Talk:National Assembly for Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Assembly for Wales article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Politics Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

I wish that before changing the Welsh name of the Assembly people would actually make sure that what was there before was wrong (it wasn't... see the Assembly's website).

-- Arwel 23:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Why is the Union flag used here 2 High-end? 3 Something interesting 4 Expansion request 5 Wales and England 6 Senedd v/s Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru 7 Abbreviation 8 Spot the weasel words competition 9 The National Assembly for Wales is not in charge of UK Government depts in Wales 10 Opposition to the Assembly 11 Proportionality 12 Moved things around a bit 13 Map of referendum 14 Welsh civic society 15 Gender Statistics 16 Constituency boundary changes 17 Orders-In-Council and Assembly Measures 18 Suggestion to alter powers and status section 19 2003 election results 20 Bit of a re-write 21 Devolved areas 22 Appropriate external Iinks for NAW wikipedia article 23 Privilege

[edit] Why is the Union flag used here

Surely the Welsh flag is more appropriate in this context Lumos3 09:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the UK flag is used because, as it says in the caption, this article is part of the series Politics of the United Kingdom and the flag is associated with the series and not the Welsh Assembly. If it offends your sensibilities why don't you add a Welsh Flag? --Alun 16:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Politics of the United Kingdom, though, notice -- not Politics in the United Kingdom. I have removed this template for reasons of consistency: it does not figure on the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly pages. The present article needs a PoliticsWales template similar to the PoliticsScotland one. I know... I'm working on it. -- Picapica 10:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't say I'm convinced there is any real distinction between Politics of... and Politics in.... Wales is in the UK, so its politics are politics of the UK (look at how Blair was so desperate to get Alun Michael as First Minister). Anyway, the question was about why the Union flag appeared in an article on Wales (and the answer is that it didn't, it appeared in the Politics of the UK template), not whether Welsh politics are British politics. Personally I think that the politics of all regions of England and other nations in the UK would constitute Politics in the UK, but it is a different question. I think the point about consistency is important though.Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High-end?

The Assembly [...] will have a new, high-end assembly chamber

Can anyone explain what this means exactly? And which end of the chamber will be high? -- Picapica 09:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've often wondered what it meant as well.Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

High budget. They're pouring a ton of money into the building. QuartierLatin1968 16:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something interesting

I have changed some articles that declare the First Minister as " Assembly First Minister" when really he is now "Welsh First Minister". When the Welsh Assembly Government was set-up in 2000, The First Minister declared that him and the Cabinet are separate of the Assembly, but are elected and answerable to the Assembly. This article has noted right by saying "First Minister and his Cabinet comprises of Welsh Assembly Government". Most articles on this Wikipedia are based on the period between 1999 and 2000. I am interested in other people comments about this.

Draig goch20 19:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Officially he's known as the First Minister for Wales. I don't know if this is because of the current obsession the government has with the word "for" (e.g. it's use in the name of government departments, where "of" would once have been used...) or whether it's to avoid implying Wales has its own Prime Minister!

Originally he was known as the First Secretary. The reason for this was allegedly that there aren't separate words for "First" and "Prime" in Welsh, so if the title was "First Minister", this would be "Prime Minister" in Welsh. Now they seem to have changed it to First Minister - I must have missed that as I don't remember reading about it. --JRawle 23:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see ehy they couldn't have used "Prif Weinidog" or "Gweinidog Cyntaf"... "Prif Weinidog" is used to describe both the UK PM and the Welsh FM. -- Arwel 00:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I now see it's actually explained on the First Minister of Wales page. However, I still think it should be "First Minister for Wales". Googling with "for" finds all the official sites, "of" doesn't, so perhaps I'll move the other article. Update: it was on an old version of that page (found via Google) but someone's removed it without giving a reason. I'll reinstate it. --JRawle 19:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Draig goch20, what do you think this means: The First Minister declared that him and the Cabinet are separate of the Assembly.... I can't understand what this is supposed to mean. The assembly has a parliamentary setup, so unless I haven't fully appreciated the subtleties of the system, there is no separation of power between the executive and the assembly (like in the USA, where members of the executive are not members of congress). So members of the executive remain full members of the assembly. So how can they be separate? The first minister was either wrong, or there is something here I have missed. Can anyone explain?Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Presumably he was distinguishing between the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government - the WAG is the First Minister and the other ministers. -- Arwel 17:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

But they are still members of the Assembly, so there is no separation of powers. I mean that the WAG is in and of the Assembly, and so not seperate from it. It is one thing to differentiate between the executive and the legislature, but it is another to claim that the executive is seperate from the legislature.Alun 09:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

What laws does the Welsh Assembly have the power to pass, and has it passed any of signficance? Are they codified somewhere online? -- Beland 23:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The National Assembly only has secondary laws to pass, no primary legislation. Though this might change after 2007. - Draig goch20 14:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wales and England

I think that this statement:
This is largely because, unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, Wales has always had the same legal and administrative system as England.
is not only totally incorrect, but displays ignorance about Welsh history. Wales was only annexed in 1536, but even after that was administered somewhat differently to England in many cases (education for example). This is documented well in A History of Wales by John Davies (ISBN 0140145818). Unfortunately my brother has my copy so I can't check the details. I'm going to modify this.Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've included links to

• Acts of Union 1536-1543
• Acts of Union 1707
• Union With Britain 1806-1922 (Ireland article)

Alun 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of the debating chamber?

[edit] Senedd v/s Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I have heard that at the official opening ceremony the name of the assembly will be translated into Senedd, rather then Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru. Technically the former translates to an independent national Senate on par with with a parliament or congress, and the latter is the technically correct translation for assembly. The Dragon's Eye reports that Queen Elizabeth may refer to it as the Senedd in her speech. Any comments on this?Drachenfyre 19:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Having visited the new building (which is very smart, BTW), it appears that the name Senedd might refer to the building itself, as this name appears in English notices throughout the building (e.g. "Welcome to the Senedd"), while references to the elected members still refer to Assembly in the English notices and Cynulliad in the Welsh. 18:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. The institution is called the Assembly or y Cynulliad depending on language. "y senedd" refers only to the building. They were the Assembly in the old building and continue to be in the new, but only their NEW home in Cardiff Bay is called the senedd. Esquimo 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation

I have changed NAW to NAfW. Google's first reference to the Assembly under NAW is result 9, whereas for NAfW, not only is one of the top results from a local authority (Carmarthenshire County Council), but its first alternative suggested search is "national assembly for wales". More importantly, having worked in both local and central government, as well as with NAfW bodies themselves, the dominant abbreviation in official use is without any doubt NAfW. Didn't come across NAW even once in official documents during that time. 18:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PS, Googlism doesn't throw up the Assembly under NAW, only NAfW.

Shouldn't both be included seeing as naw "national assembly for wales" gets over double the ghits as nafw "national assembly for wales" and I seem to remember seeing both on official documents. Possibly it would be good to find out if there is any official document specifying a preferred acronym, or, indeed, whether any acronym is official.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spot the weasel words competition

Please refrain from using weasel words, if you have a point, use references to back it up. Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.
Many cite the fact that it is majoritively the English taxpayer propping up the Welsh Assembly and paying the salaries of those whom work there.... Another argument cites the Act of Union 1707. This Act states that there shall be one parliament for the United Kingdom. The current Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are contended have the powers of separate parliaments, and are therefore said to be breaking the Act of Union....establishing of the Welsh Assembly is also be viewed(sic) as federalisation, such as in the European Union, which many in the mainly centralised United Kingdom are opposed to. Alun 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The National Assembly for Wales is not in charge of UK Government depts in Wales

Who the hell made this comment? The Assembly has no power over UK Governments depts in Wales. The Assembly only has power over it's own depts. Someone has purposely put the wrong facts in here. The UK Government controls it's own depts in Wales and the Assembly controls it's own under what powers it's got. Seriously, this part of the article surely is wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.221.164 (talk • contribs)

The Welsh Assembly Government has it's own departments people, the department of Environment and Agriculture and the Department of Education and Lifelong Learning and the Department of Health and Social Care, etc. Whoever wrote that the Assembly Government controls the UK Government departments in Wales has got their facts wrong surely, as the UK Government would never hand over responsibility of their own departments to another legislature, that legislature would have to create their own under the Government of Wales Act 1998.

Under the new law, Government of Wales Act 2006, the monarch has a larger role, the Assembly will have Orders-In-Council to pass and each Assembly Government department is in full control of the Welsh Assembly Government, not controlled by the Welsh Assembly on behalf of the UK Government - who would never do that anyway.

Amlder20 14:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this section has been ignored, in order that this information IS factually incorrect, I am going to remove "Responsible for UK Government departments". If anyone wants to object, feel free to leave all your objections at my talk page - thanks. If this is disputed I shall request the page to be locked down until the edit dispute is over.

Amlder20 12:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to the Assembly

This section has remained largely unverified for some time now. I am wondering what purpose it serves to maintain information here that breaches the verifiability policy. The original editor(s) have not seen fit to provide supporting material, and much of it seems to be waffle anyway. Alun 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proportionality

The electoral system used for the assembly does not produce overall proportionality. See Welsh Assembly election, 2003, where Labour got 40% of votes, but 48% of the seats, Plaid got 21% of the vote and 20% of the seats, Tories 19.9% of the vote and 18.3% of the seats, Lib-Dems 14% of votes and 10% of the seats. Labour still takes a lot more seats than it should, a little form Plaid, a little from the Tories and a lot from the Lib-Dems. In a proportional system Labour would have got 24 seats (they got 29), Plaid 13 (12), Tories 12 (11), Lib-Dem 9 (6), UKIP 1 (0). This comes to 59, discrepancies like this are usually overcome depending on the electoral system used. The most proportional systems are Single Transferable Vote (disputed), Open list and of course the AMS if the number of top up seats were larger, especially if they were on a national level, I think a 50:50 chamber would produce proportionality. Alun 06:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The proportionality is across the whole assembly not just the list members. You keep insisting on a phrasing that badly obscures this. AMS can occur in variants where the list members are used to correct the overall representation towards proportionality, or the list element can be parallel to the constituency element, i.e. the list element is proportional only within itself and is an entirely separate election conducted without reference to the constituency element. If you feel that my wording doesn't make it clear enough that the overall proportionality is fairly approximate, try to clarify, don't simply remove the information. Overhang seats would be another possible method of achieving better proportionality, Germany uses them as even with a 50:50 split parties have still been known to get more constituencies than they deserve.Brett Dunbar 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• The proportionality is across the whole assembly not just the list members.-No one has made this claim, but the assembly does not achieve proportionality. Alun 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• You keep insisting on a phrasing that badly obscures this.- No I don't, your original wording stated that the assembly elections achieved overall proportionality, but they don't, it was your form of words that were misleading, my wording differs to yours only in that I claim a degree of proportionality, whereas you claim overall proportionality, I think my form of words is more accurate because my phrase does not claim true proportionality. Alun 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• In actual fact the system used in Wales is not particularly proportional. Deviations from proportionality are due to three reasons. Firstly the number of top-up seats is two small to produce good proportionality. Secondly there are several regional lists rather than a nation wide list, this produces some bias. Thirdly each voter has two votes, one for the regional list and one for their constituency representative, because voters can split their votes between two parties it is apparent that a party could get better/worse results for the regional list than for their constituency vote, leading to over/under-representation in the legislature. Alun 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is the top up is intended to go towards proportionality across the whole assembly there is another variant of AMS in which the list election is independent of the results of the constituency element it needs to be stated clearly that this system is not the one used here. My problem with your phrasing is that it obscures that the list members correct the overall representation towards proportionality rather than being a separate element proportional only within itself (I've noticed newspapers get this wrong quite often). Mentioning the various caveats on the actual achievement of overall proportionality is useful, overall proportionality is however what the system aims at.20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The system is not overall proportional, it is merely more proportional than FPTP. It would produce greater proportionality if the additional members gained their seats based on the parties share of the votes from FPTP, as it is a voter can vote for Labour for their FPTP representative and for another party entirely for their regional list representative. So in 2003 Labour got 40% of the vote in the FPTP election, but only 36.6% of the vote in the regional list election, so some people were obviously voting for a labour candidate, but for a different party's list. It would also produce greater proportionality if the proportion of additional members was higher (50% instead of 33%). It would also produce greater proportionality if the additional members were elected on a nation wide level rather than a regional level. The system does not produce overall proportionality, neither does it aim at this, if they had wanted to introduce a system that aimed at overall proportionality then they wouldn't have chosen this system, they could easily have chosen a system where 30 members were directly elected and 30 were additional members, they could have determined proportionality based on the share of the vote the party got from the combined votes for the FPTP election and of course there is no reason for them to have produced the regional lists rather than a nation wide list. The point is that proportionality is not what they were aiming for, they wanted to maintain Labour's in-built over-representation (due to the corrupt of FPTP system) whilst appearing to produce a proportional system. The outcome was a better system than FPTP, but certainly nothing approaching an overall proportional system. My edit did not state that it is only the lists that are proportional, and I have no idea why you are making this assertion. Alun 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that you are asserting that the list element is parallel, what I am annoyed at is you keep removing wording that makes it clear that it isn't. the list corrects the overall representation for each region towards proportionality, it doesn't necessarily achieve full proportionality, it does aim towards it. If the list were parallel then and only then would the system not be aiming towards overall proportionality.Brett Dunbar 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The list system does not correct the overall representation for each region towards proportionality. The proportions for the parties on the list elections can be (and are often) different to the parties proportions for the FPTP part of the election. So the list element does not produce the same proportionality of vote as the FPTP system, this is evidenced by the Labour Party gaining a significantly reduced share of the vote on the regional list part of the ballot compared with their proportion of the vote in the FPTP element of the election in 2003. Indeed the list element is parallel as it is in effect a separate election as any voter can vote for any party's list irrespective of their vote in the FPTP part of the election. So effectively they are separate elections. In theory a party could achieve a much larger share of the list vote than of the FPTP vote and gain seats from the list system even without putting candidates up for the FPTP election. Any proportionality achieved is based exclusively on the proportion of votes a party achieves in the list election. I do not understand what you mean when you write you keep removing wording that makes it clear that it isn't. The regional list elections are independent of the FPTP elections, but the proportion of representatives elected from a list is not independent of the number of directly elected AMs. I think we need to come to a form of words upon which we can both agree. The current form of words is:

• The additional members correct the overall representation of each region towards proportionality, rather than being elected in parallel to the constituency element, the corrective effect is somewhat limited by the low proportion of list members and the regionalisation of the list element.

How about this:

• The additional members produce a greater degree of proportionality only within each region (and only for the proportions the parties achieve for the list election), which limits overall proportionality. Whereas voters can choose any regional party list irrespective of their party vote in the constituency election, list AMs are not elected independently of the constituency element, rather elected constituency AMs are deemed to be pre-elected list representatives for the purposes of calculating remainders in the D'Hondt method. Overall proportionality is limited by the low proportion of list members (one third of the Assembly) and the regionalisation of the list element.

I will not amend the text in the article until we come to I have amended the text and hope I have produced a form of words we can both live with. Let's not edit war, if you are unhappy with this form of words then let's discuss it here untill we are both happy. It may mean that we need to go into a bit more detail about the electoral system used, but this may be a good thing. Comments are appreciated. I have used a BBC site as a reference for the changes I have made.[1] Alun 06:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this information to the Electoral system section. Alun 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like decent wording.

We don't use parallel vote, that is a variant of AMS where the elections for the constituency and list representatives are entirely independent. This is much less proportional than the system we actually use. The main source of dis-proportionality is the large number of Labour overhang seats and the lack of any mechanism for giving the other parties supernumerary seats to compensate for thisBrett Dunbar 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right, this is why I have linked to MMP rather than AMS. Alun 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I note use in the article of a link to "Additional Member System". I believe that although the system for elections to the Welsh Assembly is called an additional member system in relevant legislation, additional member systems generally are not necessarily designed to produce anything like PR. Linking to "Mixed member proportional representation" might be better, perhaps using "Additional member system (Welsh Assembly)" (a potential article site?) as a redirect. Laurel Bush 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Um, it says in the article Under mixed member proportional representation a type of additional member system^[1][2]

1. ^ Mixed-Member Proportional Voting in PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION VOTING SYSTEMS, Types of Voting Systems: PR Library created by Professor Douglas J. Amy, Department of Politics, Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved 8 July 2006.
2. ^ Electing the Welsh Assembly: Electoral Reform Society, information regarding Additional member system elections. Retrieved 9 December 2005.

So mention is made that the system is a mixed member system and that this system is a form of AMS. It is true that MMP is often called AMS in the UK, but strictly speaking MMP is simply a type or sub-group of AMS. I think this is what the article actually says. It's also referenced, and the texts linked to in the references give more detail regarding additional member systems generally. Actually the assembly is not particularly proportional due to the small number of top ups seats and the inclusion of regional lists rather than a Wales wide top up area, but that's another story. Alun 06:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I feel it would be a good idea to have an article specifically about the system used in elections to the Welsh Assembly or, perhaps, one about the different systems used in Wales or throughout the United Kingdom. Laurel Bush 10:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

That's not a bad idea at all. I'd be happy to contribute to such an article. Alun 12:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved things around a bit

I have placed the History section at the start of the article and have split the Richard Commission content into a new section. I think the sections are now a bit more chronological in order. I have also been looking to try to verify some of the info here. I'll continue to tinker with the article and look for more references. Hope this looks OK. Alun 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of referendum

DO we really need this map? It is an odd map, the referendum was held accross Wales, the verdict was not decided by winning unitary authorities, but by winning a majority accross the whole country. This map appears to indicated that certain authorities voted yes and others no and that this is somehow relevant to the outcome of the election. It is supremely misleading. It would be better to show the Yes/No split within the authorities by shading, like this map of the 2004 US presidential election, that shows that most states are purple, ie there are Democrat (red) and Republican (blue) voters in all states. Someone fancy a crack at this? If I had the foggiest how to do it I would do it myself. Alun 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly add to the information about the outcome which, as you note, was well split everywhere. In the absence of such a map, however, I would favour retaining the old one. A part of modern Wales is the fact that that is gets progressively more 'Welsh' the further one goes west. This was reflected in the result. Normalmouth 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a map from the referendum article that gives the level of Yes vote by shading, the referendum article has a Yes and No map by shading, but I think only one is really required, they show the same thing in negative as it were. Alun 18:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh civic society

It is important to note that the campaign to secure a 'yes' vote in the 1997 referendum was won by cross-party support (except the Conservatives) AND by the mobilisation of what is best described as Welsh civic society. Without the support of the Trade Unions, the Church and others it is unlikely that Wales would have voted yes. I am therefore including this observation in the article. Am happy to discuss that edit on this page. Normalmouth 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good rephrasing. It was poorly worded before, I had assumed it was support for the parliamentary Bill that PC and the LDs were giving. Doesn't this sort of information properly belong in the Wales referendum, 1997 article? Alun 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be in both. I'll have a look at the Wales referendum, 1997 article and see if I can incorporate a new section along these lines. Normalmouth 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We could have a short section here about the referendum and the campaign, and include a link to the main article on the referendum. Alun 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The wording on it in this section, at one sentence, does well. That can be expanded upon in the referendum article. Normalmouth 10:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender Statistics

Even if there is a press citation, wouldn't the information at Basque Parliament (40 women/35 men) negate the assertion about a majority of female members? Crunk 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by negate the assertion about the majority of female members? The Basque Parliament article doesn't say when this legislature was elected. Could it have been after the by election in Wales? This article doesn't claim to be the only one, just the first. It's also cited from a reliable source. If the Basque Parliament did indeed elect a majority female legislature before the Welsh Assembly (a distinct possibility, when has the UK press ever let mere facts get in the way of a good story?) then we should include it here as well. We should say something like claims were made that it was the first, but also that a Basque Parliament elected a majority female legislature earlier. If both claims are includeed and cited then we cover all the bases as it were. I see that the claims on the Basque Parliament page are not verified, though this does not mean that I dispute their veracity. Alun 20:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constituency boundary changes

I am wondering when constituency boundary changes will come into effect for Assembly elections. Before or after they come into effect for Westminster elections? Laurel Bush 12:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

Before. They will be in effect at the next NAW election. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orders-In-Council and Assembly Measures

The Orders-In-Council are the only peices of legislation that will be approved by both houses of parliament, the Assembly and the Secretary of state for Wales. "although Assembly laws will be subject to the veto of the UK Secretary of State for Wales, House of Commons or House of Lords" has been changed to "although Assembly Order-in-Council laws will be subject to the veto of the UK Secretary of State for Wales, House of Commons or House of Lords. " so that people will know what laws will be passed by both Parliament and the Assembly and whats passed by the Assembly alone. The Assembly Measures are passed by the Welsh assembly only, and only needs parliaments approval if they are seeking to legislate on a "matter" that the Assembly has no power over, someone needs to read the act properly. Amlder20 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall correct what I said above but with the only exception, Welsh law can be vetoed by Parliament, but those laws are Orders-In-Council requests as I had called them. In effect if the Orders are not approved by Parliament they have indirectly vetoed the creation of an Assembly Measure. Amlder20 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to alter powers and status section

Once the GOWA 2006 is in force, Wales will have a totally different type of Assembly from the 1999-2007 Assembly. It's important to ensure that worldwide, people know the changes and the difference in the GOWA 1998 and the GOWA 2006. Amlder20 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 election results

The summary table for the 2003 election results in this article don't match those in National Assembly for Wales election, 2003, the latter being (I think) the correct figures. Can anyone double check? Bondegezou 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of a re-write

After tinkering a bit, i decided to do a bit of a re-write, starting with the opening paragraph. What does everybody think so far? I'm using as a mode the article about the Scottish Parliament, which is really very well written and structured. I think with a bit of effort we could get this artile up to a similar standard. Mathsguy 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devolved areas

So what ARE the devolved areas of legislation?! MikkoAN1 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything as specified in that section of the wiki article, just it's town and country planning not county. The evidence for that has been added to the article. Town planning and Country-side planning, there is no such thing as a "countyside" Mr Stlemur. 82.11.221.164 12:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate external Iinks for NAW wikipedia article

I have removed the links to around 5 Assembly Member blogs/websites. There is insufficient room to list all AM websites and, in any case, each AM has a Wikipedia article with a link to their personal blogs. --Darren Wyn Rees 10:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privilege

Are statements in the chamber of the NAW protected by Parliamentary Privilege like the Houses of Parliament? Richard Gadsden 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume so, best look at the GOWA 2006: [2] AlexD (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)