§ Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 6, line 18, after ("body") insert
§ ("or giving a direction under subsection (5)")
§ Miss Melanie JohnsonI beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14, 17, 18, 23 and 26.
§ Miss JohnsonThe amendments all relate to provisions regarding the devolved Administrations. Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 18, 23 and 26 all relate to the Welsh Assembly. Nos. 11, 12 and 18 introduce requirements for consultation in areas where the Assembly has an interest. No. 13 will allow the Assembly to amend the Government of Wales Act 1998 to introduce resource budgeting. Nos. 23 and 26 amend the Act to bring its accounting provisions in line with the provisions of the Bill. In particular, the amendments will enable the Assembly to prepare whole of government of Wales accounts.
Lords amendment No. 14 is a new clause, providing for the devolved Administrations to invest in Partnerships UK, and No. 17 is a minor change consequent on the new clause.
§ Mr. LetwinThe Economic Secretary has passed fairly rapidly over the amendments. We do not intend to press the matter to a vote, but the House needs some explanation of the considerable changes that the amendments introduce, the largest and most important of which is the Henry VIII power given to the Secretary of State under Lords amendment No. 13. The amendment says:
If it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in consequence of any of the matters specified in subsection (2), he may by order amend, repeal or make provision similar to any of the following provisions of the Government of Wales Act.Time was when Henry VIII provisions allowing the repeal or alteration of Government-inspired primary legislation were unheard of. Then, sadly—I admit the joint responsibility of Governments of all parties—the phenomenon became known. Then we descended to the level at which it was so much known that it was 860 almost frequent. Then, under the aegis of the present Government, with their overwhelming control of the House, that which was frequent began to become regular.Many of us inveighed against that and made a practice of drawing the attention of the House to each and every Henry VIII provision that was introduced. At least even then, until tonight, when such provisions were made, a careful explanation was given. Here, I fear that we face the final nadir, with Parliament being superseded by what is virtually Executive action—an order—and the Economic Secretary not even making a nod towards the fact. I do not accuse her of any especial malfeasance, as she is merely following the trend of her ministerial colleagues in getting to the point at which the making and unmaking of primary legislation by administrative order is regarded as a matter of such course that it hardly need be mentioned.
That should never be a matter of course, however, and it cannot be regarded as such, especially on a night when the Government have used their overwhelming majority to attempt to overturn the Lords in their defence of Parliament. What an irony that, on such a night, following such a vote, the Economic Secretary should not even bother to bring to the attention of those few hon. Members remaining in the House that what they are about to accept—may the Lord make us truly thankful—is a Lords amendment under which Parliament is to be superseded by an administrative order. I hope at least that I have said enough to taunt the Economic Secretary into giving some explanation of why it needs to be done in that way.
I return to the other elements of the amendments. Amendment No. 12 is interesting, not least because it says that
(a) the Treasury shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Auditor General for Wales before making an order in respect of the body.We see another example of the Treasury acting after mere consultation. I wonder whether the Economic Secretary could tell the House why it is that the Treasury is left with the discretion in the amendment in the first place. I assume she believes devolution to be an important step, so why does not the National Assembly for Wales and the Auditor General for Wales have the right or the power positively to prevent the Treasury from making an order if they do not regard that order as in any way appropriate?We are dealing with the intersection of complex UK legislation, which is designed primarily for England and Wales, with the devolution process. Many people in the House of Commons and in the other place have a great interest in that intersection. We would like some explanation of whether the Economic Secretary believes that we have now reached the end of the road and finally clarified the relationship between the Treasury and the Assembly and its organs, or whether we will see a further chain of needed amendments and changes to capture that relationship in its proper form.
The Auditor General for Wales is after all a new creature, who was created by a Bill in which it was discovered inter alia that, in its original draft, the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999, under which the Secretary of State transferred his powers to the National Assembly for Wales, transferred power over the Brompton cemetery in London to the National Assembly. That was the care with which that order was originally designed. That is no reflection on the 861 extraordinary labours of those who put together—[Interruption.] I do not jest. My hon. Friends question my sanity in raising that issue, but I am not jesting. I am telling the literal truth. A reference to Hansard for the debates that concerned the Government of Wales Bill will show that.
