| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Llwyd: I had hoped that the Minister would respond, but I have got a Whip—
Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Salisbury convention should apply to measures in the Government's manifesto in Wales and the UK in relation to this Bill?
Mr. Llwyd: I have no doubt that the Salisbury convention will be prayed in aid in the inevitable tussle with the other place. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I approve of the gerrymandering technique, my answer is no because I would have no truck with it. I hope that that particular debate does not end up in another place, but I think that it will.
The proposed increase in the powers and responsibilities of the Assembly Members will probably not be popular inside or outside this House, but I cannot see any other means by which to increase membership. Looking at stage 3 of the process, I am still at a loss to fathom why there has to be a super-majority of two thirds, rather than a simple majority, to trigger the referendum. In previous exchanges, the Secretary of State has said that the referendum will be called for when there is political consensus in favour of it. How will that be gauged or arrived at? I hope that it will not merely be a consensus within the Labour party.
My major criticism—I have some sympathy with the reasoned amendment in this regard—concerns the self-serving nature of the ban on dual membership. I will not go through all the evidence, which other Members will have seen, from the Electoral Reform Society, the electoral commissioner and many independent commentators who are in a position to make cogent comments. Many people believe that there is abundant evidence to show that there is no case for change. I am sure that there will be much debate in Committee about this partisan provision, which was involved in pre-orange revolution Ukraine, but has been seen nowhere else. What an endorsement. No doubt Leonid Kutchma has been advising the Secretary of State, because he is the only person who would have any real experience of it. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that it was looked at in New Zealand and in New Brunswick, Canada. Indeed it was, but it was rejected: he did not quite finish the story. It has been rejected in many areas, and there are good reasons why that should be. Some ambitious apologist will remind me that it was in the manifesto. Yes, it was, but new Labour's vote was 35 per cent. UK-wide and 42 per cent. in Wales—hardly an overwhelming endorsement. Given that no one mentioned it during the entire election campaign, not to me anyway, it was unlikely to have been uppermost in the minds of those who did vote for new Labour.
9 Jan 2006 : Column 75
Yesterday, I took part in a radio discussion in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said that he wished that Plaid Cymru's lukewarm support for the Bill could have been much stronger. My response is this: we have the privilege of considering the contents of every Bill instead of nodding them through regardless, as he does. In this case, there is a lot of amending to do—that is why we are lukewarm. The Bill represents a step forward, but it could have done much more. I trust that the debates in Committee will be productive so that ultimately we have a Bill that is worthy of far warmer support.
6.52 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I am pleased to rise in support of the Bill and in opposition to the reasoned amendment tabled by Conservative Front Benchers.
I begin by expressing my condolences on the deaths of Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Stratford. Their contribution to political life was inestimable and they will be greatly missed.
In contrast to the rather odd comments made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I commend the speeches that Members have made so far. Although they have been poles apart, they have contributed to a constructive debate. Instead of being an ambitious apologist, I shall offer my own contribution without, I hope, suffering any inapt denigration.
I commend the introduction of the Bill. The fact that it is opposed by some who feel that it does not go far enough and others who feel that it goes much too far suggests that the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench colleagues have got the balance right. The crux of the matter is that it is being perceived in both ways because it will succeed in putting the power very firmly with the Welsh public as opposed to any vested interests, think tanks, commissions and so on. People voted strongly for what was in the Labour manifesto. They made their choice, and I do not apologise for that. If there were to be any wholesale transfer of primary powers, they would need to vote again.
The Bill has managed to achieve a fine balance in bringing together most complexions of political opinion. Much of it has already been agreed on across the Chamber. Splitting the Executive from the legislature is a relatively uncontroversial measure that will help hugely and is overdue, as the situation has been confused.
Given the other two main areas, however, I am reminded of the Meatloaf song, "One out of three ain't bad".
Ian Lucas: It was two out of three.
Huw Irranca-Davies: So it was. That suggests that the Committee stage will be even more difficult.
We can already see the opposition to providing for a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers. I can understand the logic of the arguments advanced by Conservative Front Benchers, but there will be ample
9 Jan 2006 : Column 76
time in Committee and in the other place for them to table amendments to try to get what they want, argue the case and vote on it. I am afraid that voting against the proposal on Second Reading takes us away from what we all assumed was going to be the direction of the new leadership of the party—a much more consensual approach that recognised the cross-party consensus that has been building in Wales in favour of devolution as it is now and in favour of letting the Welsh public choose whether to take it any further.
David T.C. Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that consensus means agreeing on all the things that one can agree on, not everyone else going along with the Labour party just because it happens to be in government?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I make no apologies for my party being in government—that is a very good thing. The fact that we moved to devolution at all was because of a consensus that was the direct polar opposite of 18 years of Conservative colonial rule in Wales. The people of Wales rebelled and said, "We will move towards devolution", and the Liberals, the Welsh Nationalists and others were on board.
I want to touch on the representation of the business voice in the Bill. Clauses 72 to 75 deal with the partnership council, the local government scheme and the voluntary sector scheme. The clause on local government runs to 21 lines and the clause on the voluntary sector runs to 38 lines. That recognises the importance of those two sectors. Almost like an apology at the end, the clause on business organisations runs to four lines. The clause on local government states:
"The Welsh Ministers must make a scheme ("the local government scheme") setting out how they propose . . . to sustain and promote local government in Wales."
"must keep the local government scheme under review, and . . . may from time to time remake or revise it"
and that every year they must publish a report—and so on. That is replicated as regards the voluntary sector, whereby Welsh Ministers must produce an annual report and sustain and promote the interests of voluntary sector organisations.
All that is absolutely right. However, we are missing a trick if, in my constituency and across the whole of Wales, we fail to recognise the immense economic regeneration, and improvements to people's quality of life, that can be achieved by business interests—micro-businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises and large companies. When the Bill moves into Committee, the Government should either table an amendment to redress that balance, or accept another amendment that may be tabled, to replicate some of the details in the clauses on the voluntary sector and local government.
Mr. Roger Williams
: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is sincere in wanting to improve consultation between the Welsh Assembly and various bodies in Wales, but does he agree that one consequence of separating the Executive from the legislature is that representatives on the partnerships will be representatives of the Welsh Assembly Government and
9 Jan 2006 : Column 77
not of the Assembly as a whole? In a sense, therefore, these measures will reduce consultation rather than enhance it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |