91Èȱ¬

Jeremy Clarkson relies on "The Stig", an anonymous helping hand who at top speeds guides guests through the complex and unfamiliar territory and chicanes of the racing track. I rely on "The Constitutional Stig" who guides me through ... you're there ahead of me.

He doesn't wear a helmet. He doesn't drive fast but he is required, on days like today, to think fast.

What are the implications of the conclusions to which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has come? This is what I've gathered.

It's extremely rare for the JCSI to report in this way, in other words to express its concerns so strongly.

Its members do not say you can't do it. They have no right to say you can't do it but they have the right to say that if you do it, then in our view you are in danger of approving an Order that would not be lawful.

Why might it not be lawful?

The problem according to them is the so-called veto, the compromise, the agreement - call it what you will; the bit stuck in to get around MPs' objections to the Assembly having the power to abolish the right to buy. What it does is create a situation where Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State must first to agree to the Assembly as an institution having that power before it can be used. Instead of power being transferred from one institution to another - lock, stock via an LCO - the Ministers and Secretary of State of the day pop up and play a crucial role.

The Committee doesn't think they have the right to do that.

It believes that part of the Order - sensible compromise or not - is outside the powers of the Government Of Wales Act 2006. It might get around the Welsh Affairs Select Committee's objections to transferring the powers but the Committee's reading is that it's unlawful.

The options: the Assembly Government and the Wales Office forge ahead. The Order is whipped through the House of Commons. How keen, however, would the Lords be to ... well ... vote in favour of an Order that half a dozen of their own number have expressed serious doubts as to its legality?

Could there be a legal challenge, a judicial review? Is there a whiff of a challenge coming for the Liberal Democrats, who claim that "if the Labour government presses ahead with this Order as it is currently drafted then it could raise serious legal questions and bring the whole devolution process into disrepute"?

The Wales Office and Assembly Government could backtrack, return to Go, collect £200 in legal bills and redraft. The Assembly has already approved the Order, so there would be quite some unravelling to do.

Backtracking? No way comes the response. Jointly the Wales Office and Welsh Assembly Government put it like this:

"Both the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government have noted the conclusions of the JCSI, but we are confident that the Order we have agreed, and which was approved in the National Assembly for Wales, is legal under the Government of Wales Act. We therefore intend to proceed with the Order."

Or as the Counsel General, Carwyn Jones put it in the chamber: "the JCSI doesn't have a veto of any kind over the way in which an LCO does proceed in the future. Certainly, we are confident that there is no difficulty in terms of the vires of the LCO with regard to any future devolution of power."

In other words, bring it on.

Impenetrable stuff? Almost.

Insignificant? Certainly not.

A switch-off and suitable only for anoraks? Perhaps but then sometimes, that's what blogs are for.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?