The fact is that the officials who laboured mightily to produce the relevant legislation, the devolution legislation, were operating under time constraints which made even the time constraints under which those who produced the Government Resources and Accounts Bill worked seem leisurely. Therefore, it was no surprise that grave mistakes were made. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) regards my categorisation of the Brompton cemetery as a grave mistake in itself, but I assure him that it was an entirely unintentional pun, which until his lightning eye ascended on it had escaped me. The mistakes that were made were graver than the grave. They concerned the whole structure of that lamentable piece of legislation.
The serious point in the context of this Bill is that we do not know what the real position of the Auditor General for Wales will be and how that Auditor General will relate to the CAG and to the NAO, and hence to this Parliament and to that Parliament. I trust that the Economic Secretary will give us a full explanation of how she sees those relationships being articulated following the undoubted acceptance of the Lords amendment and whether, as I say, having accepted the amendment, we have genuinely reached the end of a rather tortuous road in constructing that financial relationship.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)I am not quite sure whether I should declare an interest as a member of the Audit Committee in the National Assembly. In case I need to, I do so.
I am glad on this occasion to rise in support of the Government, although obviously the measure does not go as far as I would want to in this matter, as in so many others. I assure those on the Conservative Front Bench that it is a process, not an event. The process no doubt will go on. I point out to them only that, in the context of these amendments, I have no doubt that their colleagues, the Conservative party of Wales, as it now calls itself, will support the provisions. I am sure that that will be an indicator of the growing divergence between the two parties.
§ Mr. LetwinThe right hon. Gentleman's presence on the Audit Committee gives us some cause for confidence. Let me add that one reason why we shall not oppose the amendment is that we understand that our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly support it.
§ Mr. WigleyI am glad to hear it. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Assembly no longer regard the father Act as lamentable either; but perhaps we should not pursue that.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Auditor General for Wales was a new creature. Sir John Bourne is not a new creature, although he may be experiencing a new 862 incarnation—an incarnation that he is rather enjoying. To his surprise, he secured not a fraction of the budget for which he had asked, not almost the whole of it, but the entirety. I do not think that he has ever received such a welcome as the welcome he received when he took his role in the Assembly.
The audit function in the Assembly has got off to a very good start, which I think justifies the transfer of powers that we are discussing.
§ Mr. LetwinDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that the relationship between a person in one incarnation and a person in another, whether or not they are two creatures, has proved problematic in a number of instances—not least in the case of the utility regulators? Does he also agree that it may well prove difficult for the CAG to reoccur, so to speak, as the Auditor General for Wales without some conflict arising between the two roles?
§ Mr. WigleyTheoretically that is a possibility, but I think that the advantages of having Sir John Bourne in the job for an initial period far outweigh the disadvantages, and that we have got off to a good start—largely through drawing on Sir John's experience and that of his staff.
People who have appeared before the Audit Committee—for example, to give evidence about the National Museum for Wales—have said that they never want to be put in the same position again. That is a good omen, because it means that people will sort things out themselves rather than having to be whistled up. Whatever may have happened in Wales in the past, there are indications that we shall run a tight ship in future.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) mentioned the Henry VIII aspects of Lords amendment No. 13. In fact, the Henry VIII powers—for which the Government of Wales Act 1998 provides precedents—are not given to the Welsh Assembly. The orders would come from the Secretary of State, and the powers can be used only when
a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.It is clear that the slippery slope to devolution is not severely compromised by this small concession.Orders relating to sections 85 and 86 of the 1998 Act must be approved by the Assembly. That is right and proper, because such orders would concern devolved matters.
There has been all-party agreement in the Assembly and with Edwina Hart, the Finance Secretary, on the programme that we are to follow. That, too, is right and proper.
I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. The first relates to the change in the timetable, and the establishment of a 30 November deadline. Although that allows for another couple of months, it may still be a tight deadline.
What would happen if accounts relating to the government of Wales turned out to be qualified accounts? I assume that such qualification is an option; if it is, what consequences would there be?
I wonder whether the proposed new provision is flexible enough. New bodies are coming into existence in Wales as a consequence of devolution. I hope we would 863 not need to resort to primary legislation if we needed to amend them along the lines of what is suggested in proposed new section 18C of the 1998 Act.
As I said, the audit function is vital to the National Assembly, and it needs to be open, transparent and respected across Wales. I believe that the powers that are being transferred will be helpful in achieving that end. For that reason, I shall support Lords amendment No. 11.
§ Miss Melanie JohnsonLords amendment No. 13 substitutes a new clause 15 and, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has just said, empowers the Secretary of State—in practice, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—to make changes to sections 81, 85 and 86 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 in consequence of the United Kingdom Government's budget and accounts changing from a cash basis to a resource basis. The intention is that the National Assembly's budget and accounts will move at the same time to a resource basis.
The power will enable the Secretary of State to make appropriate changes to those provisions in the 1998 Act to ensure that the National Assembly's budgetary processes can be changed to a resource basis. As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the power is exercisable by order and will be made by a statutory instrument. Before the Secretary of State can exercise that power, he will have to consult the National Assembly in so far as he is changing section 81, which provides for the Secretary of State to make to the Assembly a statement of his estimated payments for each financial year.
As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon also said, the Secretary of State will then be required to obtain the Assembly's agreement before he can change sections 85 and 86. Those sections deal retrospectively with expenditure by the National Assembly and its statement of proposed expenditure for each financial year.
Additionally, and to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny of that power is maintained, the Secretary of State will be required to lay a draft of any order before both Houses of Parliament for their approval. In our view, it is a necessary power. Its limits have been clearly defined, and it is subject to a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny and National Assembly involvement, as is right and proper.
§ Mr. LetwinThe Economic Secretary said that the process will be subject to a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny. Will she therefore guarantee to the House that time will be found by the Leader of the House for a proper debate—shall we say three hours—of resolutions of that variety, so that there is a genuine high degree of parliamentary scrutiny on the Floor of the House? Or does the Economic Secretary simply mean that such resolutions will go through the normal process, on the nod, with 90 minutes in Committee?
§ Miss JohnsonThey will go through the normal processes. As I understand normal processes, they occur mostly in Committee. I am distressed to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is such a trivial form of scrutiny, particularly as he spends so much time in 864 Committee scrutinising various matters. I cannot believe that he really subscribes to the view that such scrutiny is a meaningless part of the parliamentary process.
§ Mr. LetwinThe Economic Secretary is being very courteous in giving way. Is she seriously seeking to persuade the House that the phrase "a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny" is satisfied by cursory examination of such matters, very often with barely anyone present who understands the history of the matter or cares much about the outcome? Does she realise that, whatever the high-flown phrases, that is the reality? Cannot she recognise that some of us are concerned about changing primary legislation by those means when we have so carefully established the system that we have used with this Bill, which goes from Second Reading to consideration of Lords Amendments? Is not that system worth replicating when we are changing the law?
§ Miss JohnsonI have never found the hon. Gentleman taking any of these matters trivially when he deals with them in Committee. In the past year, I have attended and participated in various debates on similar matters. I have always found that, when it was a matter of some significance, hon. Members took their responsibilities very seriously and pursued their interests very vigorously, albeit the process occurred in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. I am sure that they will do so in connection with this provision.
I have already set out the safeguards that exist, which involve discussions with the National Assembly. The agreement of the Assembly at key points is an additional factor, as it clearly has a direct interest in these matters.
The amendment on consultation was tabled with the agreement of the National Assembly of Wales and the Auditor General. They were satisfied with it, and the Bill sets out the relationship between the Treasury and the Assembly on accounting matters only.
The hon. Member for West Dorset asked about the role of the Auditor General for Wales. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon gave a thorough answer to that question in his speech. The role of the Auditor General for Wales is set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998. I was delighted to hear about the support that the Welsh Assembly has given to the work of the Auditor General for Wales, and about the way in which it is conducting its affairs.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon asked about the revised timetable for the accounts, which is agreed by the National Assembly and the Auditor General for Wales. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Assembly's accounts could be qualified by the Auditor General for Wales, and it would be for the Assembly to decide what consequences should flow from the qualification.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon asked whether the new bodies would also be covered. I do not have an answer to hand, but I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
§ Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 15 agreed to [Special Entry].