---

Lembit Öpik : Although I am impressed by Conservative Front Benchers' apparent change of heart, will the hon. Lady describe what sanctions exist to punish errant young chaps on the Conservative Back Benches—[Interruption.] sorry; I meant to say honourable young chaps—who have on occasion described the Assembly as a waste of space that should be abolished?

Mrs. Gillan: I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to look forwards rather than backwards, because he will run for office in his party at some stage. If he does not run for office, perhaps he will run to become president of the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] Conservatives are always ahead of the game. I shall keep looking forwards and seek not to be drawn into old arguments.

The debate is about the future structure and powers of the Assembly to allow it to perform what all hon. Members agree is its primary function—delivering a better quality of life for people in Wales. We can also agree on some of the changes that will result from the Bill, if it becomes law. I have made it clear to the Secretary of State in private meetings outside this House and in my interventions today that the Opposition believe that the Bill contains some good elements as well as some unacceptable elements.

First, let me set out the areas where we are supportive of the Bill. The decision formally to separate the Executive and legislative arms of the National Assembly is long overdue. There is almost unanimous agreement that the existing corporate Assembly structure has created confusion and misunderstanding as to where real power and decision making lie. That view was endorsed by the Richard commission, the Government's own White Paper in June, and most recently by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. From the outset, the Assembly has evolved beyond the limits of the Government of Wales Act 1998 so that there is now a much clearer separation between the Assembly Government and other Assembly Members. That should be recognised.
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 47
 

In February 2002, the Assembly agreed unanimously on as clear as possible a separation between the work of its executive and legislative arms. In response to Richard, it called for legislation to bring about a formal separation. We broadly believe that the proposals in part 2 are a step in the right direction, but we hope to look at the detail of their implementation in Committee. According to the Secretary of State's programme motion, he intends to allow three days on the Floor of the House for the Committee stage and two days on Report and Third Reading. We will support that.

If that were all that the Bill set out to do, we would have no hesitation in supporting it on Second Reading, but regrettably that is not the case. For the reasons set out in our much-criticised reasoned amendment, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to support our position by joining us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): So that we have absolute clarity on the hon. Lady's exact position, will she say whether she agrees with the hon. Members for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) that health service powers should be taken from the Assembly and brought back to Westminster?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman will not take me down that route. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) may well laugh. It would perfectly suit the purposes of Labour Members to rerun old battles and take the focus away from the Bill, but I intend to discuss its provisions and ensure that people understand exactly what they mean.

Mr. Hain: The point is that the three Welsh Members sitting behind the hon. Lady have advocated returning health service powers to Westminster. Does she agree with her three musketeers, or not?

Mrs. Gillan: Before you rule the Secretary of State out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that his real problem is that there are three Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament, as well as Conservative Members in the Assembly. If Labour Assembly Members had the same reputation for hard work as our Conservative MPs and AMs, they would do extremely well.

The Bill suffers from two fatal flaws. First, there is a lack of any proper consultation with the people of Wales through a referendum on the implications of the changes in part 3. Our argument is not that the Assembly should not gain additional powers but that, consistent with our approach to devolution, we need to give the people of Wales their say. We need to give them the opportunity to understand the proposals in the Bill and to express their views on what they want. However, although the Government are prepared to concede a referendum, at some point in the future, on the primary law-making powers set out in part 4, they do not provide for one on the new legislative procedures in part 3. That is inconsistent and wrong, and we will seek to persuade the Secretary of State to provide for an earlier referendum on the proposals for the two-stage process. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 48
 
(Chris Bryant) says that I should not waste too much time doing that. In the spirit of consensus, however, I am going to try to make the Secretary of State see sense. He has described the procedures in part 3 as a mechanism to "streamline" or "fast-track" Welsh legislation. In fact, they represent a fundamental change to the 1998 settlement, not least evidenced by the extent of the repeals in the last schedule to the Bill.

The Government are proposing, without asking the people of Wales, to substitute the detailed scrutiny that Parliament gives to Welsh primary legislation with a procedure by which legislative competence is transferred to the Assembly through unamendable Orders in Council following a debate for one and a half hours. That procedure risks disfranchising Welsh Members of Parliament, who will no longer be able to carry out the job of work for which their constituents send them here, and at the same time it will disfranchise the Welsh electors who returned Members to this House in the expectation that they would represent their interests by properly scrutinising legislation—a function that will be diminished if the Bill is passed in its present form. It also risks placing the Assembly and Parliament on a clear constitutional collision course.

No convincing answers have so far been given to legitimate concerns over what would happen if Westminster rejects an application by the Assembly to legislate in a certain area or what would happen if the Secretary of State uses his pro-consular powers to block an application. If the Government envisage that the role of Parliament is simply to rubber-stamp applications, why involve us at all? Why should we go through that interim process and not go straight for full legislative powers? It is little wonder that Lord Richard concluded that

"There is very considerable lack of clarity in the way in which this interim stage would be managed and effected."

The Secretary of State has said that the interim stage would be a test of the robustness of the devolution settlement. The people of Wales and this Parliament deserve better than that.

We are entitled to ask where the demand for the proposed procedure has come from. The Secretary of State says that it will mean that Wales will no longer have to jostle each year to get legislation into the Queen's Speech. If that is so, it would be useful for the House to know precisely how many requests for pressing pieces of legislation have been made by the Assembly that the Government have turned down.

Mr. Hain: I am happy to say to the hon. Lady, as she has asked me, that there are a number of outstanding bids for legislation that the Assembly would have liked to have got on to the statute book. Actually, we have done quite well; we have two extra Bills this year, besides this one. She has invited me to clarify a point that is likely to arise in future. As I explained in some detail, there is a process of pre-scrutiny in which every Member of the House—not just Welsh Members—can take part. Such matters will not be rushed through in an hour and a half debate. There will be proper pre-scrutiny during which orders can be amended appropriately.

Mrs. Gillan: I do not think that the Secretary of State understands. He told us that the precise nature of
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 49
 
pre-legislative parliamentary scrutiny will not be laid down in the Bill and will be subject to his whim and desires later. We do not have the detail.

Mr. Hain: As a Cabinet Minister, I cannot determine the House's procedures—and nor should I. That is a matter for the House. I have asked the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has come up with some interesting ideas, to be the fulcrum for the pre-legislative scrutiny process, but that is for the House to determine. It is entirely inappropriate for that process to be set out in the Bill, as I am sure on reflection the hon. Lady will agree.

---