| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: I do not agree, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I shall look closely at what he has said, but his proposal is not necessary. In the end, politics will win the arguments. If we had a Conservative Secretary of State—woe betide Wales were that to happen—and he or she consistently defied the Assembly, the Conservatives would be swept out of Wales at the following general election, as happened in 1997. Also, the hon. Gentleman strengthens my argument, with which I know he agrees. He makes the point that Parliament is in charge of the new procedure, prior to primary powers going following a referendum. The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my arguments against the Conservatives and their opportunistic and specious attempt to attack the Orders in Council proposal.
Lembit Öpik : Is not the Secretary of State making the very point that is salient? He is allowing an anti-devolution Government—a Conservative one, say—to obstruct devolution in Wales. I do not see why the Government insist on providing that weakness in this Bill when they are quite happy to devolve in a one-way fashion in respect of Scotland. Can he explain why he wants the Secretary of State for Wales to be almost a viceroy over Welsh affairs, given that the Government did not feel that such a step was necessary when the Scottish Parliament was introduced?
Mr. Hain: The days of viceroys ended in 1997; since then, Secretaries of State for Wales have represented Wales and constituencies in Wales, and have spoken for Wales.
On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, he is right to the extent that, under the first stage of giving extra powers, Parliament remains in charge; that is the point that Opposition Front Benchers wish to ignore, or do not understand. The Assembly gets extra powers—measure-making powers, as they are called in the Bill—only if the House so decides. This House is in charge, as is the House of Lords. The point is that the objective of introducing primary powers, which we share in common, has to be endorsed by a referendum. I know that many Liberal Democrats object to that principle, but it is such a fundamental change that a referendum is required; that way, if such a radical departure from the existing settlement were contemplated, it would be endorsed by the people of Wales. However, compared
9 Jan 2006 : Column 30
with primary legislation procedure, this Orders-in-Council procedure is not a radical departure from the existing settlement.
Mrs. Gillan: On one side of the argument, the Secretary of State wishes to minimise the changes and to say that the Orders in Council are very trivial; but on the other, he wants the powers to be substantial. Will he confirm that he received a letter from me, dated 21 December, in which I explained in words of one syllable that although I had tabled a reasoned amendment, it should not be interpreted as opposition to every element of the Bill, and that I reassured him that where we have common ground he could expect our support? I hope that he will acknowledge that he received that letter and that he is misrepresenting my position, because I have told him and have given him every indication that I will be supportive where I believe that we have common ground and can work constructively. Otherwise, I think that the Bill deserves detailed scrutiny at every stage.
Mr. Hain: I am sorry that the hon. Lady is wriggling and squirming in respect of her reasoned amendment. The truth is that, notwithstanding the letter that she wrote to me—it is a very nice letter—the amendment rejects the Bill. If the Conservatives were to get their way tonight and marshal enough votes for their amendment in the Aye Lobby, they would kill the Bill and there would be no prospect of extra powers for the Assembly. That is the policy of the new Tory party, the new Cameron Conservatives, in Wales: to kill devolution stone dead here today, Monday 9 January. That is a great shame and I expected more of the hon. Lady. I thought that she would display a pro-Welsh position, as she was at least born in Wales, which is better than her predecessor. [Interruption.] Well, I represent, and was elected by, a Welsh constituency, unlike the hon. Lady.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): The amendment clearly says:
That is as clear as it can be, is it not?
Mr. Hain: I realise that the hon. Lady has had a lot of trouble in her early days as shadow Welsh Secretary. She did not know who the Welsh national rugby coach was; she did not know the number of Assembly Members; she did not even know what Brain's beer was. Now, she does not know the terms of her own reasoned amendment, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) suggests, would kill the Bill stone dead.
We need to make some progress in getting more powers for Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government may not be any more admired than any level of government ever is, but they have won widespread praise for introducing innovative and popular policies—the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the Welsh baccalaureate, free bus travel for the over-60s and free school breakfasts, for example—some of which have been emulated elsewhere in the United Kingdom. After six years of activity and two full elections, it is right that we should take stock of how the devolution settlement in Wales is working and bring forward practical, commonsense reforms to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the people of Wales.
9 Jan 2006 : Column 31
Much has changed since the House debated the original Government of Wales Bill. The budget of the National Assembly has nearly doubled, and the responsibilities of the Assembly have also increased. In the past 18 months alone, this House has resolved to transfer from Westminster to Cardiff bay a number of important new policy areas: animal welfare, the fire and rescue services, student support and more children's services.
Devolution has not stood still; it has evolved, and through the measures contained in this Bill it will evolve still further. But there is widespread acceptance of the need for reform. The Assembly's corporate status, modelled on local government, was an innovative idea in theory, which has proved less successful in practice. All parties accept the case for change, and the Bill will reform the internal architecture of the Assembly to provide for enhanced democratic accountability.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): My right hon. Friend mentions democratic accountability. One of the reasons the Assembly was set up was to do away with the quango state. Does the Bill contain any provision that will aid that process? Under the present settlement, it is difficult for the Assembly to make Wales more democratic in that way.
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the Welsh Assembly Government have already put in train a series of measures abolishing the quangos and absorbing their functions into the Assembly, and they will be able to go further to the extent that the Order in Council procedure gives them more scope. However, they will not be able to do much more under the Bill.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op): My right hon. Friend may not have been sufficiently bold on the question of democratic accountability. In the second ballot at the last elections, 310,658 Welsh voters voted Labour and got not a single candidate elected. Given that we have already heard that the turnout in the Welsh Assembly elections was low, does not that clearly demonstrate that proportional representation is unfair and has not worked?
Mr. Hain: You will know that my hon. Friend represents a Scottish constituency, Mr. Speaker, but I do not intend to draw you into the debate. What can I say in answer to that question?
Furthermore, there is widespread recognition throughout Wales that the Assembly needs a stronger and quicker mechanism for achieving its legislative priorities. That is why, in our general election manifesto, we pledged to deliver enhanced powers for the Assembly. Under the current devolution settlement, it is for Parliament to determine what additional powers the Assembly may require.
Over the past eight years, the system has worked well, with Parliament passing four Wales-only Bills—with two more being considered this Session—and 34 other Bills containing Welsh clauses. But it has still meant that proposals from the Assembly must compete for time with the Government's own legislative priorities. The
9 Jan 2006 : Column 32
Bill will therefore establish a mechanism to free the Assembly from the Westminster logjam by transferring legislative responsibility to Cardiff in relation to defined matters, approved on a case-by-case basis by Parliament. Those new powers will ensure that the Assembly gets the legislative tools it needs to do the job quicker and more easily than is possible at present, but Parliament will still be the arbiter over whether powers are transferred. So the provisions represent a development of the current settlement, and not a fundamental change.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |