Found: Lord Lexden; Lord McInnes of Kilwinning; Baroness O’Loan; Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick; Lord Thomas of Gresford

Found: Lord Lexden; Lord McInnes of Kilwinning; Baroness O’Loan; Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick; Lord Thomas of Gresford

<p>Yes. Again, I'm very grateful to the Counsel General for the tone and her general approach to this matter. I was wondering, building on Alun Davies's question, whether at least the conversation could be had to see if we can't do everything in the context of this Bill, whether we could do something. I'm very conscious of the fact that, Counsel General, you will not be in this post beyond this election, and sometimes you've got to seize the opportunities when they present themselves.</p>
<p>Other legislatures, well, clearly in the context of—I should give him his proper title, sorry—Lord Thomas of Gresford—. There's a plethora of Lord Thomases, of course, and I think Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has spoken in the Committee Stage debate and was supportive, I think, of this particular provision. Many of those who contributed said that so much in Westminster operates by—. Correction slips have developed by convention. There comes a point when conventions, really, only can get used so far, and we need to create a modern, fit-for-the-twenty-first-century, digital, if possible, process of correction that doesn't require you to have to revoke, amend or bring something back all the time for all the reasons where there is clearly common ground. It would be still, I think, very useful, notwithstanding the elements within the wider context that we don't have complete control over, to see whether some version of this amendment could be brought forward at Stage&nbsp;3.</p>
<p>I will move the amendment. I should point out that I think this particular amendment did have, I believe, frontbench Conservative support in the House of Lords. On that basis, I'd like to move the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the productive, constructive discussions with the Counsel General at a later stage.</p>

<p>Thank you very much, Chair. It is a great pleasure for me to move the first amendment in this first group before us today. Just at the outset, I would like to echo the comments that we made during the debate on the general principles of the Bill, in that we support the objectives of this Bill in general terms. The steps that improve the accessibility of Welsh legislation are very valuable, and we agree with those fundamental principles.</p>
<p>But there are some areas where we want to see the Bill being refined, and one of those is this question of how to improve the process of scrutiny on subordinate legislation. It's a theme that we in this committee have expressed some concerns about, with regard to the tendency, in general terms—it's not just, to be fair, in this Senedd, but it's a tendency that we see across the democratic world—for governments to be increasingly dependent on subordinate legislation to meet their policy intentions. A vacuum has opened up in terms of democratic accountability as a result of that, and what we are seeking to do in this amendment, and the amendments in the next group that I will be referring to in due course, is to come up with a solution to this challenge before us that&nbsp;strikes a balance between the need for any government to ensure that its legislative programme and policy intentions are delivered and the need to have democratic accountability that is effective.</p>
<p>The fundamental problem is that, currently, with subordinate legislation, the opportunity that is provided to the Senedd is binary, isn't it? It's, 'Take it or leave it', and that doesn't leave room for that conditional or nuanced support to be reflected in the decisions made by the Senedd. So, what we are doing in this amendment is proposing a third option, namely for the Senedd to ask the government to think again. It's often described as the 'think again' option, and what we're doing in this amendment, truth be told, is reflecting or transposing a similar clause in a Bill that is currently before the House of Lords, namely the Statutory Instruments (Amendments) Bill by Lord Thomas of Gresford, which seeks to do the same thing in their context. Of course, they're doing it in a bicameral context, so sending a message to the House of Commons; in our context, it's sending a message to the Government, asking the Government to think again on the basis of an amendment that expresses a specific concern held by the Senedd.</p>
<p>The amendment would, therefore, allow the Senedd to approve an instrument subject to amendments that would be specified in the decision, and, after that, the Government could decide whether to make the instrument as amended or to withdraw the draft. That still ensures that it's the Government that continues to be the responsible authority that exercises the delegated power to make the legislation. So, it reflects the nature of the constitutional system, if you will. It also prevents the Senedd from compelling the responsible authority to make an instrument that is beyond the enabling powers or that does not work for some other reason. So, simply put, it enables the Senedd to reflect the view of the Senedd, to ask the Government to think again, and to consider bringing forward an amended instrument.</p>
<p>Another thing to note is that this procedure would apply to Welsh statutory instruments alone. So, the proposed processes in this amendment will not apply to joint or composite statutory instruments or to Orders in Council, which will continue to be tabled as 'statutory instruments' rather than 'Welsh statutory instruments'. And with those few opening comments, Chair, I'll let other Members express their views, and the Minister to speak, before I respond further.</p>