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and others who have intervened in my speech—will be able to have their say on the transfer order in respect of cross-border functions.
The Government also accept that it is important for the necessary accountability arrangements to exist in the House in the limited cases where the assembly is exercising functions in parts of England. That is why clause 43(5) ensures that, where the assembly makes secondary legislation that applies to parts of England—various regulations such as those that I have described—it will continue to be subject to parliamentary procedures. I have answered that point adequately, although those on the Opposition Front Bench do not appear to recognise that.
11.30 pm
Clause 23(8) further provides that, in relation to any assembly functions in the cross-border area, which may include secondary legislation and matters such as determinations or directions, the transfer order can require that the assembly should consult or obtain the agreement of a United Kingdom Minister before it exercises the function. The transfer order will in due course set out our proposals for the use of the power.
I should like to take the opportunity to tell the House that we are looking further at the wording of clause 23, partly in the light of some of the amendments that were also tabled in Committee. It may be that some technical adjustments to clause 23 will need to be made in another place. If so, we shall table them in Committee in another place. Any such amendments will not enable the transfer order to give the assembly more functions in England than would have been possible under clause 23 as drafted, and we shall maintain the mechanisms that are already in the Bill with respect to the assembly's exercise of functions in England.

§ Mr. Ancram
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who dismissed my earlier point with some disdain. I do not have the precise quotations from Hansard, as I have not had a chance to get them, but I can refer to the Library research paper, which is normally very accurate. It states: The question of non-discussion of Northern Ireland affairs at Westminster finally changed with a Speaker's ruling in 1923 that questions on matters delegated to Stormont must be addressed to Northern Ireland ministers, not United Kingdom Ministers in the House of Commons at Westminster. The Speaker rejected any link 645 between the fact that Northern Ireland continued to send members to Westminster, and the ability of the Commons to discuss devolved matters. Even before then, the Speaker had said that, as Parliament has legislated for Northern Ireland devolution, 'it is quite impossible for us to have questions and answers on a subject for which Ministers on this Bench do not hold responsibility. I cannot say more than that.' That ruling remains valid. It would preclude what the Minister has told us would be available to my hon. Friends, and, unless he can say that the ruling has changed, he should withdraw his remarks.

§ Mr. Hain
I am not disputing what the right hon. Gentleman has read out quite properly in relation to Northern Ireland. However, I am not aware of any cross-border areas that England has with Northern Ireland. It is entirely different, and the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Northern Ireland Minister, must surely know that.
The points that have been raised by hon. Members, quite legitimately, relate to issues that might affect their constituencies in England. For example, they are entitled to raise issues in relation to the local education authority with an education Minister in England. If the Education Minister in England felt that some transfer order—although I cannot conceive of one in relation to education—was not operating properly, clearly the body that passed that transfer order should clarify it.

§ Mr. Letwin
Has the Minister consulted the Chair about whether that ruling would apply in this case? Secondly, when he returns to the Department, he will find that there are primary schools in Herefordshire which are covered by Welsh education authorities. I would be interested to know—

§ Mr. Keetch
Name one.

§ Mr. Letwin
I have the details, and I shall provide them in a letter to the hon. Gentleman.
If the Minister finds that that is true, will he assure the House that an English Member of Parliament will nevertheless be able to take the case of such a school, in Parliament, before an English Education Minister and have that Minister answer a question about the school?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Before we get into deep waters and start discussing the Speaker's ruling, it should be remembered that the Chair will make no ruling on those matters until the final legislation is decided on. The House should therefore not discuss whether the Speaker has been consulted.

§ Mr. Hain
As I have said before, I am aware of cross-border pupils—in both directions—but I am not aware of any cross-border schools. I have had advice to confirm that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is scampering off to find evidence to back what he has said, I shall look at it with great interest. I am the Education Minister for Wales, among other functions, and I am not aware of having any responsibility for schools in Herefordshire.

§ Mr. Leigh
Is it a fair summation to say that an English Member aggrieved in this way will be able to make informal representations to a Minister of the Crown, who 646 in turn will be able to make informal representations to the assembly; but that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will not be able to ask formal questions on the Floor of the House? That is our point; the Minister has not answered it.

§ Mr. Hain
We really are making a mountain out of a molehill. I am quite happy to keep demolishing those mountains, although it is a waste of time. If the hon. Gentleman is a Member for a constituency along the Welsh border, and an issue arises that affects his English constituency, he is entitled to raise it with the relevant English Minister. The Minister then decides what is within his power, and what representations he can make.

§ Mr. Keetch
I look forward to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) finding a Herefordshire school that is administered by Wales. I hope that he is not falling into that trap simply because some parts of Wales have Herefordshire postal addresses. For instance, Hay-on-Wye, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), is in Wales but has a Herefordshire postal address.
Many people in Herefordshire, before the election, faced the problem that my predecessor, a Conservative, was continually told by the previous Government that the problems he raised were for quangos to answer. Ministers hid behind that answer. Are Opposition Front Benchers now suggesting that the same will happen with the Welsh assembly, which will be an elected assembly, not an appointed quango?

§ Mr. Hain
The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. We are getting rid of a lot of quangos and subjecting the remaining ones to democratic accountability through the National Assembly for Wales.
The Welsh Office has responsibility for Welsh coastal waters, and for certain matters in parts of England, because natural watersheds do not follow the national boundary.

§ Mr.Paterson
rose—

§ Mr. Hain
I shall not give way again.
The Opposition amendments would prevent the assembly from inheriting those functions, and they disregard the sensible protection of interests in England, as well as in Wales, that the Government have included in the Bill. That is why I cannot accept the amendment, and would urge its withdrawal.

§ Mr. Hayes
These amendments touch again on democratic legitimacy based on proper consent. The Minister has signally failed to deal with that issue this evening. Consent must be sought before it is given, and if it is not sought from the English people who are affected—which, clearly, it cannot be in the case of the Welsh assembly—it cannot be given. The Welsh assembly will therefore act with political authority where it has no legitimacy because it has neither sought nor been given consent.

§ Mr. Öpik
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Hayes
I shall give way, because I am interested to hear a little more from "The Observer Book of Political Theory".

§ Mr. Öpik
I have not yet published such a book, but the hon. Gentleman will get a signed copy as soon as I do.
647 In his constituency work, has the hon. Gentleman ever sought to acquire a health service on behalf of one of his constituents in a health authority area that does not cover his constituency? If so, how does he justify his action, given that it had no democratic legitimacy whatever?

§ Mr. Hayes
I am torn between pity and contempt for the hon. Gentleman. The democratic legitimacy of this House is shared by all its Members in respect of areas over which the House has jurisdiction.
The Minister dealt with the Executive functions of the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, we are discussing the transfer of legislative power and political competence, which is not equivalent to Executive power as exercised by that Department.

§ Mr. Hain
I am sorry that I have to waste the House's time by repeating what I have been saying over the past half an hour. Those functions are exercisable on behalf of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, for example, only because of the authority of this House in the first place. This House would not have given that authority if it felt that its Members' interests, or their constituents' interests, were being jeopardised.

§ Mr. Hayes
The House's authority, transferred to the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, does not prevent representatives of constituencies that might be affected from taking up those issues in this House. The difficulty that arises from the Bill is not insignificant—indeed, constitutionally it is fundamental. I accept that it is a point of detail and that the number of occasions on which it occurred would be relatively small, but it covers a variety of matters such as highways, education and water, with which the Minister dealt at length. Education is probably the most worrying of those, for reasons that were given earlier in the debate.
The nub of this issue is this: what would happen if one of those issues arose and hon. Members could not make proper representations to the authority with political competence? The sort of informal representations that they could make to the Welsh assembly would be of no more import than those that might be made by an outside body of laymen. They could make no proper political representations in the sense in which the House understands them.

§ Mr. Grieve
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of representation but of accountability? The Minister does not appear to have heard of matters like the Crichel Down affair, where ultimately Ministers were held to account for the activities of their Department. In the case of the assembly, does my hon. Friend agree that the point about the cross-border authorities is that there will be no means of holding the assembly to account in this House?

§ Mr. Hayes
Formal representations such as the type to which I am referring can properly be made only to the authority that has the power to deal with them. If responsibility for those affairs were with the House of Commons, formal representations could be made to the House to deal with specific problems. However, that is not the case. Political competence is being transferred. 648 The failure to acknowledge the transfer of political competence and its repercussions for cases in English constituencies that border Wales lies at the heart of the Minister's misunderstanding of the amendments' significance.

§ Mr. Keetch
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Hayes
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman as he is one of the more intelligent Liberal Democrats.

§ Mr. Keetch
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he care to give way to his hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who referred to a Herefordshire school that is allegedly administered by a Welsh local education authority?

§ Mr. Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is generous not only to my hon. Friend but to the House in giving my hon. Friend that opportunity. When he has his notes in order, I shall consider giving way to him, but I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) wants to intervene.

§ Mr. Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend.
The Minister seems to be being wilfully obtuse. I am currently dealing with a case in which a Welsh education authority may be changing its policy in a way that will prevent 120 children from going to a Shropshire school. Today, I can bring that up in the House; in future—[Interruption.] The children live in Wales. It is a Welsh policy, which I cannot bring up with an English Education Minister. In future—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions must be brief.

§ Mr. Hayes
I bow to my hon. Friend's intervention, in the sense that he has practical experience of the issues of which we speak. I was speaking from the perspective of someone concerned about the constitutional implications. Because my constituency does not border Wales, I have no particular casework experiences, but various hon. Members clearly have experiences of real, live issues that will be difficult to resolve because of the problems with which the amendments seek to deal.

§ Mr. Hain
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that it is Conservative Members who are dragging the debate out and repeating themselves so that they can subsequently claim that there has not been enough time to discuss other issues?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No hon. Member is dragging anything out. If any hon. Member did so, I would call him to order. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Hayes
I must say to the Minister—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down while I am on my feet.
649 I must tell the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that there should be no conversation in the Chamber when an hon. Member is addressing it.

§ Mr. Hayes
Again, I am extremely grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Along with you, I admonish my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) following the discourtesy that he has shown not only to the House, but to me personally. I shall expect proper recompense in due course.
Because I do not want to lend any credence to the Minister's bogus claim about drawing the debate out, let me make myself clear in one paragraph. The simple fact is that this is not just a question of the exercise of executive authority; it is a question of legislative power and responsibility. Inevitably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said, responsibility and accountability should accompany the power to make decisions. Because political competence is being transferred—political competence that affects areas of England, not just areas of Wales—the amendments are essential if we are to avoid a considerable constitutional imbalance. I think that is a moderate way of describing it.
Amendment No 222 would legitimise matters by providing that the assembly should not exercise any function or enjoy any power in any part of England." That amendment is appropriate and necessary in bringing back to constitutional equilibrium what I think is a considerable mess that the Minister has done little to clear up tonight.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I hope that I can briefly introduce some clarity to the debate, which I am afraid neither the Minister nor his Liberal Democrat associate succeeded in doing. Let me deal initially with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, this is a matter of accountability. The hon. Gentleman gets satisfaction when dealing with local authorities or health authorities outside his constituency, because they are answerable for policies set down by United Kingdom Ministers who are answerable to the House. So when he tables a question in the House, whichever Minister he addresses it to, it will eventually be transferred to the Minister with executive responsibility for the health or education policy concerned. That is why the system of accountability works.

§ Mr. Öpik
Even so, it would still be possible for reasonable people to carry on operating in exactly the same way. Is the balance not between a pedantic terror and the common-sense world in which the rest of us live?

§ Mr. Jenkin
When the hon. Gentleman has been a little longer in the House, he will realise that the problems of accountability arise most acutely when people are being obstructive and denying responsibility for events. Ministers do that, and so do local authorities and health authorities—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. As the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House quite a long time, I should like him to face the Chair, and address the Chair.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
650 I want the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to consider what happens when the system of accountability goes wrong. It is when people are denying responsibility and trying to obstruct accountability that difficulties arise.
It is not disputed that there will be occasions when people living in English constituencies will have grievances against the policies being pursued by the Welsh assembly. That is what the problem of cross-border areas is all about. The Minister said that an English Member of Parliament could represent an English constituent with a grievance against the Welsh assembly by tabling a question to an English Minister in the United Kingdom Parliament. The problem is that United Kingdom Ministers will no longer have executive responsibility for the activities of the Welsh assembly, so the question would be out of order.
However, the section on "Order of Business" in "Erskine May" contains, under the heading "Rules of order regarding form and contents of questions", a paragraph on "Ministerial Responsibility", on page 298, which runs as follows "Questions to Ministers must relate to matters for which those Ministers are officially responsible. They may be asked for statements of their policy or intentions on such matters, or for administrative or legislative action. Sub-paragraph (3), on the next page, adds: It is not in order in a question to ask for action to deal with matters under the control of local or other statutory authorities". So the exact scenario that the Minister offered us—the idea that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) could table a question to an English Education Minister about a Welsh education policy—is false. He could not, because such a question would be out of order.
I raised the issue with Madam Speaker on 21 January, on a point of order relating to the Scotland Bill, and I referred to the ruling cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in reading out the extract from the Library briefing. I asked Madam Speaker whether she agreed that the ruling made in 1923 was unreasonable. However, she said that she was not in a position to change that ruling.
The position is therefore precisely the opposite of that which the Minister described to the House a few moments ago. There is no system for making the Welsh assembly accountable in response to questions tabled in this Parliament by English Members. That is the problem with cross-border areas. It is a matter of accountability, and what the Minister says simply will not wash.